Rooster, Mattie, King George, and Snape ~ Characters Who Aren't Nice, But Truly Great
Some thoughts about recent Oscar-nominated movie portrayals compared to Snape's characterization.
Are complex and unhappy characters just naturally more interesting? And why are they fascinating even when they aren't sweet, understanding, PC, "normal" or nice? Can imperfect characters still teach us something important?
The two movies I will discuss are "The King's Speech" and "True Grit." One is nearly a British stage play and the other is a Western, but I think the reason both are in the running for the Best Movie Oscar is their strong characterization. These are movies in which the characters talk and talk and talk. There's lots of dialogue and communication, and the characters seem to grow and change before our eyes. And all of that matters to us, but why?
Under the Cut Below . . . SPOILERS!!!!!
The King's Speech:
Colin Firth won two Screen Actors Guild awards last night for his role as King George VI in "The King's Speech." In fact the whole cast won for "Best Ensemble." Seeing the smiling Firth holding his awards reminded me that the character he played didn't have much to smile about, even though the King's predicament gives the audience some big laughs at his expense. As one of my friends wrote on Facebook, she saw the movie twice and it still made her cry and then laugh. In the small-town theater where I saw it, which wasn't even half-full on a Sunday afternoon, the small crowd clapped when it was over.
Firth plays a determined but flawed King George VI. He's not Mr. Nice King or even Prince Charming - not at all. And yet everyone in that theater was pulling for him to succeed at the end.
And it got me thinking about what makes a character really great? To what do we respond as human beings?
This is a question we Snape fans are often asked, since the auther of HP has even made the statement that Snape "wasn't so great" and "wasn't a big man."
And of course other fans think Snape is a horrible character, a member of a "terrorist organization" and a bully of a teacher who doesn't give his students enough "understanding" and "encouragement." He's not "Prince Charming," and he's not even a real Prince.
My question is: why does it matter if he isn't nice by some false standard of political correctness? Snape is an entertaining character who comes across as passionate and human. He makes huge mistakes but then makes huge sacrifices to right a wrong. His students carp about him continuously until they grow up and realize he was just a man dealing with conflicts out of his control, and more than just teaching them a few spells and potions, he taught Harry in particular how to persevere, a word that sounds alot like Snape's own name.!
Logue even uses that word in "The King's Speech," when telling him not to give up.
And I found a blogger who celebrated it: Lessons in Perseverance: The King's Speech
So what is good about the King's character? Well, for me, the conflicts make him complex and multi-layered. He's not boring. He can't just give up on his problems and "get over it." He has a domineering father at death's door (played ironically by Michael Gambon - a girl in my theater said, "Look, Gandalf!" and I whispered, "No, Dumbledore.") He also has a distant mother, an extremely silly brother, and a country on the verge of war with Hitler. And if those problems weren't enough, the King must cope with public speaking on the radio in spite of his horrible stammer brought on by a childhood of enduring leg braces for knock-knees, his writing hand being switched from left to right, and an abusive nanny who starved and pinched him in favor of his elder brother.
Now according to some people who like to whine about Snape's character on the Internet, none of this makes the King a sympathetic character. Neglect by his parents? So what? Abuse and pain? Big deal - meh, get over it! They might even say he deserved some of what he got because after all later on he "stole" the throne from his brother. *Just Joking* but you get the picture.
What makes Firth's King George a truly great character is that he has suffered and he hasn't "gotten over it." He has "wounds that run (almost) too deep for healing." He has married for love, yes, but that hasn't solve everything.
His speech coach Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush, breaks down some of his emotional barriers the same way that Dumbledore did with Snape ~ he listens, encouraging him to talk about his problems. He wants to help him change. He teases him, cajoles him, and even makes fun of him. Logue tries to tell him he could be "truly great."
Where does this lead? At first it leads nowhere. King George isn't into playing nicely, and he hates talking about his problems. He has given up on himself and eventually insults Logue and tells him to stuff it in a way that is . . . not nice.
