"Order of the Phoenix" depicts struggle of elites
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix [year 5]
Directed by David Yates, screenwritten by Michael Goldenberg
Warner Bros.
138 minutes
Rated PG-13
2007
Reviewed 2007 July 31
[Contains spoilers.]
The next books in the corresponding series pick it up again, but "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" the movie puts aside the topic of racial supremacism that figures front-and-center in previous "Harry Potter" movies. There are some lines about magical-non-magical half-breeds, and the return of the villain Lord Voldemort could be like the return of a Hitler in many amerikan adult viewers' heads. Also, the story of Voldemort is bound up with the Harry Potter world's concept of blood purity. But, by this fifth movie, the blood purity theme has lost its novelty, and, in comparison to the previous movies, "Order of the Phoenix" by itself focuses especially on the struggle of an elite losing power. This elite recognizes a threat to the world that others don't. In fact, it turns out that the elite gaining power, or at least the group manipulating officials, not only knows about the threat, the return of Voldemort, but is actively helping Voldemort. Hogwarts has had infiltrators and posers before, but, this time, Dumbledore, the Order of the Phoenix and Harry have to confront an enemy that takes over at the upper levels of the government and Hogwarts and is doing things openly even though it hasn't revealed itself and its intentions to the public. People thinking about how a film like "Order of the Phoenix" may be relevant to politics should put these things in the context of the theoretical meaning of the word "liberalism."
Superficially, there isn't much to object to in "Order of the Phoenix," which is to say it contributes to the Western movie culture individualism tinged with nationalism no more than average and probably less than average compared to other movies this summer, such as "Live Free or Die Hard," which is also rated PG-13. It would be wrong to think "Order of the Phoenix," seen by tens of millions, is just a hyped-up kids' movie or "escapist" movie not worth studying. A so-called escapist movie could still have a particular political significance. In this case, "Order of the Phoenix" doesn't shy away from depictions that have the potential to be political. These have to do with how the media and people with money and connections can influence the government to deprive a correct minority of their rights, something that supposedly wouldn't happen in Liberals' ideal liberal democratic society. The majority of viewers will watch this movie and subjectively come away with some idea about unpopular people (the resented half-blood Harry Potter and his Muggle-born and "blood traitor" associates, or quirky people like the Thestrals girl Luna Lovegood, who has a larger role in the book) overcoming adversity to win people's support and respect; Harry has to win back Seamus'. The movie's message will come off as timeless and universal, a story of humyn nature and humyn struggle as if classes, nations, genders and systems of power didn't exist -- a reflection of the bourgeois outlook. But discerning viewers and especially fans of the books will notice the prominent roles government and media play in the Harry Potter story. If these things don't arouse attention, it would be because they are all too familiar (most prominently, there are laws, government departments and red tape in the Harry Potter world), but seeing those ordinary things in a fantasy adventure movie, instead of kings, knights, and princesses, might cause some people to ponder.
Even if "Order of the Phoenix" tried to be apathetic, it might not be able to, because government power, as contrived as it is in the movie's fantasy world, is so central to the plot. One difference between "Order of the Phoenix" and, for example, "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" (2005) is that "Order of the Phoenix" focuses on an internal political struggle or an internal battle of good and evil, rather than an external enemy. "Phoenix" also deals with the intricacies of that struggle, making things more exciting for viewers. Since much of it happens within the wizard government, the movie may leave the impression that politics is a series of palace coups, a drawback of the movie. It belongs to the same kind of thinking that says fascism could have been stopped if only Adolf Hitler had been assassinated early on. Notably, so far in the movies, there hasn't been a major struggle in the larger wizard society over blood purity, just a series of struggles of individuals with extraordinary abilities or special relationships.
