SciFi Scanner

Science Fiction Movies, News and Discussion

Mary Robinette Kowal - Why Do Fantasy Movies Always Kill the Parents?

HarryPotter_560x330_MCDHAPO_EC628_H.jpg

If you're like most Americans, you spent yesterday saturated in turkey and surrounded by family. This is the season for family, and as much as we might love our families, there are will be times over the next month when we'll think that life would be so much easier if we didn't have to deal with them. But think about what would happen if they actually weren't around. There's a curious tendency for heroes in fantasy movies to be orphaned, or at least separated from their parents by some great calamity. Why is it so hard for fantasy heroes to hold onto their parents? Well, there are actually several different benefits to orphaning the young lad or lady. Today we'll take a look at what happens in fantasy when you take the parents out of the picture.

James and the Giant Peach (1996)
When trouble rears its head, you'd expect a young boy to turn to his parents for help. But taking the parents out of the equation, as director Henry Selick does in this Roald Dahl adaptation, removes that safety net. James (Paul Terry) loses his parents at the beginning of the movie after a rhinoceros descends from the clouds to eat them. He gets sent to live with his aunts Spiker (Joanne Lumley) and Sponge (Miriam Margolyes), who are far from supportive. He's lost his safety net, sure. But he's also been given license to break the rules -- which allows him to go on his peachy New York adventure. By the end of the movie, James has become fully self-sufficient.

A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)
The Baudelaire children also lose their parents in freak accident: A fire which destroys their family home. The three siblings are sent to live with their closest living relative, Count Olaf (Jim Carrey), but soon discover that he is a swindler intent on gaining their inheritance. They've lost their parents, but that loss empowers them to become the authority figures themselves: As our three young heroes come to suspect that Count Olaf is behind the death of their parents, they seek to solve the mystery and punish the perpetrator. Being suddenly orphaned is a powerful motivator.

The Princess Bride (1987)
Our orphan in this case is not the main character, though Wesley's (Carey Elwes) parents are curiously absent from the movie. Here we have Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin), the archetype of the vengeful orphan. In countless fantasy flicks, the murder of the hero's parents drives him or her to seek out vengeance. Though few of them state it so boldly, Inigo tells it like it is: "You killed my father, prepare to die." Vengeance is a powerful driving force for heroes, and it gives them a determination that keeps that plot moving forwards.

Pirates of the Caribbean (2003)
Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) carries a gold coin -- all he has left from his father. Then he finds out ole' Bootstrap Bill was actually a pirate. Will's internal struggle between loyalty to his father's memory and guilt that Turner Sr. was a criminal lends him a gravitas that male ingenues are often lacking. It also serves as a convenient plot point: Pirates killed his father because of that gold coin. By sending it to Will, he has doomed said pirates to a well-deserved curse. When Will returns the coin, he simultaneously reconciles the memory of his father and secures the movie's happily-ever-after ending. Until the sequel, of course.

Harry Potter (2001)
At the moment, poor Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) is our highest profile orphan. The first chapter begins with Dumbledore (Richard Harris) delivering baby Harry to his aunt and uncle after He Who Must Not Be Named kills Harry's parents. Now why did J.K Rowling feel compelled to do that to such a nice young boy? Well, it gives him the usual lack of safety net and quest for vengeance, but in this case it also adds a particularly magical element: When Harry's mother dies protecting her son, the rules of the Potterverse dictate that Harry is eternally guarded by his mother's love. This becomes an increasingly important plot point as the films unfold -- it's very existence shapes the entire conflict and negates the possibility of Harry Potter playing out in any other way. A bummer for Harry, to be sure, but good fun for us.

What other reasons can you think of to orphan a fantasy hero?

Mary Robinette Kowal is the winner of the 2008 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer. She is also the art director at Shimmer Magazine and a professional puppeteer. Her column appears every Friday.

  • Comments (7)
  • (2)
  • Email
  • Link
  • Add This!

Filed under: Mary Robinette Kowal
Tags: a series of unfortunate events, harry potter, james and the giant peach, pirates of the caribbean, the princess bride

Comments

user-pic

I think as one author put it, it gives the chance for a hero to grow. And that the real fun begins without parents around.

default userpic

forget the bogey man. losing your parents it is the ultimate childhood horror. children are completely dependant upon their parents, and they're fully aware of it. there is no food. no shelter. no protection. no love. nothing. the world is a terrifying and dangerous place without parents, it's much more so.

at the same time, any child will tell you that - due to their vary nature, parents stand in the way. would little inigo montoya been allowed to pick up a sword? probably not. it's sharp and pointy and dangerous.

default userpic

Batman would be another high-profile orphan right now. He may be getting some closure in the "Batman RIP" storyline in the comics, but as far as the movies go, he's still an orphan with some serious parental issues. And if his parents hadn't been murdered, just think how much worse Gotham would be. I mean, it's not exactly the safest place to live now.

http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/2008/11/five-original-movie-superheroes.php

user-pic

Roald Dahl obviously had issues with parents being just as bad (if not worse, ie: Matilda) than their children. I think, in the case of the Chosen One Syndrome, it makes the child in question that much more special. Because the watcher is identifying with the MC, it makes the watcher that much more special as well.

I always like seeing family dynamics used together to help -- like in the Incredibles, Spy Kids, or Meet the Robinsons. To me this seems a rarer occurrence than Orphaning the MC...perhaps it's harder to pull off?

As for the Princess Bride, I understand why Buttercup's parents were left out of the movie (time, and the fact that they would have stolen the show and then never showed up again for the rest of the film), but they are some of my favorite characters in the book.

default userpic

There are orphans, and then there are orphans. Even if the parents don't get whacked by the mighty cleaver of prophecy in the beginning, the main character is often separated from her parents by something -- whether it be physical or emotional. This is because parents, by their definition (at least, the one I'm operating under) prevent the truly dreadful things from happening to their kids as much as possible. But what kind of story would it be if awful things didn't happen?

And now that I'm readying the above comments, I see I'm not saying anything original. So, ummm... Pink Leopard Washing Machine! There. No one else said that yet.

default userpic

Not just Batman, but Spider-Man as well. Not only did he lose his parents, he was partially responsible for his Uncle Ben dying.

user-pic

Alethea: You remind me that one reason for orphaning a main character is that then they get to choose their own family. I mean, Harry Potter created a new family for himself with Ron and Hermione. What are the chances that one's birth family would have all the skills needed in your average fantasy plot?

Oliver: Pink Leopard!

Catplothole: That's a good point. Just because the hero gets a new family doesn't mean they are safe.


Leave a comment