Rowling, J K

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares99 Views

    A Play About J.K. Rowling Stirred Outrage. Until It Opened.

    by

    The muted reaction to the Edinburgh Fringe show “TERF” suggests that when activists engage with potentially inflammatory art, offense can quickly vanish.There are more than 3,600 shows in this year’s Edinburgh Festival Fringe and most will struggle to get even a single newspaper review. Yet for months before the festival opened on Friday, one play was the subject of intense global media attention: “TERF,” an 80-minute drama about J.K. Rowling, the “Harry Potter” author, and her views on transgender women.Before anybody had even read the script, a Scottish newspaper called the play, which imagines Rowling debating her views with the stars of the “Harry Potter” movies, a “foul-mouthed” attack on the author. An article in The Daily Telegraph said that “scores of actresses” had turned down the opportunity to play Rowling. And The Daily Mail, a tabloid, reported that the production had encountered trouble securing a venue.On social media and women’s web forums, too, “TERF” stirred outraged discussion.The uproar raised the specter of pro-Rowling protesters outside the show and prompted debate in Edinburgh, the city that Rowling has called home for more than 30 years. But when “TERF” opened last week, it barely provoked a whimper. The only disturbance to a performance on Monday in the ballroom of Edinburgh’s Assembly Rooms came from a group of latecomers using a cellphone flashlight to find their seats. About 55 theatergoers watched the play in silence from the front few rows of the 350-seat capacity venue.The play imagines a showdown in a restaurant between Rowling and the stars of the “Harry Potter” movies.Andy Buchanan/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesGiven the regular disagreements between some feminists and transgender rights supporters, the uproar around “TERF” was not unexpected.But the muted response to the show itself suggests that fewer British people are riled by the debate than the media coverage implies — or at least that when activists engage with potentially inflammatory art, outrage can quickly vanish.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Harry Potter’ to Become a TV Series

      by

      The author J.K. Rowling is expected to executive produce the show, which will appear on Max, the streaming service from Warner Bros. Discovery.Harry Potter fans, some of whom have been casting spells for years in hopes of a television series about the boy wizard, can finally put their wands down and rejoice.Max, the new streaming service from Warner Bros. Discovery announced on Wednesday that it had ordered a “Harry Potter” television series based on the novels by the British author J.K. Rowling.“We are delighted to give audiences the opportunity to discover Hogwarts in a whole new way,” Casey Bloys, the chairman and chief executive of HBO and Max content, said in a statement.“Harry Potter is a cultural phenomenon and it is clear there is such an enduring love and thirst for the Wizarding World,” he said. A news release announcing the series said it would be a “faithful adaptation” of the best-selling book series, which spans seven books published between 1997 and 2007. Eight hit films based on the books were released between 2001 and 2011.The upcoming show, which is described as a decade-long series, “will feature a new cast to lead a new generation of fandom, full of the fantastic detail, much-loved characters and dramatic locations that Harry Potter fans have loved for over 25 years,” according to the release. It will be available on Max in the United States and around the world. No time frame for the show’s release was given.Ms. Rowling, who has drawn waves of criticism in recent years over her remarks on gender identity issues, will be an executive producer for the series.“Max’s commitment to preserving the integrity of my books is important to me, and I’m looking forward to being part of this new adaptation which will allow for a degree of depth and detail only afforded by a long form television series,” she said in a statement.Ms. Rowling, who has drawn criticism in recent years over her remarks on gender identity issues, will executive produce the series.Krista Schlueter for The New York TimesPotterheads, a term used to describe super fans of “Harry Potter,” have been grappling with the author’s comments on transgender issues for years. In 2020, she published an essay in which she said a movement of transgender activists was “seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators.”While Ms. Rowling has denied being anti-transgender, her remarks have pitted fans against each other, with some vowing to stop supporting the Potter franchise.Despite the continued debate over Ms. Rowling, products related to Harry Potter continue to sell. Earlier this year, The Hogwarts Legacy video game sold more than 12 million copies in two weeks.The television show is the latest moneymaking arm of the Potter universe, which also include feature films, a stage play, live entertainment at theme parks, studio tours and retail stores.Max, the latest entry into the crowded streaming market, will debut next month, and will cost roughly $16 a month for a commercial-free version and less for an advertising-supported tier.Last April, WarnerMedia and Discovery Inc. merged, adding a new media giant to the entertainment industry. David Zaslav, the president and chief executive of Warner Bros. Discovery, sold shareholders on the deal in part by arguing that the combined company could have a successful app.But over the last year, the company has seen some obstacles, including shelving at least two projects and laying off part of its work force. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      Quidditch Becomes ‘Quadball,’ Leaving J.K. Rowling Behind