If that is actually how politics happens within a given nation, it would be on account of the class structure or political situation. Yet, the "Harry Potter" stories aren't supposed to depict a feudal monarchy. All the parallels point to a society that is an imitation of the real world. J. K. Rowling does paint a semi-accurate picture, a world in which a major paper is able to get away with printing racist remarks. Even non-pure-blood-tolerant witches and wizards make casual remarks such as Professor McGonagall's "worst sort of Muggle" remark in the first movie. There is no solid memorable proof either way in the movies, but it seems possible that a majority of wizards and witches could have no overriding interest in integration with non-pure-bloods. Even if true pure-bloods didn't exist because of interbreeding, a majority could still support pure-blood supremacism, just as there is no such thing as pure whiteness biologically, but there is still white supremacism. One would have to say pure-blood supremacism was democratic if it had majority support among all wizards and witches. In the real world, England and amerika are nations of oppressors, and what the majority wants is usually divergent from what the majority of the world's people, particularly people in the Third World, want. Amerikan democracy is oppression.
Half-bloods and Muggle-borns (witches or wizards not born to magical parents) attend the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and Hogwarts headmaster Dumbledore himself is half-blood. These things suggest an integrated school and an integrated society. The struggle of the forces symbolized by Dumbledore is to preserve that status quo. However, with "Order of the Phoenix" in particular and the fact that many major adult players in the Harry Potter saga have a connection to Hogwarts, it is appropriate to point out that Hogwarts is like a private school. And there either are other witchcraft and wizardry schools in Britain, or only a small group out of the entire population is trained in magic at a school. In the books, Hogwarts, Beauxbatons and Durmstrang are only the "largest European" wizardry schools. There is some confusion about this even among Harry Potter fans: the nature of the school and its place in society, even whether everyone goes to Hogwarts or not. In the first movie especially, when new students travel to Hogwarts, it is like entering another, magical dimension, but the spotlight is on Hogwarts. A "Hogwarts" train takes students straight to Hogwarts from London. Hogwarts is the center of the Harry Potter world for viewers. Yet, Hogwarts charges tuition and has some kind of admission or selection process, and all the evidence points to Hogwarts' having several hundred students at most, as others have pointed out. That things are centered around one school may be accidental or just due to Hogwarts' size, but an integrated elite based on schools such as Hogwarts and other institutions would not be incompatible with a society with widespread segregation and discrimination.
In the wizard world, there are banks, too. Individuals can hold accounts, or "vaults," and they have some privacy in connection to them. An implication of a capitalist society of oppressors in which there are elites -- people who are relatively powerful in what is already a sea of privilege and who can make it difficult for others to exercise even their non-economic rights -- is that a minority of the bourgeoisie, to vie for power, may have to rely on external forces. But since Euro-Amerika and England are majority-exploiter nations, no communist elite could take power and still live in an oppressor nation under peaceful conditions, no matter how much outside help it had. By contrast, Dumbledore in the fantasy world is in a better position to restore a quasi-Liberal or at least blood-integrated status quo. There don't seem to be any powerful Squibs (wizard-born but non-magical, the opposite of Muggle-born) in the wizard world (in the final book, Auntie Muriel says Squibs "must always be second class" in the Wizarding world), and there are wealth differences even between pure-blood families (compare the Weasleys with the Malfoys; Harry Potter himself is rich by inheritance), but it isn't clear whether non-pure-blood wizards have a systematically worse economic and social position than pure-bloods. The Harry Potter epic depicts a society with racial equality that is just spoiled by the machinating individual Voldemort or the creeping or quintessential racism he is said to represent.
The existence of elites in the wizard world is reflected on a small scale in Hermione's perceptiveness. Hermione is known as the smart one. But one could be good at something intellectual without necessarily being powerful. Hermione is good not only at magic, at being a book worm, and at remembering things, but also at judging situations, though not all of them. (In the first movie, confident Hermione makes a serious persynality-related error about Snape that could have helped injure Harry during the Quidditch game.) Hermione, who follows the news, realizes when others around her don't that the Ministry of Magic is interfering at Hogwarts via Dolores Umbridge. Dumbledore, who actually has power, recognizes even more what's going down and does different things in "Order of the Phoenix" (year 5) and previous years to struggle against Voldemort's rising. Dumbledore does these things without the population's knowledge or even latent support in some cases and often in secret.
