The Harry Potter series has become a test of intellectual honesty And not only

'Absolutely not', 'Absolutely not'. These are not the answers I would give if I were asked to mediate a dialogue between General Vannacci and Congresswoman Elly Schlein, but they are those given by Ally Pankiw to the proposal to work on the new Harry Potter series HBO. Pankiw, director of Black Mirror, Feel Good and The Great, was asked to direct the new adaptation of J.K. Rowling's novels and her answer was unquestionable: “It's easy to say no to those who donate funds to transphobia.” A short time later Kate Herron, director of the first season of Loki, revealed that she had received and refused the same proposal twice.

The rejection of Harry Potter that causes a sensation

Why, however, did a refusal to collaborate cause such a sensation? The artistic and creative projects initially always involve thousands of people who then do not take part in the plan, it's nothing strange. In this case, however, there is something else, because we are not talking about any project, but about the umpteenth child product of J.K. Rowling. For those who missed the previous chapters, in a very short time, the creator of Harry Potter has been promoting a transphobic ideal for years, excluding trans* people from their activism, even going so far as to finance organizations designed to silence movements and spaces dedicated to them. Faced with such a tranquil attitude, it would be normal to think that projects related to Rowling's creative universe should be less and less supported and considered, right? Wrong. In fact, we are faced with yet another project linked to the most famous wizard of the millennium, in which more than 5 and a half billion dollars have been invested. Basically because, the economy, doesn't give a damn about morality.

Criticism of the cast of the new HBO series on Harry Potter

Something, however, at least in part is changing. Since the series was announced, several members of the cast and production have been criticized precisely for deciding to work on a project related to Rowling. Not only because the writer has expressed controversial opinions, but because she will be executive producer of the series and continues to be directly involved in the franchise and to actively benefit from it. Why, then, is distancing itself from it so complex?

Taking a stand is not and should not be considered impossible.

The problem is that we have begun to confuse the complexity of the world with the impossibility of taking a stand. As if the fact of not being able to be morally perfect meant that everything is legal, that the route for tricks is always busy and functional. Not all contradictions are the same, though. We can say we are against capitalism and continue to live in a capitalist society because, individually, the opposite is impossible. But there are situations in which, instead, the choice is in front of us and within reach. To work or not to work on a project. Accept or decline a collaboration. To give or not to give your name, talent and audience to something. This is where politics ceases to be an abstract thing and that we ideally promote and begins to be a concrete thing, which we translate into actions. Preaching is relatively simple. We can declare ourselves feminist, anti-racist, share infographics and put flags in the biographies of our profiles. The significant moment comes when those values ask us for something in return. Money, opportunity, visibility, work. That's when we discover how much we really believe in it.

This doesn't mean that everyone who works on the Harry Potter series is automatically a transphobic, ugly, and evil person. However, it means that it is impossible to claim to be on the side of the trans* community and to pretend that directly contributing to making Rowling's franchise even richer and more powerful has nothing to do with that choice. You can do it, of course. You can accept the job, decide that the opportunity is too important to give it up. It would be appropriate, however, to balance one's actions with intellectual honesty and admit that, at that moment, personal interests came before ideals.

We don't have to pass a moral exam, but be a little practical yes

And that's okay, human beings are inconsistent, we all are. But there is a difference between being inconsistent because we live in a system from which we cannot escape and consciously choosing to do something that goes against what we say we believe in. Not being able to do everything doesn't mean you can't do anything. Not being perfect doesn't mean that all inconsistencies carry the same weight. When we talk about being on the right side, we are not referring to the need to always find the perfect answer, because it doesn't exist. We don't intend to pass a moral purity exam. It's about having principles and allowing them, every now and then, to have consequences. Because if our ethics never cost us anything and doesn't influence our decisions, then maybe we haven't really sided but we've only learned to use the right words.