Rango & Fantastic Mr. Fox

Today, I’ve decided to do something a bit out of the ordinary, in that I will be talking about two movies in this article rather than just one.

The movies in question are the 2009 stop motion movie Fantastic Mr. Fox, and the 2011 animated movie Rango.

Some of you might be wondering about my reasons for this, since at a glance, these have very little in common. One is a stop motion kinda crime-comedy movie about a fox, ostensibly set in rural England, and the other is a western themed movie about a chameleon, set in the Nevada Desert.

But the truth is, both of these movies puzzle me for the same reason, and it is that puzzlement that has driven me to writing about them.

So what is it with these movies that’s got me scratching my head? Well, both of these movies are focused on animal characters. This in and of itself isn’t really an issue. After all, it’s a very common thing in children’s movies. But it is key, in order to understand the question that has put a bee in my bonnet.

How human are the animals supposed to be?

And to illustrate this question, I want you to look at this picture, from the movie Rango.

For the sake of clarity, this is one of the characters, spotting a bullet for a revolver, used in the movie.

See, we’re not looking at something like The Lion King or Kung Fu Panda or Zootopia, where all the animals are replacing humans. But we’re also not talking about something like A Bug’s Life or Flushed Away or The Rescuers, where the animals are taking and repurposing objects made by humans.

No, these movies are very clear that humans do exist… but at the same time, these animals are human enough that they themselves have human technology. In Fantastic Mr. Fox, they have tape players and telephones and typewriters, all proportional to them. The telephone in particular is curious, because if there’s a telephone, then it follows that there is a telephone network! In Rango, like I said, there’s a ton of weapons, and they’re all proportional in size. We see Colts and Winchester rifles and derringers and shotguns, all appropriately sized for a gecko or a possum to carry.

Going back to the bullet in the picture above, you notice the markings on it? “PMC 45 COLT”.

PMC is a brand! It’s a company that makes ammunition! So apparently, in this movie, PMC makes bullets that are smaller than a grain of rice, in which case we can only assume that the same goes for all the other ammunition in the movie. This, of course, doesn’t explain where the guns themselves came from, unless these animals found full size weapons and decided to copy them, scaled down to their own size, along with the ammunition

Except… why? And more importantly, how!?

These animals live in the middle of the Nevada desert. Are there really gonna be that many late 1800 era rifles, revolvers and pistols just lying around, along with their ammunition, for animals to make scaled down copies? And it’s ONLY those guns, from that particular era! The most modern piece of weaponry in the movie is a shotgun from 1887!

Just because I find a revolver lying around doesn’t mean I know the first thing about how to make a copy of it, especially a functional one. In fact, scaling it down would be even more tricky, given what I am expecting this gun to actually do.

Of course, we’ll just gloss over the small issue that.. Well, I’m not an expert or anything, but I’m pretty dang sure you cannot make a bullet that small, and still have it be functional.

I could almost, ALMOST understand if it was all cap-and-ball pistols, but even then, we’re not really looking at a mountain of power. You’re not shooting through anything bigger than a piece of cardboard with that.

And sure, you could argue that I’m being silly, questioning the logic of a movie where there are talking animals. There are, however, two problems with that. Firstly, I remind you, this is an animated movie. It’s not like Captain Love in The Mask of Zorro carrying a carbine that shouldn’t exist yet. This isn’t just a minor oversight that someone missed. Someone had to make the model for that bullet! They put that text there deliberately, and there were SEVERAL steps in the production where someone could have made changes!

Second, the fact that the movie has talking animals is the whole point of why I’m writing this, specifically because there are also humans! Had they not included the humans, I would not question the presence of the ammunition and the guns!

But let’s leave the matter of ballistics and ammunition, and move onto the issue of money. Both of these movies make it very clear that these animals don’t just understand trade, but actually have a fully fledged economy.