As one reviewer wrote:
Lionel tolerated the Duke’s temper tantrums, hysterical moods wings, and often acidulous insults.
*horrors*
[SNARK] How can he be a king and have temper tantrums? Or mood swings? That's not cool! Insults ~that's not what Kings do! And he has those sweet little daughters at home and a nice wife, the Queen Mum (Helena Bonham Carter)! So how dare he lose his temper this way! Women don't approve of men who lose their temper and stomp around! And besides that, why doesn't he automatically do what his dear wife told him to do in order to change? Is he a misogynist or something? She should have packed up the girls and left him, right? After all, he was a horrible, angry man unable to move on with his life, and he couldn't even speak plainly! And he smokes too much - not cool. [/SNARK]
But aha - here's where it gets interesting. The Queen Mum doesn't leave him, of course, and in fact might love him more because he has problems. His daughter, who is Queen Elizabeth and still on the throne, reveres his courage to this day.
And surprisingly, Logue and King George eventually apologize to each other - yes they do! - and work it out. What about that? And this isn't just some made-up fictional wizard story. This is a true story. They work out their problems, they learn to work together, they forget their differences and get down to business. They learned that they were equals after all, and according to the credits, remained friends the rest of their lives.
In the HP books, Harry forgave Snape after he died, but JKR said snippily that he probably wouldn't choose to speak to Snape's portrait (if she had given him a portrait, that is), implying that Snape served his purpose and any further communication was unecessary. But when we look at reality based stories like The King's Speech, it gives us an entirely different perspective on how people with different backgrounds can become friends. Even the most wounded of characters can get it together, and that's really great.
Google search "King's Speech" plus "hope" plus "perseverance" and you'll see how many people agree with me.
True Grit
I also saw "True Grit" a few weeks back, and it's hard to think of a single "nice" or PC character in that story, and yet the characters are all truly great. I have read the book several times because we had a book club edition when I was growing up. I've seen the first movie with John Wayne many times, and seen the new version once. The Coen Brothers changed some scenes but not others, and both films capture the spirit and the wonderful language used in the book.
Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges/John Wayne) is NOT a nice man. As a Marshall, he's been a killer under certain circumstances. He's unapologetic about it even in a court of law. He is antisocial and rude and vain and sometimes intoxicated. The girl Mattie is repulsed by him, yet chooses to hire him for just those qualities, which she defines as "True Grit."
And by the end of the story, no matter what Rooster has "said" to her in his rough thoughtless way, she not only forgives him, but considers him the equal of her beloved father, and wants to bury him in her family plot back home.
That reminds me so much of Harry naming his son after Severus Snape, in spite of their differences and things Snape "said" to him in the classroom or under stress. Fans pull their hair out over that. Why would Harry give his precious little boy that horrible name? Why would Ginny go along with it? Why would he call Snape "the bravest man I ever knew" when Harry hated him the whole time he was at Hogwarts?
Two words: True Grit. Rooster has it, according to Mattie. Snape had it, according to Harry.
Now, audiences may cringe to see Mattie getting a non-PC spanking from Le Beouf at age fourteen, or Rooster ordering Mattie to cook or make coffee, so this movie is not nice towards women and children. Rooster kicks some Cherokee children off the porch of the trading post, then comes back and does it again just to be mean. I can hear the cries of "Racist!" or "Misogynist!" or any number of epithets. But here again, this is a coming of age story in a rough situation on the frontier, and Rooster is NOT NiCE. The message to Mattie and the viewer is that "life is hard" and even kids have to "learn to take the punches."
t's not about "let me cut the crust off your sandwich, honey, and then we'll read some safe PC poetry by the fire."
Mattie is fully Rooster's equal and he admires her for that. She has a sharp tongue and a mind of her own. If the men sometimes chastise her for it, as Snape also did with Harry, they also had to see themselves in Mattie, and respect her for her opinions.