      by

      Citing trademark concerns and objections to the author’s views on transgender issues, the sport’s leading groups officially distanced themselves from their “Harry Potter” roots.Quidditch, the sport of boarding school wizards riding broomsticks in “Harry Potter,” will become “Quadball” to the humans who play the game in real life, its leading organizations said on Tuesday.The groups cited financial obstacles imposed by Warner Bros., the producer of the movie series, holding the trademark to Quidditch, as well as a wish to “distance themselves” from J.K. Rowling, the author of the books, and what they called her “anti-trans positions,” referring to her contentious statements on gender identity made in recent years.“This is a bold move, and for me personally there is definitely some nostalgia to the original name,” Alex Benepe, who helped found the real-life sport in 2005, said in a statement. “But from a long-term development perspective I feel confident this is a smart decision for the future that will allow the sport to grow without limits.”The path to the decision started in December, when U.S. Quidditch and Major League Quidditch — the youth and professional wings of the sport — announced their intention to choose and trademark a new name. Their statement emphasized “sponsorship and broadcast opportunities” that were missed because of licensing issues.In a 2017 interview with The Quidditch Post, a news site devoted to the sport, Mr. Benepe praised Warner Bros. for being “remarkably permissive” in allowing a league to operate and sell tickets under the name.He added, however, that Warner Bros. had prohibited the sale of merchandise that used the word “Quidditch” and that the sport had been forced to sacrifice major business opportunities. Mr. Benepe argued at the time — before the latest political controversy with Ms. Rowling — for a name change.“I love Harry Potter and always will, but if our sport needs Harry Potter to survive it must not be that great — and I believe that it is great and I think our players do too,” he said.Nevertheless, on Tuesday the International Quidditch Association, the sport’s top governing body, listed Ms. Rowling’s “anti-trans positions” as its primary motive for changing the sport’s name.“We’ve tried to be clear that it’s both reasons,” Jack McGovern, a spokesman for U.S. Quidditch and Major League Quidditch, said in an interview. “We did not intend to give a value judgment about which reason was more important than the other.”Quidditch matches frequently appeared as scenes in the Harry Potter books and movies. The real-life version of it includes many elements taken from Ms. Rowling’s imagination of the game: the riding of brooms, hurling balls through hoops and the need to evade bludgers, and eventually catch the Golden Snitch. In real life a bludger is a rubber dodgeball, rather than a flying ball of iron, and the snitch is a tennis ball attached to a person, as in flag football.Thousands of people play the game in more than 40 countries, according to the International Quidditch Association.After her comments about transgender issues on Twitter drew widespread attention, Ms. Rowling published an essay in 2020 that raised concerns about “pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender” and the rise in gender transition among young people.Many advocates for transgender rights have called Ms. Rowling’s comments transphobic, and some fans have struggled to reconcile their love of “Harry Potter” with their objections to her views.Ms. Rowling’s representatives at The Blair Partnership said there would be no comment on the decision but said that the various Quidditch leagues had never been endorsed or licensed by her.“Quadball,” according to the International Quidditch Association, refers to the number of positions in the sport (a keeper, chaser, beater and seeker) and the number of balls (two bludgers, a quaffle and the snitch).Mr. McGovern said that the association of Quidditch with Ms. Rowling had become an obstacle in recruiting new players, and he said he did not know how much the official bodies of the sport would refer to “Harry Potter” in the future.His first exposure to real-life Quidditch, he said, came in 2010 when he was in middle school. He persuaded one of his parents to drive him from Philadelphia to New York City to see a Quidditch World Cup. He said that he was struck by the “energy and life and forward momentum” of the game, and that he was a “fan of obscure sports more generally.”Almost as an afterthought, he added, “I had been reading ‘Harry Potter’ at the time.” Asked to what extent his love for the books had motivated that early interest in the sport, Mr. McGovern replied: “It’s hard. I don’t want to say more now.” More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore’ Review: The Plot Against Muggles

