Promiscuous Boy: Harry Potter takes it all off
#21
Darq Ali Wrote:Marlyn Monroe. Pete Rose. Francis Farmer. Whoever that rap guy who got shot and killed was

I assume you mean Tupac Shakur. Although Notorious B.I.G. (ne Christopher Wallace) was also shot and killed.

Quote:and the other one who is in prison for murder.

I'm guessing you mean Snoop Doggy Dog (ne Calvin Broadus, Jr.), but this is only a guess, and Snoop was acquitted.

Quote:The lady who just publiclly shaved her head.

Brittney Spears

Quote:River Pheonix, who died of drugs. John Belushi. Ye gods, I am terrible with names and I can keep listing them.

Great examples. Since you've listed seven (or eight, if we count both Shakur and B.I.G.) I'll go ahead and list the same number and match them:

Greta Garbo and Lauren Bacall. Lou Gehrig and Willie Mays. Lucille Ball and Shirley Temple (Black). Adam Yauch (MCA of the Beastie Boys) and Joseph Simmons (Rev Run of Run-D.M.C.). Alanis Morisette and Jewel (Jewel Kilcher). Jimmy Stewart and Bob Hope. Dan Akroyd and Tom Hanks.

Quote:People who live 'public lives' in careers in performance are often very self destructive. Or so it seems to me. But then, my knowledge of such matters comes because I can't filter it out. Perhpas most of them are just as sane and normal and happy and healthy as the rest of us but I don't know it.

Well, this is my contentions. People are, at the end of the day, just people. Some self-destruct, others don't. I don't believe that those who find themselves or place themselves in public lives "are often very self destructive." I haven't seen any evidence to prove that just because an individual becomes famous, they must now reserve their place at the Betty Ford Clinic and prepare their PR people with a statement that says, "Recovering from exhaustion" before they go on to their "great comeback" or an early grave.

Quote:More specific comments later when I have time.

I can hardly wait.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#22
Are the Harry Potter actors maturing faster than the characters?
Reply
#23
With a couple of years in between filming the movies, the actors have out-aged the characters they play. I think they were the correct ages for the first two movies, but not anymore. Going into OotP, the characters are 15-16 range, but the actors are about 17-18 range.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#24
just wait until the 7th movie won't even look slightly like the characters!! But I dont want them to bring new people in it would spoil it. Dilemma!

:blow: :crazy: 2100 posts!:crown: :blow:
Shorey for England!
Reading fans


RoCk On SnOw PaTrOl

- Kwik Silva 44
Reply
#25
Note on "Equus" - it really is one of the classics of modern drama - I read it in high school on my own, and then in college for a class, and honestly, had I not been reminded that it had a nude scene, I wouldn't have remembered that (having never seen it produced live.) As I recall, one of the main plot points is the boy's desire to ride horses naked ... and that he blinds the horses because they see him fooling around with a girl. But it didn't stick in my mind that the actor actually was naked on stage, although now I do remember that. The original actor Peter Firth had a prolific career (although he was largely unknown beforehand) afterwards, as did Tom Hulce who played the role on Broadway after Firth (he will always be remembered as Pinto in "Animal House," and was nominated for an Oscar for "Amadeus.") So it didn't hurt them. Few Harry Potter fans will fly all the way to the UK to see the play, so the worst thing that could happen is that they will form a negative opinion based on what they have heard or read... but like with anything fandom-re,ated, while millions of people read Harry Potter books, and tens of millions see the movies... it's questionable if any significant number even remember the name of the actor who plays him. So somehow I think that Radcliffe's career isn't really going to be affected, apart from entertainment people now knowing that he can do stage work, as well as "serious" roles.
August  - Jack's Pack Fan # 1, Keeper of the List, 3-Time Speaker of the JoAT Fan Quote of the Week, and the only person ever to have Back 2 Back Jack and Cleo fan quotes !
Reply
#26
august Wrote:So somehow I think that Radcliffe's career isn't really going to be affected, apart from entertainment people now knowing that he can do stage work, as well as "serious" roles.