Also, Mattie is brave, just like Harry. She jumps in where angels fear to tread. She's not shy and demure, but adventurous and bold. She's also quite stubborn, pushy, wise beyond her years, and irritating to nearly everyone she meets. Those are hardly virtues, yet her single-minded quest to avenge her father's death is almost like a force of nature. She's not really what you would call a "nice" little girl. She never takes no for an answer, and threatens anyone who disagrees with her that her "Lawyer Dagget" will come after them with legal action.
Now would a child like that respond to a meek and mild teacher?
In the HP books, Lupin is held up as the "best" teacher they ever had because he goes easy on homework, hands out chocolate, and gives Gryffindor all the points. But at the same time, when pressed to teach Harry something beyond his year, Lupin goes so easy that even Harry gets impatient and wants to try harder. Lupin gives up before he does! If lessons were left up to just Lupin, Harry wouldn't have learned much of anything that year except how to spell "Grindylow." The other "nice" teacher, Flitwick, gets tossed around like a ragdoll in the classroom.
Shouldn't the teacher be a match for the student? I think so. The people who sometimes teach us the most valuable lessons in life are not Mr. Perfect, Mr. Easy, or Mr. Right. Le Beouf is close to being Mattie's Knight in Shining Armor, but he's no more easy or perfect than Rooster is. Let's call him the Sirius Black of True Grit. *LOL*
But there's no doubt that Rooster becomes Mattie's hero, especially as he valiantly saves her life ~ from a rattlesnake bite, no less! A father couldn't have done more for her than he did, and she knows it. This binds them together forever in memory, even though they are separated, which is just like Harry and Snape.
What we get from these great characters isn't that we all need to be "clean" and "pretty" and free of problems, but how we learn to deal with the nitty-gritty problems we can't avoid. We all have problems. We all have flaws. We all say things and do things we regret. But that's not the end of the world. And many times, that which doesn't break us, makes us stronger. Not such a bad message.
It would be nearly impossible to get that message across if characters were bland, unconflicted, PC, and always nice. How many characters like that win Oscars? How many characters like that have fans? I can't think of any except Luna Lovegood. Whoops ~ she's an orphan. I'll keep thinking . . .
Are complex and unhappy characters just naturally more interesting? And why are they fascinating even when they aren't sweet, understanding, PC, "normal" or nice? Can imperfect characters still teach us something important?
The two movies I will discuss are "The King's Speech" and "True Grit." One is nearly a British stage play and the other is a Western, but I think the reason both are in the running for the Best Movie Oscar is their strong characterization. These are movies in which the characters talk and talk and talk. There's lots of dialogue and communication, and the characters seem to grow and change before our eyes. And all of that matters to us, but why?
Under the Cut Below . . . SPOILERS!!!!!
The King's Speech:
Colin Firth won two Screen Actors Guild awards last night for his role as King George VI in "The King's Speech." In fact the whole cast won for "Best Ensemble." Seeing the smiling Firth holding his awards reminded me that the character he played didn't have much to smile about, even though the King's predicament gives the audience some big laughs at his expense. As one of my friends wrote on Facebook, she saw the movie twice and it still made her cry and then laugh. In the small-town theater where I saw it, which wasn't even half-full on a Sunday afternoon, the small crowd clapped when it was over.
Firth plays a determined but flawed King George VI. He's not Mr. Nice King or even Prince Charming - not at all. And yet everyone in that theater was pulling for him to succeed at the end.
And it got me thinking about what makes a character really great? To what do we respond as human beings?
This is a question we Snape fans are often asked, since the auther of HP has even made the statement that Snape "wasn't so great" and "wasn't a big man."
And of course other fans think Snape is a horrible character, a member of a "terrorist organization" and a bully of a teacher who doesn't give his students enough "understanding" and "encouragement." He's not "Prince Charming," and he's not even a real Prince.
My question is: why does it matter if he isn't nice by some false standard of political correctness? Snape is an entertaining character who comes across as passionate and human. He makes huge mistakes but then makes huge sacrifices to right a wrong. His students carp about him continuously until they grow up and realize he was just a man dealing with conflicts out of his control, and more than just teaching them a few spells and potions, he taught Harry in particular how to persevere, a word that sounds alot like Snape's own name.!