In Fantastic Mr. Fox, we get a scene with the eponymous Mr. Fox talking to a badger who works as a lawyer, who cautions him on looking to buy a home, telling him that he’s “borrowing at nine-and-a-half with no fixed rate”. And in Rango, the villain’s plan involves buying up all the surrounding land, and extorting the townsfolk through a manufactured water shortage. So land deeds, mortgages and, I can only assume, banks and legal courts are all concepts these animals not only recognize, but have fully adopted!

Which brings me back to my question. How human are these animals? Or to put it another way, what is actually the difference, when you get right down to it, between the animals and the humans?

Because if the answer is what I think it is, which is to say… nothing, then what is the point of the humans? Why have humans be part of the story at all at that point!?

Of course, I can hear people already objecting, that Fantastic Mr. Fox is based on a book, and him robbing the three human farmers is the entire plot of said book.

And I will concede, this is a very valid point. But then that only makes the things we see in the movie even more weird and nonsensical. In the book, the fox stole from the farmers to survive, and to provide for his family. This is NOT the case in the movie, where the fox has a job and a mortgage and by all accounts acts like a human being, and only steals from the farmers because he wants to feel like his old self again.

In fact, in that scene with him and the badger, there’s a moment when they both start arguing, and they suddenly start growling, hissing and circling each other. In a moment, they both revert back to being wild animals. And this is apparently something of a theme in the movie, with them bringing up being wild animals a lot.

So these animals are just, for lack of a better word, aping humans! They’re pretending to be human, for… no real reason at all.

And in Rango, it’s even more baffling, because there, you could almost leave out the humans entirely, since including them only raises more questions! The only reason for there to be humans in the story is to justify a plot-point about a water pipe! In every other situation, them being present is just confusing.

Case in point, the Spirit of the West. And this is just a whole pile of confusion. For context, Rango learns of the Spirit of the West from an armadillo at the beginning of the movie.

They say he rides in an alabaster carriage, with golden guardians to protect him

In fact, it is that armadillo, looking to find the Spirit of the West, which is the catalyst for the entire plot! He gets run over by the car carrying Rango’s tank, which falls out and strands him in the desert.

And later, Rango finds this Spirit of the West, and discovers what appears to be the Man with no Name from the Dollar trilogy … And this is where I have to tilt my head because… who is this actually supposed to be?

See, if this is The Man With No Name, which it would be, going by his clothing and demeanor, then why is he in the middle of the Nevada desert, playing with a metal detector, along with a golf cart with four “Golden Guardians”?

The alternative, and more likely explanation, is that this is supposed to be Clint Eastwood. In which case… Why is HE in the middle of the Nevada desert playing with a metal detector, dressed up as a character he hasn’t played for more than half a century, along with his four academy award statues?! This is apparently such a common thing for him to do that stories spread across the desert about him!

What’s more, apparently, Rango knows who he is, because he says “people used to call you the Man with No Name”.

And then he talks to Rango! So apparently, Clint Eastwood can talk to animals! He doesn’t find any of it confusing or strange, which in turn makes the beginning of the movie really confusing, because if Clint Eastwood can talk to animals, can all the humans do that? Did the people who OWNED Rango know he could talk?

Again, we get a disconnect between the mundane and the fantastical, except the ambiguity doesn’t make it deep or interesting, just really confusing. Why is he here!?

Wouldn’t it have been more interesting to have Rango meet himself out in the desert? A spectral image of himself, dressed as the Man with No Name, an embodiment of the person he claimed to be, the person the townsfolk all trusted, and THAT is who tells him that ”the deeds make the man” and to go back and ”be the hero”. Then the ambiguity becomes whether it was a hallucination from the heat or a spiritual experience.

As it is, what it all boils down to is, again, a movie where a bunch of animals are pretending to be humans! The villain of the movie, Tortoise John, betrays the secondary antagonist Rattlesnake Jake, telling him that ”there is no room for gunslingers anymore. We’re business men now”. Except who is he doing business with!? He wants to buy up land, so he can build a modern town. But the only valuable commodity in the movie is water, and he already controls that! You have prospectors and bartenders, except what are they working for? What do the animals John tries to buy out the land need the land for?