Thanks for the review, august! Given the brief outline provided of the play, I wouldn't have considered reading it, or seeing it, at all. Nice to have your insight.

The question (at least the one that I was adressing), was not if Radcliffe's career would continue, but rather, why he picked this particular role. I agree completely that this was a move he made for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that he wants a career, and not one solely built from Harry Potter.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#27
Ah - I can actually give you a bit more about the play. :bg: In the 70's, it was the serious play of its era. Especially because it required very little in the way of sets and costumes ( :leech: well, beyond the nude scenes, it still required very little :laugh: ) The set is traditionally an abstract design, which requires a bit of lumber and carpentry for the scene designers, but no real furniture or anything. It was written by Sir Peter Shaffer, who is now perhaps better known for "Amadeus" but has had hits with other plays since the 50's including "Royal Hunt of the Sun" (about the Spanish conquest of the Incas - yep, it's a stage play!) "Black Comedy" (I did publicity for a production of this in college) "5 Finger Exercise," and "Lettice and Lovage" (Minerva McGonagall actress Maggie Smith did this on stage to great acclaim.) He's one of the world's greatest living playwrights, and so this wasn't a sensationalistic play at all - this was just a revival of one of his greatest works.

It was supposedly based on a true story - a stableboy who blinded some horses. So the plot is basically about a psychiatrist treating the boy, trying to find out why. The star is the doctor, and it's a popular role, as it can be done by any middle aged male actor (just like Salieri in "Amadeus.") Alec McCowan did it originally, and both Anthony Perkins and Anthony Hopkins played the role on Broadway. When Richard Burton was preparing for the movie version, he wanted to get some experience doing it on stage first, so one night an audience heard the announcement "Anthony Hopkins will not be performing the lead tonight." Loud sounds of sighs and groans of disappointment. "In his place will be Richard Burton." :poke: Hails of joyous, surprised applause.

What he discovers is that the boy has led a very repressed life, and is able to tap into this primordial hallucination of a horse-god, and in doing so is able to express himself. The doctors realizes that in the boy's madness, he is far more free than the repressed clinical life of the doctor. But eventually, a real-life girl seduces the boy in the stable, and the boy's mind snaps with the guilt of it.

Another aspect of the show was the use of human actors as the horses. Obviously you can't get a live horse to act on stage, so they have six human actors - often trained gymnasts or dancers - who wear abstract headgear sort of suggesting the outline of a horse's head. They pantomime the actions of the horses (making this a pantomime horse, I guess, but not the Monty Python variety Wink ) and while this sort of thing had been done in experimental and avante-garde theatre for decades, I believe this was one of the first times something so abstract had been a madly popular commercial success. The wooden design of the stage gets incorporated into the "action" so at one point part of it swirls around in a circles to replicate the effect of galloping, from the point of view of the boy. "Equus" is the name the boy gives to his imaginary horse-god.

I have always wished I were in a city where it was done live. They did it at my college 3 months before I arrived as a freshman - the dept. chairman actually played the doctor. And sure enough, a year later, they did it at the college in my home town - while I was 8 hours away at my college. :angry:

This was a big enough play in its day, that when my best friend went to England for a few weeks with his parents, one of the presents he brought me back was a paperback copy of the script, which I have to this day. It wasn't out in print in the US yet, and it was big enough a deal for us both to want to read it as soon as we could.

Nudity on stage is of course not that big a deal these days, especially in the UK. (Remember that Nicole Kidman did a nude scene in a revival of "The Blue Room" a few years back, and I think Danielle Cormack (Ephiny on Herc + Xena) was briefly nude when she and Kevin Smith did "The Blue Room" in NZ. And the new version of "The Graduate" has a brief nude scene w/ Mrs. Robinson, I believe.) I think the key is that Radcliffe is certainly one of the biggest "serious" actors of his age in the UK.... and this is as important a role for a young man in theatre as, say, Romeo is. Just from a different era. If he'd turned it down, we might have seen, oh, Max Perkis do it. Or Rupert Grint! :laugh:
August  - Jack's Pack Fan # 1, Keeper of the List, 3-Time Speaker of the JoAT Fan Quote of the Week, and the only person ever to have Back 2 Back Jack and Cleo fan quotes !
Reply
#28
RobRoy Wrote:The question (at least the one that I was adressing), was not if Radcliffe's career would continue, but rather, why he picked this particular role. I agree completely that this was a move he made for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that he wants a career, and not one solely built from Harry Potter.

