Daniel Radcliffe -- Seeing Actors/Actresses while re-reading

[ftah3]

Hi, newbieish here.

> I've now seen the movie 7 times, so it goes without saying that I 
love 
> it quite alot.  

You know, the last time I had such enthusiasm for a movie that I not 
only made it a point to see it in the theater, but saw it more than 
once on purpose...hmm, I think I was in grade school.

I'm 27 years old, mother of one.  And I've seen HP *4 TIMES* in the 
theater.  My husband thinks I'm nuts.  Oy.  And also, wheee!!

> I was completely wowed by Radcliffe's performance from the 
beginning, 
> and I wouldn't have thought it possible, but I do think he gets 
better & 
> better with each viewing.  

Do you know, I thought he was kind of horrible the first time I saw 
it.  Second time I saw it, I realized my complaints were more 
script/direction-related ~ the thing about Harry shooting all these 
knowing grins at people, gargh.

On the other hand, Radcliffe, wow.  Very.  Very.  Good.  I, too, have 
liked him better with each viewing.

>In short, I can find no complaint at all with 
> him; he was clearly the star.  He is a very expressive actor, and 
he's 
> quite subtle.  But, that is *GOOD* IMO.  

Yes!  He *must* be subtle, imho, because at least in the first book 
(and thus movie) Harry is still feeling his way around this new 
world.  

The wonderful aspect of his version of 'subtle,' I thought, is that 
he gives the impression that regardles off what Harry is *not* saying 
or noticeably emoting, there is a great deal going on inside his 
head.  

Also, I loved Radcliffe's mannerisms, especially (and this seems like 
a wierd, small thing, but on I go) the way that he rarely looks his 
elders straight in the eye.  He keeps his face down, and turns his 
eyes up; but while that mannerism is suggestive of trying to be as 
small and submissive as possible, his eyes always tell the underlying 
emotion ~ for example, a little fear, and a lot of awe when he first 
meets Hagrid; or a bit of fear and a lot of uncertainty when he first 
meets Snape; and in later interactions with Snape, anger and bottled-
up rebelliousness.  

The mannerism followed so well from his interactions with the 
Dursley's, and to me, at least, drew that past experience forward.  
In contrast, regardless of how afraid they are, Hermione and Ron, 
sans the past mistreatment, will look Snape (for example) straight in 
the face.  I wonder how much of that was unconcious on the part of 
the actor(s), and how much was direction?

>I just saw the BBC production 
> of David Copperfield, and it's easy to see why CC was so taken with 
> casting DR in the role of Harry.  He's got a bright future. 

LOL; I had seen the first half of that production so long ago, and I 
remember thinking of the child who played young David, "Lord, that 
kid plays orphaned and 'whipped' well."  I had no idea it was the 
future Harry Potter until recently, but the impression rather stands.

> Rupert is very good, as is Emma.  But, they do both over-act in 
some 
> instances.  I find that I'm liking Emma more & more with each 
viewing, 
> although I certainly never did dislike her take on Hermione.

I adored Rupert as Ron.  I immediately felt he *was* Ron in first 
viewing, and still feel that way.  Emma, I felt, overacted the most, 
but I still get a pretty solid Hermione vibe off of her.

Actually, I just felt that everything in the movie was perfect.  It 
was the book come alive, to me, and that's exactly what I wanted of 
it.  I didn't mind the not-100% special effects, nor the overacting 
(which I thought that Watson & Felton were most guilty of), nor that 
I kept thinking that as Snape-y as Rickman seemed he also struck me 
as too old to be Snape....  I just don't mind.  Regardless of any 
gripes I have, after 4 viewings it still gets me all gleeful!

Mahoney