Both of these movies have animals that are seemingly aspiring to be humans. They copy their manners, their habits, their cultural norms, their society… but why!?

In Rango, if you took out the humans, the movie would actually make more sense! The humans add nothing except confusion. Rango doesn’t need to have been someone’s pet for the plot to work, when all the plot needs to make sense is a traveling actor who decides to remake himself in an unfamiliar area.

The fact that humans also exist in the movie is irrelevant. The only functional aspect humans add to the plot is that there is a water pipe which Tortoise John controls. The same could be accomplished if they discovered there was a dam which John had constructed. The humans exist in the movie to explain that Tortoise John learned from them, which you only have to explain because the movie has humans in it, which they do to explain that john learned from them and round and round and round in circles it goes!

And in Fantastic Mr. Fox, the title character wants to rob the farmers because he’s a fox, and he wants to feel like his old self again, to the detriment of everyone around him, including his family. He lies to his wife and his son feels neglected and yearns for approval… But him stealing from the farmers didn’t need that desire to recapture some natural fox-part of himself. That is only added, because his new life is much more human and non-fox like. You could take that away, and the plot would still work.

And all the extra parts of him inadvertently placing his family in danger by robbing the farmers could still be there. His son feeling inadequate could still be there. But instead of him robbing the farmers out of a need to provide for his family, it’s all about his own personal desires.

Speaking of, let’s take a step back and look the ending of the movie and the things that are a direct consequence of the main characters actions. At the start of the story, these animals are shown to have built up their own society, which is stable and civilized and humane. Their society exists alongside that of humans, and the humans are apparently aware of them enough to be able to communicate. We know this since the farmers receive a written letter from Mr. Fox. Farmer Bean also has a rat working for him, so the two societies clearly intermingle.

And as a DIRECT result of Mr. Fox’s actions, they end up all having to give up that society. Because of him stealing from the farmers, they decimate the forest, dig up the burrows and blows up a hill, forcing all the animals to flee their homes and relocate deep underground. And then, having done all this… the fox and his friends continue to steal from the farmers, which leads to the farmers flooding the tunnels the animals had to flee into, forcing them into the sewers.

Mr. Fox has, in other words, completely destroyed their human-like society, a society where he alone didn’t fit in. And why?

I think I have this thing where I need everyone to think I’m the greatest, the quote-on-quote Fantastic Mr. Fox, and if they aren’t completely knocked out and dazzled and maybe a little intimidated by me, I don’t feel good about myself. Foxes traditionally like to court danger, hunt prey and outsmart predators, and that’s what I’m actually good at

And because of his desires, because of him wanting to be the Fantastic Mr. Fox, because he wants to ”feel good about himself”, he has turned everyone he knows into what basically amounts to refugees! Their society has been completely destroyed, their relationship with humans irreparably shattered. Again, they keep bringing up the fact that they are wild animals, and this is later brought up as the solution to their problem.

The thing that got them all into this mess, namely that Mr. Fox wasn’t being able to accept their more human-like society, ignoring the promise he made to his family, ignoring when the Badger told him not to buy the tree because it’s not a safe area for a fox, because he wanted to ”feel good about himself”… and now his solution is that everyone else should do the exact same thing and follow his lead.

And in so doing, instead of the humans being pissed at one fox, they now hate all the animals who, at the end of the movie, survive by stealing from a supermarket they tunnel into.

And this plot point, of their stable and peaceful society being completely and irreparably destroyed… is presented as a good thing, and a happy ending. Not only do I personally feel this is a bit completely backwards, but also, this plot point would not exist at all, if they hadn’t first decided to make the animals so human-like.

If there was something about the movie where we see how bad this human-like society was, that everyone in it were miserable, or that they were forced to adopt it in spite of their nature, I could maybe understand it. But as it stands, it’s only the titular Fox who has a problem because, again, he wants to ”feel good about himself”.

