A Very Potter Sequel
First of my unlocked entries in a long time, because it's an openish letter with some discussion added to it, and I figured that open letters may as well be... open.
Dear Team StarKid,
Thank you for producing and putting together A Very Potter Musical. It's given me many a laugh as I remember my more active days reading the Harry Potter books, and the songs are super catchy. Even my mother has grown fond of the bromance you created between Quirrel and Voldemort.
Now, in light of the recent youtube premiere of A Very Potter Sequel, I'd like to say thanks for that, too. While not every moment in the new musical was funny, some of them were funnier than moments in the first musical. The music's also come a long way. However, one of the ways in which you tied up loose ends has me a bit concerned. Admittedly, if I saw this plot twist in another creative work, I'd be instantly flying into a rage, and I can feel that gut reflex kicking me right now. However, I'm also puzzled--and, like I said, concerned--because usually you guys are so great, and manage to walk the Refuge in Audacity line of humor without too much difficulty. Either you subvert problematic tropes, or you play them up so intensely they come across as satire. In this, case--well. Onto the spoiler cut.
My issue is the ultimate fate of Umbridge. For those tuning in who haven't seen the musical, Professor Umbridge--after taking over the school and being the play's villain--eventually gets carted off by the centaurs to help them repopulate their kind. Kinda unwillingly. And then later falls in love with Firenze the centaur anyway.
Like any kid (at heart) who appreciate a good good-vs-evil story, I'm up for seeing a villain destroyed or punished. I don't, however, think it's unreasonable to say that rape--even mass centaur rape, and especially when it's followed by Stockholm Syndrome--isn't funny, even as a punishment, no matter how villainous the one facing it. It holds no comedy value, because you can't be sure there aren't survivors in the audience who aren't remembering their trauma because something said onstage brought it up. There were some other Umbridge moments where I feel you pushed the scene too far, like certain scenes where she was disciplining students, but the ending was the most glaring issue. Overall, it left me feeling that Umbridge was not a strong a comedic villain as Voldemort, because while I looked forward to the Voldemort scenes, the Umbridge ones left me feeling uncomfortable. I kept seeing her as more an actual villain, and a victim at the same time.
For the record, I consider myself to be pretty okay with "edgy" humor. I was allowed to watch The Simpsons from a young age, grew up with Mel Brooks movies such as The Producers, and regularly watch South Park with my parents. Where this sort of humor crosses the line for me and becomes offensive rather than hilarious is when it makes a mockery of those victimized rather than of a victimizer. In the case of something like rape, it's always about power, and the person raped is always a victim, no matter how bad they were beforehand. As an audience member, I don't want to see villains cut down and humiliated, just stopped from doing whatever they're doing that's villainous. Otherwise the heroes are as bad as the villains, and--well, we've all watched Batman, with his insistence on not killing.
I think what puzzles me most about your ending for Umbridge was that you could have just as easily made the scene less problematic with a few changes of script and blocking. If Firenze and Umbridge were about to fight, possibly fighting, and then had fallen in love at first sight, I think that would have worked just fine. It's a musical, after all--falling in love at first sight, often with a corny song, is part of the genre. It would have achieved the same end--she forgets her evil takeover of Hogwarts, and skips off to the forest, never to be seen terrorizing students again. You could even keep the jokes with Firenze smoking and Umbridge asking if he got her text. It's really that simple. So, I'm wondering if this came up in conversation at all, or if it was an oversight.
I don't know if this letter will ever get to you guys, but I hope that if any of you do find your way here and read this you don't dismiss me right away and consider my ideas thoughtfully. I'm pretty sure there are other audience members who feel similarly about this particular twist of the plot. I think you guys are talented, and funny, and intelligent, and for the most part I really enjoyed the play. But I also think that your humor walks a line, and it's fair to say that the line got crossed a few times here.
To prove that I'm not just a negative Nellie, here are some of my favorite parts of the show: its use of time travel as a plot point, the appearance of all nine Weasleys, the fact that you used "you're Harry freaking Potter" as a refrain for a song, all the songs really, the part where you managed Quidditch onstage, Lucius Malfoy channeling Jareth the king of the Goblins, the brilliant parody of the Lily/James relationship in Snape's flashback to childhood, the Taylor Lautner jokes, the Voldemort cameo in the Zefron poster, the Ron/Harry bromance, and also The Scarf of Sexual Preference. Holy crap that scarf is cute--will you be making them? As one of your queer fangirls, I want one.
Sincerely,
littledarkvoice
For the rest of you, a discussion question: can you think of examples in your own favorite media where there's something problematic, where the problematic stuff could be avoided with a simple rearranging of a scene or two? Or, can you think of a story where it would have gone down a bad path, but the author/creators did something to turn that bad path on its head and make it a good story? I've found that Avatar: The Last Airbender's been pretty good at this, and I'm sure there are others.
I think in most cases, just changing a few things here or there that can make a whole world of difference in a story, and often, in most cases, make it even better. So, it'd be great to have a list like this, of concrete examples, just to prove to people that they don't need Ph.Ds in sociology and gender studies just to make their works--yes, even edgy comedy, especially edgy comedy--more... socially considerate, I suppose. Thoughts?
