Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login
Writer reveals many other surprises during Q&A sessions.

NEW YORK — "That's a very good question. I've never been asked that before!"

Only a few questions into "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling's Q&A session at the close of her Open Book Tour at Carnegie Hall on Friday (October 19), she found herself repeating that line over and over, as the 1,600 public schoolchildren in attendance laughed gleefully. The students appeared to be true scholars of Rowling's work in her estimation, and she praised them for stumping her, since for at least one moment, she confused her own story's chronology.


"Ah! She doesn't know her own books!" Rowling laughed.

However, the comment that grabbed headlines took place at a Q&A session with sweepstakes winners later during the day. Rowling told the audience that Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore was gay and had fallen in love with fellow wizard and erstwhile friend, Gellert Grindelwald, according to the Associated Press and Potter fan site the Leaky Caudron. The crowd cheered, leading Rowling to say:

"If I had known this would have made you this happy, I would have told you years ago."

The answer came in response to the question of whether Dumbledore had ever been in love. Rowling replied, "My truthful answer to you ... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. ... Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more? Because falling in love can blind us to an extent, but he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him. Yeah, that's how I always saw Dumbledore.


"In fact, recently I was in a script read-through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script, saying, 'I knew a girl once, whose hair ...' [the crowd laughed]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter: 'Dumbledore's gay!' "

Noting the audience's enthusiasm, she added, "I had to give you something to talk about for the next 10 years. ... Just imagine the fan fiction now."

At the session earlier in the day, questions about love were directed at Rowling herself. When asked by an 18-year-old 12th grader, "Which of the Potter characters would you marry?," Rowling giggled. "The truth is, in my younger days, I dated Ron more than once," she admitted, giving an inside look at why Hermione (the closest character to Rowling's younger self) might be attracted to Harry's best friend. "He's fun to write, but not so much fun to date." And once she had learned her lesson, Rowling said, "I married Harry Potter," referring to her second husband, Neil Murray. "He's up there [in the wings]. I just mortified him," she laughed. "But he looks like Harry would look like, at a certain age. I married a very good person and a gutsy person. And that's who Harry is."

Fans might think that's even more reason why Hermione should end up with Harry — but Rowling said she always knew that Ron and Hermione were meant to be together, just as she thought Harry and Ginny were meant to be together. "I thought it was obvious, but apparently there are Internet wars about this," she said. "And they get very vicious." Rowling said she was unaware of the shipping wars for years, until someone suggested she take a look at the fan sites. "It was scary!" So many readers wanted Hermione and Harry to be a couple, Rowling said, that "I got hate mail ... from adults! Not people your age. You at least understood."

And for those who didn't, she explained. "Harry and Ginny are real soul mates," she said. "They're both very strong and very passionate. That's their connection, and they're remarkable together. Ron and Hermione, however, are drawn to each other because they balance each other out. Hermione's got the sensitivity and maturity that's been left out of Ron, and Ron loosens up Hermione a bit, gets her to have some fun. They love each other and they bicker a bit, but they enjoy bickering, so we shouldn't worry about it."

Rowling was also surprised how many fans expressed desire for a romantic story line for Harry's nemesis, Draco Malfoy. "No, please!" she laughed. "Please don't fancy Draco!" When a 13-year-old eighth grader asked whether Draco was ever actually evil, or if he was just acting that way because he was afraid, Rowling clarified that she thought he was a lot like Dudley, Harry's cousin — "raised as a pampered only son, indoctrinated with his parent's beliefs." The moment Draco got what he thought he wanted, to become a Death Eater, and given a mission by Lord Voldemort, as he did in "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," reality finally hit him, Rowling said, because his dream was "so very different."

"If the question is whether Draco would have committed the murder, my answer is no," Rowling said. "I don't think he would. He had lowered his wand. He was prepared to come over to Dumbledore's side. I hope you see that there's some of that same feeling in Book Seven, when he does try to protect Harry. But he's in too deep. Like a lot of characters, he's not a hero. There's a real moral cowardice to Draco. But is he wholly bad? Absolutely not."

Same with Dudley, whom Rowling imagined would have awkward reunions with Harry over the years. "I've never been asked that either!" Rowling said when a 16-year-old 12th-grader wondered if the two would ever see each other again. "Harry and Dudley would still see each other enough to be on Christmas-card terms, but they would visit more out of a sense of duty and sit in silence so that their children could see their cousins." Which means Dudley actually gets to the point where someone besides his parents would find him loveable? "People usually ask me, what is it that Dudley saw during the Dementor attack?" Rowling said. "My feeling is that he saw himself, exactly for what he was, and for a boy that spoiled, it would be terrifying. So he was jolted out of it. Dementor attacks aren't usually good for people, but this one was."