So in the end, both these movies have this very weird disconnect, which in my opinion only harms them. They can’t seem to make up their mind about how human the animals are supposed to be. It’s as if they each had two very different scripts, which got mixed up and muddled at some point, and now both movies honestly feel… disjointed.

This is on top of another issue I have with one of them which… this isn’t a plot issue or a logic issue, but it comes down to aesthetics. And I’m going to talk about it here because otherwise, when else am I going to?

But before I get into this, I want to make it clear that in the end, I am giving an opinion. I may use factual details to back up those opinions, but this is all ultimately subjective. I feel the need to preface this because the last time I complained about the aesthetics of a kids movie, it was The Boxtrolls, and some people took issue with my opinion.

So when I criticize the aesthetics, let me be clear that I am not, in any way, attacking anyone’s preferences, but only voicing my own personal, subjective opinion, and you are all welcome to put as much or as little value to it as you want.

With that said, let me start by mentioning Quentin Tarantino. It’s a bit of a leap, but humor me. I have said it a few times before on this blog that for the most part, I don’t really like Quentin Tarantino’s movies. With the exceptions of The Hateful Eight and Django Unchained, which I like on account of having a soft spot for western movies, his movies don’t really appeal to me.

The thing is, I can’t actually explain why that is. I can’t point to any particular part of Kill Bill or Death Proof or Reservoir Dogs and say what it is that doesn’t click with me. I don’t think they’re bad, but… they’re just not for me.

This, however, is not the case with Wes Anderson, the director of Fantastic Mr. Fox. Because here, I can point out exactly what it is that I don’t like: I cannot stand the aesthetics he is famous for.

I don’t doubt for a moment that he puts a lot of work into the looks of a scene. I am not saying he doesn’t work hard or that he isn’t dedicated, and I certainly don’t deny that his movies look unique.

But it is a look that I, personally, do not like. And it wasn’t actually until I decided to write about Fantastic Mr. Fox that I could really articulate what it is that bugs me. My issue is that the entire aesthetic feels fake. It feels tiny and artificial and unnatural and plastic and synthetic.

I get the feeling, at all times, like I’m looking at a doll house. It’s not a scene I’m looking at, but a little compartment, like a diorama. Again, I don’t doubt there’s a lot of work that goes into it, but it also doesn’t do much to pull me into the story. On the contrary, it seems designed specifically to keep me at a distance, and never letting me forget that I am a spectator.

With Fantastic Mr. Fox, the consequence is that I never forget that these are puppets. Because that’s what Wes Anderson’s movies feel like to me. Even in live action, I don’t feel like I’m watching a movie, but like I’m watching a director play with dolls.

Contrast with other stop motion movies like Coraline, or Corpse Bride or yes, even The Boxtrolls. With all of those, I forget that they are puppets, because the presentation drags me into the story. I like stop motion movies… but I don’t like THIS stop motion movie.

And again, let me reiterate: If you like these movies, if you think Rango is a masterpiece, or that Fantastic Mr. Fox is an underrated gem, or that Wes Anderson is the best thing to happen to cinema since the invention of celluloid, that’s fine! I don’t necessarily agree, but that’s just a matter of personal preference and opinion.

I’ve said time and time again that no movie is perfect, and I honestly believe that. If someone tells me they don’t like The Lion King, then that is perfectly fine! It’s just subjective taste! Ultimately, what it all comes down to with a movie is if the negatives outweigh the positives. Whether or not the things that bother you about a movie is enough to distract from the good parts. THAT is what makes a movie good or bad.

And to me, these movies feel so confused about what they want to be, and the choices made in them are so weird, that I don’t particularly enjoy either one of them. And some ardent defenders may still object, of course, telling me how all the things I’ve talked about were intentional, and the movies are supposed to be weird and confusing and puzzling.

To which I say fine, but if you make a movie that is weird, puzzling and confusing for its own sake, that does not make your movie automatically good. It just makes it weird, puzzling and confusing.