      by

      Mads Mikkelsen plays an evil wizard with political talent in the latest “Harry Potter” spinoff movie, which also stars Jude Law and Eddie Redmayne.Like so much children’s entertainment these days, “Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore” is a political primer sprinkled in magic dust. In this third installment in the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise (itself a prequel series to the original “Harry Potter” stories), cuddly critters have mostly been swapped out for darker creatures: Here, scorpionesque freaks guard a prison where activists are tortured (or worse). A chunk of the story is set in 1930s Berlin. The deadly stakes are crystal-ball clear. An alternate subtitle could be “Totalitarianism for Tykes.”It’s a pointed movie from tip to barbed tail. Instead of building the plot around a tedious pursuit peppered with cutesy digital monsters — a misstep in the first two “Fantastic Beasts” films — the returning director David Yates and the screenwriters, J.K. Rowling and Steve Kloves, center “Secrets of Dumbledore” on an election. Grindelwald, the wizard supremacist last seen attempting to incite a global war, hopes to convince the magical world to back his campaign platform to subjugate nonmagical humans. (The role was last played by Johnny Depp; Mads Mikkelsen takes over the role here, and Grindelwald’s threads sound more probable when delivered with Mikkelsen’s bloodless chill.) Rowling’s readers know to refer to nonmagical people as Muggles. To Grindelwald, they’re “animals,” though he concedes they make a good cup of tea.The focus is on the tragic entanglements of Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law), who once romanced the hate-inciting Grindelwald and still wears an old blood-oath necklace that strangles him for thinking mean thoughts about his former love. On top of being pained by his bad taste in men, Dumbledore must make amends with his grouchy brother (Richard Coyle) and tormented nephew (Ezra Miller), a murky figure so visibly miserable that flies buzz around his hands.With Dumbledore grappling with a family full of grievances, the story barely has any room for Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), the fluttery animal caregiver who tends to the fantastic beasts of the title. Redmayne’s character justifies his existence in the plot by coming into possession of a Qilin (pronounced chillin), a rare, fawn-like creature that holds unusual sway in electoral races — it’s a kind of mammalian dowsing rod that has the power to identify a person’s purity of heart and ability to be a leader. The series seems to be shifting its spotlight away from its supposed lead and his love interest from the previous movies, Tina (Katherine Waterston), who pretty much is only featured in one scene. “She’s very busy,” Newt explains. It feels like a wink to the franchise’s apparent struggle to hold onto actors. Later, in an act of popcorn-movie prestidigitation, all memory of yet another character is erased. No one seems to care.Still, this is the most absorbing and well-paced film in the trilogy to date, despite its nearly two-and-a-half-hour running time — de rigueur for modern spectacles that want to convince audiences they’re getting enough bang for their buck. “Secrets of Dumbledore” gestures toward themes of frailty, thwarted intentions and forgiveness. Even the color scheme underscores that this tale exists in shades of gray. It is odd how recent fantasy films seem to be made primarily for adults — it’s hard to imagine kiddos waiting in line for butter beer at a Harry Potter theme park being enthralled by an explainer of how toxic candidates rise to prominence. (A brief detour to Hogwarts serves as a startling reminder that these movies used to rely on actors under 30.) Yet, there’s a lovely visual that should unite audiences of all ages: a teleportation device made from a swirl of floating book pages. The image is a reminder that fiction is not just a history lesson, but a means of escape.Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of DumbledoreRated PG-13 for some fantasy violence, particularly toward magic animals. Running time: 2 hours 22 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Movies

