Re: Radcliffe, Grint and Watson

santosh wrote:
In article
Tweedle Dee <kvanka@xxxxxx> wrote on Monday 26 Nov 2007 8:06 am:

I've just been rewatching all the HP movies. Here's an assessment of
the trio:

(i) Radcliffe: Began a little shakily with PS, but has grown in
stature and confidence since then. I like his sense of calm, and he
has a certain reserve in his acting.

You mean, he is as stiff now (no pun intended), as he was then?

That suits his character well - because Harry Potter is a natural leader, and a good leader has to
have a higher level of maturity than those he leads and the ability to
remain calm in the face of adversity. Radcliffe gives the character of
Harry that sense of poise.

Well, I disagree. I don't see any such thing. He seems tentative and
stiff, but you are right. Ill suited to the role he may be, but he has
improved with each film. At this rate, his acting will become tolerable
by the last film.

(ii) Grint:

'nuff said. My dislike for ron means that I will be _very_ likely to ill
judge the actor portraying him too.

I thought Grint was okay in PS, but then, his performance took a nosedive in CoS - he just mugged his way all through the movie.
That was a one note performance that got old really quick for me. He
has improved since then, however, and he was okay in PoA and gave a
pretty good account of himself in GoF.

IMO, Grint was okay in films one and two, but has bombed out since then.
OotP would have hardly changed if he had not been there at all.
Something changed in (PoA)...

<snip about portraying "ron">

I disagree. ron, IMO, is the easiest of the Trio to portray. All you
have to do is bicker and be a jerk all the time, and that is when your
mouth is not stuffed full with food.
(iii) Watson: This is the one role that I have real issues with. I
think both Radcliffe and Grint were a little slow off the blocks,

Little slow? They are still crawling.

but have grown into their roles as the series has progressed. Emma Watson,
on the other hand, has gone the other way.

Again I disagree. She has undoubtedly portrayed her character by far the
best, among the three.

<snip about Watson's acting>

I think Watson has become a distinct liability in the series,
and I wouldn't mind too much if she got replaced in HBP.

Besides the fact that if Watson is bad to be replaced then Radcliffe and
Grint would have to leave miles before her, it is too late now to
sensibly do anything of that sort, unless the actor herself declines.

Bad acting or not, million have developed a "mental image" of Harry,
Hermione and ron of the movies and it would upset too many people's
expectation to bring in a totally new face for such a central character

I still remember the fuss that folks raised when Richard Harris expired
and had to be replaced. Many people purposely heaped flak on Gambon
just because their "image" of Dumbledore was disturbed, and this was
only two films into the series.

On the contrary I suspect that WB have done a lot of "behind-the-scenes"
persuasion with Watson to get her to agree to the last two films;
remember she wasn't too keen on doing them.

HBP is the one book where the character of Hermione has to show some range -

Range? HBP is one book where Rowling strips Hermione of all emotional
range and maturity and has her act like a spoilt, small girl.

jealousy at Ron, a little streak of meanness, a mature sisterliness
toward Ginny and Harry, and also embarrassment at the end when she
realizes that Harry was right all along about Malfoy being upto
something. I just don't think Emma Watson is going to be able to
portray all of that in the movie - she seems to have the "emotional
range of a teaspoon" as Hermione in the series.

Look, all the actors portraying the Trio are so far below standards
(mine anyway) that their relative difference would be totally
insignificant and the best thing, I think, that WB can do for this
series is to take it through to the end without any major upsets and

Hopefully a second series someone decides to do (and hopefully, this
time, it would be in Europe instead of Hollywood), should be watchable.

Perhaps you aren't aware that all the movies have been shot many thousands of miles away from Hollywood. This makes me doubt the opinions you express. Assessing the acting of children is rather difficult, especially since the director is responsible for HOW a character is portrayed as much as is the writer, or the actor. Given that, I don't see how reasonable people can expect children 11-15 to have the range, and depth, or ability, and experience of an adult who has been in the business for 30 years. I think Emma Watson was badly miscast, and that makes her job rather difficult. Gambon, on the other hand has none of these critical 'protections', except for the lack of understanding of the character of directors of the last 3 movies. It really should be required that the director READ THE BOOKS. Where the Gambon portrayal of Dumbledore came from is a mystery to me, as it certainly is NOT the Dumbledore in the books.