WTFAW: Harry Potter (Pt. 10)

Ladies and gents, due to circumstances beyond our control, it is time for the first fan theory article of the year.

As such, it appears Dave has decided to mark the occasion by returning us to the ever-present morass of madness that is Harry Potter fan theories.

Dave: Yes! I’d like to share a theory about Dumbledore.

I see. Now, you’ll forgive me for not being overwhelmed by enthusiasm about this. Your track record for theories about him has not exactly been stellar, with such nuggets of brilliance as Dumbledore secretly being Ron Weasley, or Death himself, or that time you tried to argue that he made a horcrux.

But hopefully, this one won’t be quite that stupid. So what is the theory?

Dave: The theory is that Dumbledore is secretely evil!

Well, it’s certainly an… evocative idea, to say the least. Care to elaborate?

Dave: As we find out over the course of the books, Dumbledore is secretely manipulative and uses the people around him for his own ends! He’s just like Slughorn, gathering people around him, except he uses people who are outcasts as his tools, Everyone admires him, but it’s because he’s actually taking advantage of their gratitude!

Is that so?

Dave: Yes! Hagrid was allowed to stay at Hogwarts after his expulsion thanks to him. Dumbledore aided Remus Lupin with his werewolf affliction, and he took in Snape, the repentant death eater! And when he’s reeled them in, he can order them around, drawing on their debts of gratitude for him! Even Harry fits into this, being mistreated by his aunt and uncle, forced to live in a closet under the stairs and given his cousins hand-me-downs. And then, he is bullied for being an outsider, having been raised with muggles. And Dumbledore is the one who placed him there!

I see. This seems less a theory and more of an interpretation, but I’ll allow it, since it’s just packed with problems.

Let’s start with Hagrid and Remus. In both cases, it’s very clear that this is borne from compassion and kindness, helping people who are victims of circumstances beyond their control, rather than manipulation. Hagrid was expelled because Tom Riddle framed him for the murder of Myrtle Warren. Dumbledore, convinced that Hagrid was innocent, arranged for him to remain at Hogwarts as a gamekeeper, since Hagrid had nowhere else to go after losing his father a few year prior.

And Remus, likewise, was bitten by a werewolf and afflicted with lycanthropy as a young child, making him a danger to those around him if he transformed. Dumbledore arranged for the construction of the Shrieking Shack and the planting of the Womping Willow to make sure that Remus could transform without becoming a threat to other students, which allowed him to study at Hogwarts despite his affliction.

And then there’s what you said about Harry, which… where do I even begin with that? Dumbledore placed Harry with the Dursleys specifically because they were his only living relatives, and explains that ”While you can still call home the place where your mother’s blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort”.

Dave: Yes, but didn’t he himself put that spell in place?

Yes, as protection. And he also left them a letter, explaining how Harry’s parents died and, as we’re told when he visited them in the sixth book, made it VERY clear that he hoped they would treat Harry with kindness.

You did not do as I asked. You have never treated Harry as a son. He has known neglect and often cruelty at your hands.

And what’s that bullcrap about Harry being bullied for being an outsider? Almost everyone who meets him are awed by him as ”the Boy who Lived”.

You know who’s is bullied for being an “outsider”? Hermione Granger!

Harry, meanwhile faces no similar behavior. You know what’s is the most egregious example of him being bullied for being an outsider? His first meeting with Snape. And yes, like we’ve talked about before, even that was Snape bullying him because Snape has a grudge against Harry’s father!

And speaking of Snape, let’s be very clear about something. Snape wasn’t an outcast! We’re shown that he was being bullied by James Potter at school, but by the time he was a Death Eater, that wasn’t the case any longer.

Also, I think it’s kind of inaccurate to call him a ”repentant” Death Eater. He only turned away from Voldemort once Lily was threatened. Up until then, he was a willing, knowing and EAGER member! The reason he ever found out about the risk to Lily’s life was because he was the one who told Voldemort about the prophecy!