Exactly what the article quotes him as saying: That he knows that some people will ever see him as 'Harry Potter' and no one else, but that he wants to act, and that he isn't Harry Potter, he is an actor {who once played that character}.

And I said, it shouldn't matter that some people will mind he takes a much more 'adult' role.

If he wants to act, he has to offer his services on the market. He has to please the people who will employ him. Once he has a role, he has to present work that many will recieve well, so that audiences and critics alike will respond in such a way as to make him employable again.

No actor is going to please all the people all the time. He can't expect to. If some people don't like his moving on with his life, so be it; if he lets them control his choices, they will cripple his life. Yes, some won't like it. Of greater import is the reception his acting recieves from his current employers, the audience who actually sees this play, and the critisc. And the young man himself: How he feels about his own work, how comfortable he was in a this specific work, a stage play {not a movie}, and an adult work requiring adult behavior.

Those are the things that should matter to him.

And none of it matters to me. I think the books are interesting, but don't think the movies are in any way exceptional. If you haven't read the books, a great deal of the movies don't even make much sense. And for the kids, the books offer many life lessons and role models. The movies, not so much.
Reply
#29
*shrug* I've never read the books, but I followed the films easily enough - they didn't really seem overly complicated for me. And as for life lessons and role models, they seemed about the same as any kids' movie to me, just a tad more subversive, as the main characters seemed far more intelligent and virtuous and brave than a number of the adults. But that's the same with half of the Disney movies I've seen (and that's got to be a hundred or more if you count the ones for TV.)
August  - Jack's Pack Fan # 1, Keeper of the List, 3-Time Speaker of the JoAT Fan Quote of the Week, and the only person ever to have Back 2 Back Jack and Cleo fan quotes !
Reply
#30
august Wrote:*shrug* I've never read the books, but I followed the films easily enough - they didn't really seem overly complicated for me. And as for life lessons and role models, they seemed about the same as any kids' movie to me, just a tad more subversive, as the main characters seemed far more intelligent and virtuous and brave than a number of the adults. But that's the same with half of the Disney movies I've seen (and that's got to be a hundred or more if you count the ones for TV.)

I didn't say the movies were too complicated. I said they don't make a lot of sense

The earliest of the HP books are fairly good teaching aids, in that they are easy enough to read, generally hold the child's interest, and have some very good life lessons to impart, apart from just being rousing good tales.

If you have not read the books, you don't really know Harry's story at all, at all {as my Irish grandmother would say}. The films are but an outline, and a poor one at that. And what they leave out are the most important parts.
Reply
#31
The thread was split to accommodate the change of subject that happened during drift. Go here for the new thread. Arcadia.
Reply
#32
What disturbs me is that Radcliffe is still a minor. One assumes that his parents (or other adult advisors) condoned this move. If he were older and did this I would not find it so worrisome- but he is a child. A few years down the line will he say it was a youthful mistake?
Reply
#33
Arcadia Wrote:What disturbs me is that Radcliffe is still a minor. One assumes that his parents (or other adult advisors) condoned this move. If he were older and did this I would not find it so worrisome- but he is a child. A few years down the line will he say it was a youthful mistake?

That's an interesting point. I still recall the flap over Traci Lords and her . . . ahem, movie career while still a legal minor. The UK legal adult age is similar to the US's, that being 18 (Rowlings even makes mention of this, as the wizarding legal adult age is 17).

Given the content as August described it, I'm more forgiving of the role than I had been previously . . . but still, this point does seem a little unsettling. He'll be 18 this summer, but that's this summer, not now.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#34
RobRoy Wrote:That's an interesting point. I still recall the flap over Traci Lords and her . . . ahem, movie career while still a legal minor. The UK legal adult age is similar to the US's, that being 18 (Rowlings even makes mention of this, as the wizarding legal adult age is 17).