As is sometimes not knowing the whole story. Like Rowling before "Deathly Hallows" was published, Dumbledore withheld key information from Harry, so as not to "spoil" his journey, prompting a 9-year-old fourth grader to ask if Dumbledore ever really did love Harry, or was he just manipulating him so that he would sacrifice himself in the end?

"That's a deep question, thanks for asking it," Rowling said. "Dumbledore did like Harry, and as he got to know him, he became like a son to him. But I wanted you to question Dumbledore. It is right to question him, because he was treating people like puppets, and he was asking Harry to do a job that most men twice his age wouldn't have been able to do." But if Harry had all the information, he likely would have been tempted into doing something else, so he had to trust Dumbledore, who ultimately did guide him to do the right thing, Rowling said.

Having magic doesn't make anything easier, she said. "If everyone were given a wand ...," she started. (Spotting one fan with a wand, she pointed to him and added as an aside, "You've already got one! I hope that's not trained on me!") "... The world would be strangely similar," she continued. "Because nearly everyone, and not just because you're Harry Potter fans, would want to use it for good, to have fun, to look after their friends and family. But a small number would think, 'What's in it for me?' And that's the dark side of human nature, which remains the same whether you have a wand or not. We'd have exactly the same problems. Cruelty. Bigotry. Oppression. That's what Harry's fighting against. Not magic."

Visit Movies on MTV.com for more from Hollywood, including news, reviews, interviews and more.

For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com.

Want trailers? Visit the Trailer Park for the newest, scariest and funniest coming attractions anywhere.
59
Vote
   


From 'Frankenstein' To 'Scream,' these creepy series don't recycle their scares.

You know you've got a powerful movie franchise if it can survive the death of its main character. Such would seem to be the case with "Saw IV," which opens this weekend despite the demise of the sadistic Jigsaw in the third installment. As Halloween approaches, step into the iron maiden with us as we revisit some other knife-wielding maniacs and unstoppable monsters, counting down the greatest horror-film series of all time.

"Scream"
In 1996, realizing that cynical audiences had seen it all, Wes Craven decided to craft a postmodern horror film, the self-referential "Scream." As the murderous Ghostface stalks characters who are fully aware of, yet still complicit in, the standard behavior of teen slasher-film victims, the movie becomes ironically unpredictable. Audiences weren't sure how to react to this horror-comedy hybrid, but the film was a smash, and the first sequel again slyly turned conventions of the genre upside-down, with "Scream 2" (1997) satirizing horror sequels via the film-within-the-film, "Stab," based on the events of "Scream." But by the release of the convoluted "Scream 3" (2000), the series had become what it originally so smartly satirized, so Ghostface was happily retired (at least for now).

"Alien"
What makes the uneven "Alien" franchise noteworthy is how the sequels' respective filmmakers managed to avoid remaking the same movie over and over. Following Ridley Scott's superb original outer-space-haunted-house flick "Alien" (1979), James Cameron's 1986 sequel, "Aliens," replaced suspense with all-out action. David Fincher's much-maligned "Alien 3" (1992) is a bleak (but not bad) prison film, while Jean-Pierre Jeunet's lamentable "Alien: Resurrection" (1997) made audiences wish the franchise had stayed dead. But you can't keep a good face-hugger down, and (not counting the "Alien vs. Predator" spinoffs), rumors persist that the acidic-blood-dripping, multiple-mandibled killers will return to the big screen. Let's just hope Winona Ryder is busy.

"The Omen"
The original "Omen" trilogy follows the life of Satan-spawned Damien Thorn from demonic tot-hood to his adult ascendancy toward world domination. Richard Donner's "The Omen" (1976) is a spectacularly chilling portrait of apple-cheeked evil, and 1978's "Damien: Omen II" manages to make the teenage Damien both terrifying and sympathetic. Sadly, 1981's "The Final Conflict" brings an unsatisfying conclusion to the series as the adult Damien (Sam Neill) sets out to kill the second coming of Christ while being stalked by dagger-toting priests. The film has no style, and the awkward (but inevitable) climax has a cheesy "Left Behind" feel. Only time will tell if last year's remake of the first film will spawn further misadventures of the young Antichrist.