I’m just gonna go out on a limb and say that you don’t get to speak directly to Voldemort as a Death Eater unless you’re quite special. And this was when Snape was 21 years old, mind you! He talked about wanting to join Voldemort in his fifth year at Hogwarts, when he was 15!

With the exception of Lily Evans, Snape had no problem whatsoever calling muggleborns Mudblood. At school, he was a bit gloomy, but he was certainly not alone. Lily Evans was his friend, which became more and more controversial over the years, since he was also friends with aspiring Death Eaters. Other people in school were wary of him because of those friends, and he later BECAME a Death Eater and was one for years! This is the group that were murdering people long, long before Severus Snape joined them, and continued to do so until Voldemort was defeated. Snape was not only aware of this, but he was almost certainly actively involved in some of those murders after he joined

Dumbledore didn’t take Snape into his service because Snape was an outcast. In fact, this whole idea would rely on Snape owing Dumbledore a debt of gratitude, except Lily still died! So Dumbledore’s supposed ”manipulation of gratitude” doesn’t apply here at all!

Instead, what we see is Dumbledore first being chastising, then guiding towards Snape, admonishing him for his more selfish traits and encouraging his more noble ones.

Dave: Aaah, but that is also part of his manipulation! After all, there’s this exchange between the two after Lily and James died.

– I thought… you were going… to keep her… safe…
– She and James put their faith in the wrong person. Rather like you, Severus.

Ok. What about it?

Dave: Well, what is he actually saying there? He’s saying James, Lily and Severus all placed their faith in the wrong person, but the way he phrases it means he is referring to himself! They trusted Dumbledore to keep them safe, but Dumbledore knew that Lily and James had to die for the prophecy to come true! He sacrificed them for his grand plan, betraying them all!

It’s an imaginative take, don’t get me wrong, but also one that doesn’t hold up.

Dave: Why not?

Simple. Let’s look at the prophecy, shall we?

The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches. Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies. and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not. And either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies.

That, right there, is the totality of the prophecy.

Dave: Yes. And…?

And at no point does it mention anything about James and Lily dying! It doesn’t specify that Lily will give her life for Harry, and that this act of love will protect him, just that Voldemort ”will mark him as his equal” and that ”he will have power the Dark Lord knows not”.

In other words, Dumbledore would have no reason to sacrifice James and Lily to Voldemort!

As for who he IS referring to, I can’t help but notice you conveniently ignoring the literal next thing he says.

“Weren’t you hoping that Lord Voldemort would spare her?“

That would suggest that maybe, just maybe, he might not be referring to himself.

And going back to James and Lily, there’s another question important question to consider; HOW exactly is he supposed to have betrayed or sacrificed Lily and James? He offered to become their secret-keeper, the one person on Earth who could possibly betray their confidence and reveal their location to Voldemort… and they declined that offer! By the very nature of the spell that hid them, he couldn’t have betrayed them even if he wanted to! It was Peter Pettigrew who betrayed them, not Dumbledore! THAT is the ”wrong person” they put their faith into!

He didn’t tell them who to make the secret-keeper, and in fact, everyone who knew about the spell that was used to hide them believed that Sirius Black was the one chosen!

Dave: Aah, that’s a point! Sirius Black!

What about him?

Dave: Dumbledore took Sirius Black in, hoping to make him join, but realized that he made a mistake! Sirius was a rebel, not an outcast, and he wasn’t going to just follow instructions blindly. His loyalties were with Harry, not Dumbledore, and because Dumbledore has no use for those who won’t obey him, he abandoned Sirius!

Wait, but… How would… What!?

What do you mean ”abandoned him”? When did Dumbledore ever abandon Sirius? Are we just completely ignoring that he was a member of the Order of the Phoenix, and was from the time it started?

And going back to the point about ”outcasts”, First of all, Dumbledore didn’t ”take Sirius in” or help him, or cultivate a debt of gratitude like you claim he did with Hagrid and Remus. James Potter did that! James befriended him and took him in when his family disowned him And James, likewise, wasn’t a member of the Order because he was an outcast! He was renowned as a very skilled quidditch-player, he was made Head Boy of Gryffindor, and by all accounts, he was popular and generally well-liked! Lily Evans was also remarked as a very talented witch by people who knew her! That didn’t stop either of them joining the Order of the Phoenix!

And the other members, apart from Sirius, Remus and Hagrid, James and Lily Potter included Alice and Frank Longbottom, Elphias Doge and Alastor Moody.

Following Voldemorts return and the reforming of the Order, it was joined by Molly and Arthur Weasley, their two oldest sons Charlie and Bill, Minerva McGonagall, Kingsley Shacklebolt and Nymphadora Tonks! These are not what you could call outcasts, with Kinsgley, Moody, McGonagall and Doge being very, VERY highly respected!

Dave: Yes, but after Voldemorts return, Sirius’ loyalties lay firmly with Harry, which is why Dumbledore abandoned him!

There you go again! How did Dumbledore abandon Sirius?

Dave: Well, he refused to let Sirius help out the Order of the Phoenix!

No, Sirius wasn’t able to help, because he was still a wanted man at the time, believed to be responsible for the death of more than a dozen people. The members of the Order could strategize and coordinate, and perform various tasks that needed doing in their capacities as free citizens. Sirius could not, which is something that frustrated him greatly.

He was only exonerated after his death, after Voldemort was shown to have truly returned, and Harry, Ron and Hermione’s testimonies were proven to be true. It’s not like Dumbledore arranged to keep Sirius under suspicion. He was in absolutely no position to do anything about it!

And again, like with Lily and James supposedly being betrayed, why would he want to!?

Let’s suppose Sirius is only truly loyal to Harry. But why couldn’t he also be loyal to Dumbledore and the Order, when serving the latter is protecting the former?

Dave: Well… Ah, because if his loyalties lay mainly with Harry, he wouldn’t blindly follow Dumbledore’s orders.

What orders!? What orders are we shown that Dumbledore gives to anyone, which he would need to wield peoples gratitude to him for?

Dave: Well, he sent Hagrid to bargain with giants.

Which he did on account of Hagrid being a half giant. And he didn’t send him alone, but with Olympe Maxime, another half-giant and who, need I remind you, was the headmaster of another school and, as such, was not in any single way even slightly an ”outcast”!

Dave: We’re told Remus is sent on missions by the Order…

But we’re never told exactly what those missions are, and have no reason to suppose that they are nefarious in nature. You’re painting him some kind of magical Vito Corleone, but you have no actual evidence to back that up!

Dave: There’s also Arthur Weasley, who is attacked by Nagini and almost dies!

Yes, but again, Arthur Weasley isn’t an outcast! The only people who consider him an outcast are people who think he’s a blood traitor. As in pure-blood supremacists, the people who are working with or sympathize with Voldemort and his views!

And when Harry is tricked by Voldemort that Sirius is in danger, and goes to the Department of Mystery to save him, he first relays a message to Snape that Sirius is in danger. When Sirius later shows up at the ministry, it is along with other members of the order, including Dumbledore himself, which to me would suggest that Sirius Black is not in any way, shape or form ”abandoned”! And why would he be? What would Dumbledore actually have to gain from that?

Dave: Well, maybe it’s part of his plan! After all, Sirius would never agree to Dumbledore’s plan to defeat Voldemort, because it involved Harry sacrificing his life! He’s too loyal to Harry!

OK, I will admit, that is a possible reason for Dumbledore to be dubious, but it doesn’t change the fact that Dumbledore isn’t actually involved in Sirius’ death.

Sirius didn’t die because he was abandoned, but because he got reckless and unlucky fighting his own cousin, who killed him in a duel!

Or are you arguing that Dumbledore purposefully orchestrated this? Because if so, that’s a hell of a lot of work, requiring outright precognitive powers of planning, all to solve a problem that he could probably solve by just explaining things to Sirius!

