I, like the rest of you I suppose, detest Daniel Radcliffe’s appearances as Harry Potter. It’s not the films themselves, they are usually quite enjoyable and I’m looking forward to the end of the epic struggle of good vs evil. Though sometimes I do sicken myself with my cheesiness. It has been an utter pleasure to watch Rupert Grint as Ron, Tom Felton as Draco and (maybe more importantly for us guys) Emma Watson as Hermione grow and mature as actors; becoming able to deliver convincing performances that manage to stir the emotions – I’m sure the next two films will be where they really come into their own.
Daniel Radcliffe’s Harry however, is different. And not in a good way. It is excruciatingly painful to witness his impossibly socially awkward advances with his fellow classmates and his teachers. He occasionally seems to get the hang of being an idiot but that appears to be all he can fit in his skull. At least, that is the popular opinion of the chap.
All this has been niggling away at me though. It has failed to escape my attention that he is internationally renowned, not just for his appearances in the Harry Potter films but in big West End plays such as Equus, films such as December Boys and a few other minor pieces on the side. If he was half as bad as we all think he is, why on earth would people hire the guy?
After pondering this for a while, I have concluded that his performance of Harry Potter which we find oh so painful is intentional. After all, just how slick can a 17 year old guy with huge round framed glasses be? I discovered that rounded frames were not the way forward in year 6 when a rather unkind boy in my year, Timothy Wood, told me in no uncertain terms that I had (and I quote) “the most unfashionable glasses ever”. It was alright for him, his daddy was a judge, owned an Alpha Romeo and he had a huge house – the spoilt little brat. I digress.
If Daniel Radcliffe chose earlier on in the (for want of a better word) saga to play Harry as an awkward bozo, he can’t very well change his mind can he? After all, although Harry may change throughout the span of his life at Hogwarts, his personality never takes a huge U turn in the middle does it?
After watching The Half Blood Prince for the second time, I found that I enjoyed not only the film itself a lot more, but also Daniel Radcliffe’s performance. Well, most of it. Some of it I admit was a little too crap and gawky. Yet I think that Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have roles that allow them to develop as actors far more than Daniel Radcliffe. Is this his fault for choosing to play Harry as a n00b? Most probably yes. However, I am far less inclined to slate all of his performance as Harry now that I’ve thought about it a bit. Ok, I may not like the Harry he plays, he may not be anything like I imagined him to be like when I read the books BUT I think that he gives a convincing performance in the style that he has chosen. Idiot style.
What about you? Do you detest the bugger? (He is a bit of a git in real life from what I’ve heard) Do you like him as Harry? What do you think he is going to do with his career after Harry Potter?
Crackpot theories and baseless speculation is welcomed (and encouraged) below.