The Hannibal Lecter series
Boy, talk about a mixed bag. Let's skip both Michael Mann's stylish "Manhunter" (1986) and this year's prequel "Hannibal Rising" and focus on the films in which the charming, erudite serial killer is portrayed by Anthony Hopkins. Jonathan Demme's "Silence of the Lambs" shocked everyone in 1991, not just with its terrifying depiction of malevolence (and chauvinism), but by winning the top five Oscars. Less-regarded was the Ridley Scott-helmed sequel, "Hannibal" (2001), which made the mistake of turning the cannibalistic killer into the film's hero. Brett Ratner's "Red Dragon" (2002) goes back to a time when Hannibal was still behind bars, simultaneously aiding and manipulating FBI agents. But despite the varying quality of the films, Hopkins' Lecter remains a consistent joy to behold, a pitch-perfect inhabiting of a role that makes for one of the most mesmerizing characters in film history.

Universal's "Frankenstein"
In the 1930s and '40s, Universal Pictures was the home to such horror icons as Dracula, the Wolf Man, the Mummy and the monster created by the good Dr. Victor Frankenstein. While each spawned sequels, the "Frankenstein" films were more than virtual rehashes. Following the iconic 1931 original, directed by James Whale and starring Boris Karloff as the tortured patchwork man, 1935's "Bride of Frankenstein" took the genre to new heights. Surreal, funny, tragic, beautiful and scary, the movie remains deliriously mind-warping over seven decades later. Following 1939's lesser "Son of Frankenstein" (the last to star Karloff), the monster would return in five more Universal features, played by Universal Horror stalwarts Lon Chaney Jr., Glenn Strange and Bela Lugosi, the last most notably in 1948's funny-but-somewhat-derisive "Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein." Frankenstein's monster would be resurrected dozens more times over the years, but it's this version that's the most memorable.

"Psycho"
While the last two films (the third a mere slasher flick and the final a made-for-TV movie) are certainly dispensable, the first two "Psycho" films are great enough to land the serial killer with mommy issues on our list. Nobody needs to be convinced that Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" (1960) is one of the greatest thrillers of all time, with Anthony Perkins' indelible portrait of deceptively benign madman Norman Bates anchoring scenes of shocking violence (and sexuality) set to Bernard Herrmann's iconic all-strings score. But 1983's "Psycho II" is a vastly underrated film, with Norman (again Perkins) just released from a psychiatric institution and struggling to rebuild his life while being psychologically tormented by the vengeful sister of the legendary shower-scene victim. Genuine suspense, some biting commentary on changing social mores, more shocks and a surprising twist ending make this a worthy sequel to the classic original.

Hammer Films' "Dracula"
In 1958, independent studio Hammer Films released "Horror of Dracula," starring Christopher Lee as a more dashing bloodsucker than audiences were used to in a loose adaptation of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel. "The Brides of Dracula" (1960) stars David Peel as Baron Meinster, a pretty-boy disciple of the count who is utterly lacking in Lee's presence. Thankfully, Hammer lured the future Count Dooku back into the cape and fangs for six more stylish, sexy vampire flicks, starting with "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" (1966) and culminating in "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" (1973). We will not discuss 1974's kung-fu-vampire hybrid, "Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires."

"The Evil Dead"
Sam Raimi's 1981 thriller "The Evil Dead" came along at just the right time. Mindless, repetitive slasher films were all the rage, and the infusion of wit and style provided by the inaugural adventure of Ash (our hero, Bruce Campbell) battling the Book of the Dead gave the horror genre a much-needed boost. In 1987, "Evil Dead II" (sequel or remake? You decide!) was even more over-the-top, with Raimi's imagination given free reign and a bigger budget. "Army of Darkness" (1992) took Ash back to 14th-century England in a slightly less-fulfilling installment, but we can barely contain the drool over the prospect of a possible "Evil Dead IV," something that Raimi (now a Hollywood A-lister thanks to "Spider-Man") has said is a possibility.

George Romero's "Dead" series
It's impossible to overstate the impact of George Romero's classic 1968 black-and-white zombie flick "Night of the Living Dead." With its brilliant simplicity, groundbreaking casting and utterly believable characters, the movie is a timeless chunk of sheer terror. "Dawn of the Dead" (1978) used zombies in a mall to make a then-daring comment on mindless consumerism while remaining scary and exciting. In 1985, "Day of the Dead" set the flesh-eating on an Army base, a not-so-subtle condemnation of Reagan-era militarism. Two decades later, Romero returned to his undead roots with 2005's disappointing "Land of the Dead." Even if the upcoming "Diary of the Dead" stars Vanessa Hudgens as a perky teen zombie, it probably won't tarnish the legacy of those original films.