One character whose role is downplayed in the movies in comparison with the books is Daily Prophet correspondent Rita Skeeter. In the prequel to "Order of the Phoenix," "Goblet of Fire," Rita Skeeter is a quirky reporter but not a sinister character, but in the "Goblet of Fire" book, Skeeter plays a role in what is seemingly a media campaign to tarnish the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts, and cause commotions at Hogwarts to isolate Harry. Beside making the Ministry of Magic look incompetent in different articles and singling out Arthur Weasley, Skeeter writes a persynal piece about Harry inflating him and ignoring the other competitors in the Triwizard Tournament. Later, Skeeter writes a defamatory article about Hagrid attacking him as a half-giant (not a "pure-blood wizard," not "even pure human") and attacking Dumbledore for having not only paranoid Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody around, but also Hagrid. After Hermione confronts Skeeter, Skeeter writes an article provoking Harry in connection to his supposed romantic relationship with Hermione. As a result of Skeeter's writing, Hagrid receives a letter saying he's a monster who should be "put down." The same letter encourages him to commit suicide. Hermione also receives mail as a result of Skeeter's articles, including a racist anti-Muggle letter telling her to stay away from Harry and another letter threatening her with violence. (Hermione is Muggle-born.) Hermione discovers that Skeeter was transforming herself into an insect -- not using electronic devices like "hidden microphones and recording equipment" as Harry suspected -- to spy on people to get information for her articles. Eventually, Hermione forces her to stop writing the lies and defamatory articles. The Slytherins who collaborated with Skeeter didn't care, but Skeeter was breaking the law with her disguise. In "Order of the Phoenix" the book, Hermione forces Skeeter to write a favorable article about Harry dealing with Voldemort's return and gets it published with the help of Luna Lovegood, whose father is the editor of a tabloid; the article wins Harry some support at Hogwarts. This doesn't happen in the movie.
Thus, public opinion struggle especially in the books is portrayed as a struggle of people with obscured agendas trying to control the same media outlets. In the real world, the proletariat's disadvantages in this type of struggle are one reason why the oppressed need their own media institutions. For whatever reason, none of the Rita Skeeter/Hermione/Luna Lovegood media story unfortunately makes it into the movie versions, but, in the "Order of the Phoenix" movie, the media tries to quell rumors about Voldemort's return.
It is indicative of Liberalism that such different families as the Malfoys and the Weasleys with different aims are able to coexist within the same institutions. Their children go to the same school, but the Malfoy family backs Voldemort, while the Weasleys oppose Voldemort. In fact, more than just holding anti-Voldemort beliefs, the Weasleys are part of the Order of the Phoenix and take risks in the struggle. (It would be a Liberal delusion to think society doesn't have classes and there are just people with different beliefs. There aren't two big diametrically classes within England or Euro-Amerika, but there are in the world as a whole. In any situation, it would also be Liberal to think different interests and aims can coexist harmoniously. The practice of trying to have such harmony is Liberalism.) At the same time, the situation reflected by the Malfoys' and Weasleys' coexistence is not Liberalism, because, while the rest of the population follows the rules, obviously Lucius Malfoy and even Arthur Weasley and Dumbledore do not, and they engage in unaccountable activities that affect many people and put them at risk. In the real world, the battle is not so even that the proletariat can use the same methods as the imperialists in the First World. There is no "Dumbledore" in the First World, even if all the killing in Harry Potter is just a symbol for something less literal. The proletariat's struggle in the First World at this time is long, arduous, and legal. The enemy's willingness to use illegal methods is one reason for the anonymity of the First World communist movement.
When Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge sees Voldemort with his own eyes, he realizes he was wrong about Voldemort's not returning. In the movie, it's like the Ministry of Magic has an epiphany, and then media starts to report on Voldemort's return. (Before, Harry had difficulty convincing others of Voldemort's return because he was the only witness. For that matter, according to the "Order of the Phoenix" book, much of what Dumbledore knows comes from a prophecy told to him by divinations teacher Sybill Trelawney, the prophecy stored in the Department of Mysteries.) That is also a sign of elite power, what it takes to allow things to be published, even if in the real world a flip-flop such as Fudge's would not be realistic for a large group of people. It's also hard to tell if viewers will connect the dots between the Ministry of Magic's realization that Harry was right and others' realization. For many people, Percy, despite being a former Hogwarts prefect, may symbolize ordinary people caught up in Voldemort's scheming. Before Fudge sees Voldemort, Percy goes with the Ministry to apprehend Dumbledore at Hogwarts. The Percy character is interesting. In his Hogwarts prefect role and then his Ministry of Magic role, Percy upholds school rules or the law as a servant of others, but without regard to how things are being manipulated around him. Percy is a cog in the machine. In fact, the people manipulating Percy are breaking laws themselves and in fact inventing new rules and exceptions to serve themselves as they go along, the Ministry's and Umbridge's decrees. It's an interesting depiction. In the real world, though, corruption happens again and again, and few people in the First World question the class nature of the corruption and the "corrupted" but somehow redeemable government agencies.
"Order of the Phoenix" illustrates in a fantasy setting an even struggle between two elites, one ascendant, the other descending. A drawback of "Order of the Phoenix" for communists, partly due to the nature of its movie genre, is its focus on only a handful of conspiratorial individuals and the play-by-play details of their struggle, to the neglect of the larger conditions in society in which they are occurring. To take Cornelius Fudge as an example, Fudge comes off as a dupe who just has bureaucratic and egotistical tendencies, a reflection of something social but not something that explains why the Ministry was predisposed to Voldemort's manipulation to begin with. Even Dolores Umbridge's precise role will be ambiguous to viewers who haven't read the books. She could be under Voldemort's spell or not; although, the story's point (which would be a good one) may be it doesn't matter; she's still acting on behalf of Voldemort whether she knows it or wants to, or not. Voldemort is powerful and manipulative, but unless the violence and magic are taken literally, that power must come from somewhere. Society conditions what elites are able to achieve, but, instead of shedding light on the wizard society outside Hogwarts, the "Harry Potter" movies so far have focused on the struggle of a handful of individuals who have a history with each other going way back. An "order," and Hogwarts "houses" and families with ancient histories -- this is the kind of stuff movies about all-powerful secret societies and fraternities are made of. If it isn't an idealist portrayal of how history works, then it could just be a giant metaphor for an unfolding interpersynal conflict. So much worse for "Phoenix's" potential if fans use it in that kind of way: an individualist way, to sort out interpersynal problems in their individual lives.
On the other hand, people have drawn parallels between Harry Potter and real world politics. To the extent people do absorb something political from "Order of the Phoenix," it should be pointed out that what is most interesting about elite power struggles for the proletariat is not all the individual plays, but the rules of the game. The proletariat may try to improve its position in the arena of elite struggle, but it also seeks to play a completely different game, one that it, as the revolutionary class, is able to win. The obsession with detail in an elite struggle is both historical-idealist and mostly a bourgeois pursuit. The proletariat has a different outlook and approach overall.
It's good that "Order of the Phoenix" shows people continuing to struggle when they aren't able to convince others. They don't resort to trying to persuade Voldemort, as if it were possible. "Phoenix" also illustrates a situation in which trying to have a debate in public as if society were really Liberal is futile; it would have been even better if the Rita Skeeter story line had been kept, for political reasons, not just for the sake of being faithful to the book. Pretty basic ideas, but something First World communists could learn from.