      'Harry Potter and the Cursed Child' Review: Still Magical on Broadway

      by

      “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child” returned to Broadway, now in one part instead of two. It may feel smaller, but is no less dazzling.Like a lot of children, Harry Potter grew bigger as he got older. J.K. Rowling’s later novels in the series came in twice as thick, or more, as the first. The lengths of the film versions peaked with the adaptation of that final volume, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” split into two parts running a combined four and a half hours. In 2018, “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child” — an original play by Jack Thorne, based on a story by Thorne, Rowling and John Tiffany — opened on Broadway at the lavishly remodeled Lyric Theater. Also split in two, the total experience clocked in at more than five hours.But now Harry seems to have shrunk. After a pandemic closure (and reported problems with production costs), “Cursed Child” has returned, shorter and more streamlined, its two parts collapsed into a single one and its length reduced by a third. The creators have kept quiet on the mechanics of this revision; call it “Harry Potter and the Mysterious Abridgment.” I assume someone pointed a wand at the published script and shouted, “Brevioso!”The new version, which opened on Tuesday, does feel smaller — its themes starker, its concession to fandom more blatant. But as directed by Tiffany and choreographed by Steven Hoggett, with an essential score from Imogen Heap, it remains diamond-sharp in its staging and dazzling in its visual imagination, as magical as any spell or potion.The essence of the plot hasn’t changed. “Cursed Child” still opens where the epilogue of “Deathly Hallows” leaves off, 19 years after the book’s climactic Battle of Hogwarts. On their way to that school of witchcraft and wizardry are Albus Potter (James Romney) — the second son of Harry Potter (Steve Haggard, in for James Snyder at the performance I attended) and Ginny Potter (Diane Davis) — and Rose Granger-Weasley (Nadia Brown), the daughter of Hermione Granger (Jenny Jules) and Ron Weasley (David Abeles).Aboard the Hogwarts Express, Albus meets Scorpius Malfoy (Brady Dalton Richards), the son of Harry’s former nemesis Draco Malfoy (Aaron Bartz), who offers him sweets. Albus and Scorpius’s burgeoning friendship upsets both of their fathers, complicating already fraught relationships and imperiling the entire wizarding world. Because what is Harry Potter without a threatened apocalypse and the occasional chocolate frog?Richards, left, as Scorpius Malfoy with a Dementor in “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child.”Sara Krulwich/The New York TimesThe audience experience begins long before the lights go down, through the sumptuous lobby and into the auditorium. Every carpet, curtain, light fixture and wallpaper strip helps to immerse you into the Potterverse. It’s a marvel of imagination, and more shows should think about extending design beyond the stage. Even the reminder to wear a mask is presented as a boarding announcement for the Hogwarts Express.In the opening moments, that train seems to have been refitted as a high-speed rail. Everyone moved and spoke so fast — Jules and Richards were almost unintelligible — I was briefly worried that this new version was simply the old one played at 1.5 times speed. I once counted two consecutive seconds in which nothing happened onstage. Once only.Yet there are excisions, most of them so surgical you would never notice, though I did slightly miss the beloved Hogwarts groundskeeper Hagrid. Other changes are more pointed, like the rendering of Albus and Scorpius’s relationship as explicitly romantic, which has a knock-on effect of flattening the father-son conflict. Gone too are the dream sequences that bolstered the play’s mournful tenor and provided much of its exposition.Steve Haggard, left, as Harry Potter and James Romney as Albus Potter.Sara Krulwich/The New York TimesWith a lot of that context missing, the show is now more difficult to recommend to anyone not already versed in Potteralia. (Surely there must be someone left?) The most audible reaction I heard came when a character announced herself as Dolores Umbridge, a revelation that means nothing without knowledge of the books and films. Luckily, I had brought along my daughter, an 8-year-old who has made her own butterbeer and strongly identifies as a Gryffindor.At intermission, she turned to me, eyes bright and round as golden snitches. “This movie has great special effects!” she said. She often calls plays movies, a beautiful way to troll her theater critic mother. Still, I couldn’t entirely disagree. The original “Cursed Child,” with its luxuriant running time and hyperfocus — for better and worse — on the emotional lives of its characters, felt explicitly theatrical, the wresting of a real work of dramatic art from a massively popular franchise. This new version remains ravishingly entertaining, but is also, like the movie adaptations, a more obvious attempt to cash in on Pottermania.Yet there are loads of films — even those with the extravagant C.G.I. budgets of the “Harry Potter” movies — that come nowhere near approaching the magic of Tiffany’s staging, enhanced by Christine Jones’s set, Katrina Lindsay’s costumes, Neil Austin’s lighting and Gareth Fry’s sound. Jamie Harrison’s illusions, the stuff of phoenix feather and unicorn horn, are an absolute astonishment. (Were fire marshals ensorcelled into approving this show’s pyrotechnics?) During the sped-up beginning, I wondered, darkly, if the show could now exist as just another theme park attraction. It’s more than that. Besides, three and a half hours of enchantment is still a hell of a ride.Harry Potter and the Cursed ChildAt the Lyric Theater, Manhattan; harrypottertheplay.com. Running time: 3 hours 30 minutes. More