Yes, we know, we skipped some biggies. For all you fans of Freddy, Jason, Pinhead, Michael Myers, Chucky and pale, bug-eyed Japanese children, we're sorry, but endlessly repeated formulas do not great franchises make. We can hear you sharpening your knives (and glove blades) already.

Check out everything we've got on "Saw IV."

Visit Movies on MTV.com for more from Hollywood, including news, reviews, interviews and more.

For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com.

Want trailers? Visit the Trailer Park for the newest, scariest and funniest coming attractions anywhere.
51
Vote
   


The sun goes down on Josh Hartnett and Ben Foster in an anemic vampire flick.

Steve Niles' "30 Days of Night" comic-book series, which got underway in 2002, worked a clever new twist on the vampire genre. In the opening issues, a group of vampires discovered the existence of Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost town in the United States. Since the sun deserted this remote habitation for one whole month every year (in the comic, anyway), the famously light-loathing vampires decided to travel to Barrow and spend those 30 sunless days feasting on the locals.

It's a fun premise, but of course limited: vampires attack, townsfolk die, survivors hide, flee, hide somewhere else, and so on. To keep the series stalking along, Niles added interwoven subplots, the first of which involved a survivor of the Barrow slaughter who escaped to Los Angeles and tried to raise anti-vampire consciousness. This and subsequent narrative elaborations effectively fended off monotony.

Unfortunately, in the new movie adaptation of "30 Days of Night" (which Niles had a hand in scripting), the filmmakers have been forced, presumably by time constraints, to focus exclusively on the Barrow invasion. Since the picture runs nearly two hours, the continual gut-ripping and face-chewing and scampering and holing up soon become tedious, and we start to notice things like the actors' breath, which sometimes is seen to be condensing in the cold air, and sometimes isn't. There's also the vampire language, a vaguely Balkan tongue (they sound like they're gagging on a cheeksteak) that quickly became a source of rude amusement among the audience with which I saw the movie.

Being limited to killing, dying or fleeing, there's not much the actors can do with their characters. Josh Hartnett brings his usual bland amiability to the role of Eben Oleson, the Barrow sheriff, and Melissa George is very blonde (and appealingly feisty) as his wife, Stella. But even kitted out with barracuda-like fangs and thick splatters of blood, Danny Huston seems too nice a man to be the vicious head vampire, Marlow (a name that makes you wonder why he doesn't speak English). Mark Boone Junior brings snorts of life to the picture as an angrily resistant Barrow resident, but he's eclipsed by all the hide-and-seek commotion. And while Ben Foster, as a sort of vampire advance man, briefly enlivens the film with his trademark mad-eyed malevolence, he's not around long enough to salvage this oddly colorless enterprise.

Director David Slade — whose last movie, the bracingly nasty "Hard Candy," couldn't have been more different from this one if it were a musical set in Bermuda — maintains a convincing atmosphere of shivery tension in the beginning. But he's too faithful to the sometimes incoherent visual style of the comics (which were drawn by Ben Templesmith), and so a lot of the vampire-attack action is little more than flashing spasms of bloody, snarfling violence, which become tiresomely disorienting. In addition, a big-deal confrontation between two powerful vampires turns out to be little more than a routine action-flick smackdown. The final scene, a lyrical blend of love and sunburn, is nicely done. But by then our interest has drained away.

Read Kurt Loder's review of "Gone Baby Gone," also new in theaters this week.

Check out everything we've got on "30 Days of Night."

Visit Movies on MTV.com for more from Hollywood, including news, reviews, interviews and more.

For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com.

Want trailers? Visit the Trailer Park for the newest, scariest and funniest coming attractions anywhere.
50
Vote
   


The Break Up

October 8th 2007 16:33
25
Vote
   


UNITED 93

October 8th 2007 16:31
24
Vote
   


TAEGUKGI

October 8th 2007 16:31
21
Vote
   


More Posts
2 Posts
6 Posts
8 Posts
16 Posts dating from August 2007
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

nkamal's Blogs

692 Vote(s)
0 Comment(s)
26 Post(s)
90 Vote(s)
0 Comment(s)
2 Post(s)
Moderated by nkamal
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]