Remember, Dumbledore’s plan regarding the Horcruxes, specifically the one within Harry, is that if Voldemort kills him, it’ll destroy the horcrux. And if Harry also willingly goes to his death, then his sacrifice will repeat the magic created when Lily gave her life for his, protecting everyone else from Voldemort.

This part, I will concede, would be viewed as dubious and questionable, sacrificing an innocent person for the greater good.

Dave: Aha, you see!

However, that all changed the moment he learned Voldemort used Harry’s blood to restore his body, since that meant the protection that Lily gave him still protects him, since it survives in Voldemort! In other words, Harry would not die, and him not knowing that would help everyone else!

Dave: But even then, Sirius would never accept Harry willingly going to his death, even if it’s a lie!

Except he did! Harry meets him again, using the resurecction stone in the seventh book, along with Remus, James and Lily. He makes it clear what he is planning to do, and none of them try to dissuade him! They respect his decision and recognise that it is his choice to make, offering comfort and reassurance to him.

So even if Dumbledore could have arranged for Sirius’ death (which he didn’t) there would have been no need to. At worst, Sirius might have told Harry that he wouldn’t die, which wouldn’t stop Dumbledore’s plan to stop Voldemort anyway!

But him scheming to kill Sirius is even MORE of a bad idea, since that’d almost certainly alienate Harry from him and he’d never trust him again if it came to light, which is a FAR greater risk to the plan! It makes absolutely no sense that he’d do that, even in this interpretation of him as a manipulative, scheming villain!

So really, what is there that makes Dumbledore so supposedly evil? The people who follow him do so because of his wisdom, brilliance and kindness, and by all accounts, he helps people out of genuine empathy and compassion!

Here’s the thing about this idea, in my view. We find out, over the course of the books, especially the seventh, that Dumbledore isn’t really the spotless, perfectly idealized wizard we thought he was. We learned that he had a bit of nuance, and that his wisdom, compassion and patience came from experience, wanting to be better than the reckless, selfish man he once was.

But as a result, the pendulum has swung the other way in the eyes of some fans, and Dumbledore is now suddenly a secretly evil character. All his kindness becomes manipulation and scheming. He doesn’t help people because he’s compassionate, but because they may be useful to him later. It’s just another example of the Snape Effect. A heroic character turns out to be less-than-perfect, so he immediately is reimagined as a villain. It’s a ridiculous black and white, binary view of morality.

And what really bugs me with this… again, I hesitate to call it a ”theory” so much as ”an interpretation”, isn’t actually that it’s stupid and nonsensical. I can confess that this theory is not as stupid or insane as Dumbledore secretely being Ron Weasley.

Instead, it’s far, far worse, simple because it’s so BORING! I mean, ultimately, what is this theory actually saying? What is it really accomplishing, beyond ”What if [Good Guy] is actually EEEVIIILL”?

This is just the Qui-Gon Jinn theory or Darth Jar-Jar all over again, where they have this supposed scheming, hidden machiavellian agenda that for some reason involves rejecting power and influence, never capitalizing on their opportunities and comitting acts of self-sacrifice!

And for what? What is Dumbledore’s great goal, the sinister purpose he’s manipulating and scheming to accomplish? Remember, he was offered the post of Minister of Magic multiple times, and declined the offer, because he didn’t trust himself with that power. So what does he want to do?

Stop Voldemort and save the world from an evil wizard? Giving his own life to destroy a dangerously powerful magical artifact, and planning to ensure his death doesn’t scar an innocent young man? That selfish, nefarious monster, fighting and working for… The Common Good!? Understanding and Compassion?! Clearly, this is the TRUE villain of the franchise!

So either he is the least effective scheming hidden overlord in literary history, Dave, or this interpretation is just a big pile of cynical, nonsensical claptrap!

I’ll give you three guesses for which one it definitely is.

Dave: Oh, in that case, I-

Or rather, I would, except I’m pretty sure you’d somehow manage to get it wrong all three times anyway.

Back to Main Page