Dear Team StarKid,
Thank you for producing and putting together A Very Potter Musical. It's given me many a laugh as I remember my more active days reading the Harry Potter books, and the songs are super catchy. Even my mother has grown fond of the bromance you created between Quirrel and Voldemort.
Now, in light of the recent youtube premiere of A Very Potter Sequel, I'd like to say thanks for that, too. While not every moment in the new musical was funny, some of them were funnier than moments in the first musical. The music's also come a long way. However, one of the ways in which you tied up loose ends has me a bit concerned. Admittedly, if I saw this plot twist in another creative work, I'd be instantly flying into a rage, and I can feel that gut reflex kicking me right now. However, I'm also puzzled--and, like I said, concerned--because usually you guys are so great, and manage to walk the Refuge in Audacity line of humor without too much difficulty. Either you subvert problematic tropes, or you play them up so intensely they come across as satire. In this, case--well. Onto the spoiler cut.
My issue is the ultimate fate of Umbridge. For those tuning in who haven't seen the musical, Professor Umbridge--after taking over the school and being the play's villain--eventually gets carted off by the centaurs to help them repopulate their kind. Kinda unwillingly. And then later falls in love with Firenze the centaur anyway.
Like any kid (at heart) who appreciate a good good-vs-evil story, I'm up for seeing a villain destroyed or punished. I don't, however, think it's unreasonable to say that rape--even mass centaur rape, and especially when it's followed by Stockholm Syndrome--isn't funny, even as a punishment, no matter how villainous the one facing it. It holds no comedy value, because you can't be sure there aren't survivors in the audience who aren't remembering their trauma because something said onstage brought it up. There were some other Umbridge moments where I feel you pushed the scene too far, like certain scenes where she was disciplining students, but the ending was the most glaring issue. Overall, it left me feeling that Umbridge was not a strong a comedic villain as Voldemort, because while I looked forward to the Voldemort scenes, the Umbridge ones left me feeling uncomfortable. I kept seeing her as more an actual villain, and a victim at the same time.
For the record, I consider myself to be pretty okay with "edgy" humor. I was allowed to watch The Simpsons from a young age, grew up with Mel Brooks movies such as The Producers, and regularly watch South Park with my parents. Where this sort of humor crosses the line for me and becomes offensive rather than hilarious is when it makes a mockery of those victimized rather than of a victimizer. In the case of something like rape, it's always about power, and the person raped is always a victim, no matter how bad they were beforehand. As an audience member, I don't want to see villains cut down and humiliated, just stopped from doing whatever they're doing that's villainous. Otherwise the heroes are as bad as the villains, and--well, we've all watched Batman, with his insistence on not killing.
I think what puzzles me most about your ending for Umbridge was that you could have just as easily made the scene less problematic with a few changes of script and blocking. If Firenze and Umbridge were about to fight, possibly fighting, and then had fallen in love at first sight, I think that would have worked just fine. It's a musical, after all--falling in love at first sight, often with a corny song, is part of the genre. It would have achieved the same end--she forgets her evil takeover of Hogwarts, and skips off to the forest, never to be seen terrorizing students again. You could even keep the jokes with Firenze smoking and Umbridge asking if he got her text. It's really that simple. So, I'm wondering if this came up in conversation at all, or if it was an oversight.
I don't know if this letter will ever get to you guys, but I hope that if any of you do find your way here and read this you don't dismiss me right away and consider my ideas thoughtfully. I'm pretty sure there are other audience members who feel similarly about this particular twist of the plot. I think you guys are talented, and funny, and intelligent, and for the most part I really enjoyed the play. But I also think that your humor walks a line, and it's fair to say that the line got crossed a few times here.
To prove that I'm not just a negative Nellie, here are some of my favorite parts of the show: its use of time travel as a plot point, the appearance of all nine Weasleys, the fact that you used "you're Harry freaking Potter" as a refrain for a song, all the songs really, the part where you managed Quidditch onstage, Lucius Malfoy channeling Jareth the king of the Goblins, the brilliant parody of the Lily/James relationship in Snape's flashback to childhood, the Taylor Lautner jokes, the Voldemort cameo in the Zefron poster, the Ron/Harry bromance, and also The Scarf of Sexual Preference. Holy crap that scarf is cute--will you be making them? As one of your queer fangirls, I want one.
Sincerely,
littledarkvoice
For the rest of you, a discussion question: can you think of examples in your own favorite media where there's something problematic, where the problematic stuff could be avoided with a simple rearranging of a scene or two? Or, can you think of a story where it would have gone down a bad path, but the author/creators did something to turn that bad path on its head and make it a good story? I've found that Avatar: The Last Airbender's been pretty good at this, and I'm sure there are others.
I think in most cases, just changing a few things here or there that can make a whole world of difference in a story, and often, in most cases, make it even better. So, it'd be great to have a list like this, of concrete examples, just to prove to people that they don't need Ph.Ds in sociology and gender studies just to make their works--yes, even edgy comedy, especially edgy comedy--more... socially considerate, I suppose. Thoughts?