Logue even uses that word in "The King's Speech," when telling him not to give up.
And I found a blogger who celebrated it: Lessons in Perseverance: The King's Speech
So what is good about the King's character? Well, for me, the conflicts make him complex and multi-layered. He's not boring. He can't just give up on his problems and "get over it." He has a domineering father at death's door (played ironically by Michael Gambon - a girl in my theater said, "Look, Gandalf!" and I whispered, "No, Dumbledore.") He also has a distant mother, an extremely silly brother, and a country on the verge of war with Hitler. And if those problems weren't enough, the King must cope with public speaking on the radio in spite of his horrible stammer brought on by a childhood of enduring leg braces for knock-knees, his writing hand being switched from left to right, and an abusive nanny who starved and pinched him in favor of his elder brother.
Now according to some people who like to whine about Snape's character on the Internet, none of this makes the King a sympathetic character. Neglect by his parents? So what? Abuse and pain? Big deal - meh, get over it! They might even say he deserved some of what he got because after all later on he "stole" the throne from his brother. *Just Joking* but you get the picture.
What makes Firth's King George a truly great character is that he has suffered and he hasn't "gotten over it." He has "wounds that run (almost) too deep for healing." He has married for love, yes, but that hasn't solve everything.
His speech coach Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush, breaks down some of his emotional barriers the same way that Dumbledore did with Snape ~ he listens, encouraging him to talk about his problems. He wants to help him change. He teases him, cajoles him, and even makes fun of him. Logue tries to tell him he could be "truly great."
Where does this lead? At first it leads nowhere. King George isn't into playing nicely, and he hates talking about his problems. He has given up on himself and eventually insults Logue and tells him to stuff it in a way that is . . . not nice.
As one reviewer wrote:
Lionel tolerated the Duke’s temper tantrums, hysterical moods wings, and often acidulous insults.
*horrors*
[SNARK] How can he be a king and have temper tantrums? Or mood swings? That's not cool! Insults ~that's not what Kings do! And he has those sweet little daughters at home and a nice wife, the Queen Mum (Helena Bonham Carter)! So how dare he lose his temper this way! Women don't approve of men who lose their temper and stomp around! And besides that, why doesn't he automatically do what his dear wife told him to do in order to change? Is he a misogynist or something? She should have packed up the girls and left him, right? After all, he was a horrible, angry man unable to move on with his life, and he couldn't even speak plainly! And he smokes too much - not cool. [/SNARK]
But aha - here's where it gets interesting. The Queen Mum doesn't leave him, of course, and in fact might love him more because he has problems. His daughter, who is Queen Elizabeth and still on the throne, reveres his courage to this day.
And surprisingly, Logue and King George eventually apologize to each other - yes they do! - and work it out. What about that? And this isn't just some made-up fictional wizard story. This is a true story. They work out their problems, they learn to work together, they forget their differences and get down to business. They learned that they were equals after all, and according to the credits, remained friends the rest of their lives.
In the HP books, Harry forgave Snape after he died, but JKR said snippily that he probably wouldn't choose to speak to Snape's portrait (if she had given him a portrait, that is), implying that Snape served his purpose and any further communication was unecessary. But when we look at reality based stories like The King's Speech, it gives us an entirely different perspective on how people with different backgrounds can become friends. Even the most wounded of characters can get it together, and that's really great.
Google search "King's Speech" plus "hope" plus "perseverance" and you'll see how many people agree with me.
True Grit
I also saw "True Grit" a few weeks back, and it's hard to think of a single "nice" or PC character in that story, and yet the characters are all truly great. I have read the book several times because we had a book club edition when I was growing up. I've seen the first movie with John Wayne many times, and seen the new version once. The Coen Brothers changed some scenes but not others, and both films capture the spirit and the wonderful language used in the book.
Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges/John Wayne) is NOT a nice man. As a Marshall, he's been a killer under certain circumstances. He's unapologetic about it even in a court of law. He is antisocial and rude and vain and sometimes intoxicated. The girl Mattie is repulsed by him, yet chooses to hire him for just those qualities, which she defines as "True Grit."
And by the end of the story, no matter what Rooster has "said" to her in his rough thoughtless way, she not only forgives him, but considers him the equal of her beloved father, and wants to bury him in her family plot back home.
That reminds me so much of Harry naming his son after Severus Snape, in spite of their differences and things Snape "said" to him in the classroom or under stress. Fans pull their hair out over that. Why would Harry give his precious little boy that horrible name? Why would Ginny go along with it? Why would he call Snape "the bravest man I ever knew" when Harry hated him the whole time he was at Hogwarts?
Two words: True Grit. Rooster has it, according to Mattie. Snape had it, according to Harry.
Now, audiences may cringe to see Mattie getting a non-PC spanking from Le Beouf at age fourteen, or Rooster ordering Mattie to cook or make coffee, so this movie is not nice towards women and children. Rooster kicks some Cherokee children off the porch of the trading post, then comes back and does it again just to be mean. I can hear the cries of "Racist!" or "Misogynist!" or any number of epithets. But here again, this is a coming of age story in a rough situation on the frontier, and Rooster is NOT NiCE. The message to Mattie and the viewer is that "life is hard" and even kids have to "learn to take the punches."
t's not about "let me cut the crust off your sandwich, honey, and then we'll read some safe PC poetry by the fire."
Mattie is fully Rooster's equal and he admires her for that. She has a sharp tongue and a mind of her own. If the men sometimes chastise her for it, as Snape also did with Harry, they also had to see themselves in Mattie, and respect her for her opinions.
Also, Mattie is brave, just like Harry. She jumps in where angels fear to tread. She's not shy and demure, but adventurous and bold. She's also quite stubborn, pushy, wise beyond her years, and irritating to nearly everyone she meets. Those are hardly virtues, yet her single-minded quest to avenge her father's death is almost like a force of nature. She's not really what you would call a "nice" little girl. She never takes no for an answer, and threatens anyone who disagrees with her that her "Lawyer Dagget" will come after them with legal action.
Now would a child like that respond to a meek and mild teacher?
In the HP books, Lupin is held up as the "best" teacher they ever had because he goes easy on homework, hands out chocolate, and gives Gryffindor all the points. But at the same time, when pressed to teach Harry something beyond his year, Lupin goes so easy that even Harry gets impatient and wants to try harder. Lupin gives up before he does! If lessons were left up to just Lupin, Harry wouldn't have learned much of anything that year except how to spell "Grindylow." The other "nice" teacher, Flitwick, gets tossed around like a ragdoll in the classroom.
Shouldn't the teacher be a match for the student? I think so. The people who sometimes teach us the most valuable lessons in life are not Mr. Perfect, Mr. Easy, or Mr. Right. Le Beouf is close to being Mattie's Knight in Shining Armor, but he's no more easy or perfect than Rooster is. Let's call him the Sirius Black of True Grit. *LOL*
But there's no doubt that Rooster becomes Mattie's hero, especially as he valiantly saves her life ~ from a rattlesnake bite, no less! A father couldn't have done more for her than he did, and she knows it. This binds them together forever in memory, even though they are separated, which is just like Harry and Snape.
What we get from these great characters isn't that we all need to be "clean" and "pretty" and free of problems, but how we learn to deal with the nitty-gritty problems we can't avoid. We all have problems. We all have flaws. We all say things and do things we regret. But that's not the end of the world. And many times, that which doesn't break us, makes us stronger. Not such a bad message.
It would be nearly impossible to get that message across if characters were bland, unconflicted, PC, and always nice. How many characters like that win Oscars? How many characters like that have fans? I can't think of any except Luna Lovegood. Whoops ~ she's an orphan. I'll keep thinking . . .