Given the content as August described it, I'm more forgiving of the role than I had been previously . . . but still, this point does seem a little unsettling. He'll be 18 this summer, but that's this summer, not now.

Applying logic that seems consistant with your own on other matters, Rob Roy, let us say:

The actor required his parent's permission to accept this role because he is not of age, and obviously, they have control and have given their permission.

Therefore, the party concerned approves, and the opinions of fans have no merit.

Just as Sirius said Harry could go to Hogsmeade, our minor actor person has been given permission to take this role. Our opinions have nothing to do with it.
Reply
#35
Darq AliApplying logic that seems consistant with your own on other matters, Rob Roy, let us say:[snip Wrote:Therefore, the party concerned approves, and the opinions of fans have no merit.

I've always maintained that while unfortunate fan opinion (whether enlightened or not . . . usually not) do matter.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#36
RobRoy Wrote:I've always maintained that while unfortunate fan opinion (whether enlightened or not . . . usually not) do matter.

Interesting take on this issue.
Reply
#37
Darq Ali Wrote:Interesting take on this issue.

Without fans, you're performing for the dog, the cat and the fichus.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#38
I agree, Arcadia. If he were just a few years older it wouldn't be so unsettling. Of course this isn't new, minors have been stripping down for film roles for years. I read the Keira Knightly did when she was only fifteen. And I was watching "100 Greatest Teen Stars" or some such on VH1 yesterday, and of course Brooke Shields in the Blue Lagoon came up. Still, I find it unsettling.


As for fan opinions, I think that, for the most part, they do have merit. There will always be things that fans like, don't like, agree with, disagree with, etc.; it would be impossible not to form an opinion. I think what fan opinions lack is sway, but that does not necessarily make them meritless.
Reply
#39
RobRoy Wrote:Without fans, you're performing for the dog, the cat and the fichus.

Agreed.

However, when we discuss the differences between the content of the books and the films, you say that JKR signed off on the content of the films, which you equate to her "approval" of all the changes and omissions,

And say what JKR thinks is of weight, and the opinion of someone like me {a 'fan', if you will, of the books} is of no matter.

On this issue, the opinion of the fans is what you say should be of greater consideration?

But the ones 'signing off' are the parents of the boy-star, and theirs is the permission necessary, not that of the 'fans'.
Reply
#40
Note: I'm pretty sure in the UK the age is 17, not 18. And as above, this is a masterpiece of modern drama, not a porno. Wink And given that it was a London stage production for grown-up theatre-attendees, really what Harry Potter fans in the rest of the world think isn't relevant.
August  - Jack's Pack Fan # 1, Keeper of the List, 3-Time Speaker of the JoAT Fan Quote of the Week, and the only person ever to have Back 2 Back Jack and Cleo fan quotes !
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Harry Potter rebooted? badlands 2 180 January 18th, 2023, 11:56 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Actor Leslie Phillips, voice of Harry Potter Sorting Hat, dies aged 98 Michael 1 120 November 10th, 2022, 05:18 PM
Last Post: badlands
  Harry Potter vs Encanto badlands 3 462 March 2nd, 2022, 01:06 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Harry Potter exhibit badlands 0 341 February 20th, 2022, 09:43 PM
Last Post: badlands
  Slavery in Harry Potter badlands 1 419 February 7th, 2022, 09:33 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Is Harry Potter really Moaning Myrtle? badlands 3 431 February 6th, 2022, 04:12 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Harry Potter game badlands 2 1,097 March 14th, 2021, 11:18 PM
Last Post: Boomstick
  Harry Potter bar badlands 3 733 February 5th, 2021, 03:59 PM
Last Post: Michael
  HBO Harry Potter reboot badlands 1 586 January 31st, 2021, 12:24 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Harry Potter theories badlands 10 1,456 November 5th, 2018, 12:17 PM
Last Post: august

Forum Jump: