Daniel Radcliffe

[marybear82]

--
> Elle:
> 
> I agree that Harry/Daniel gets better with each viewing. We
> need to remember Harry's history. He has live a life that
> hasn't validated him in anyway, or supported ANY expression
> of his thoughts or emotions. He is very repressed. So you 
> would not expect big display of emotion either through
> speach, facial expressions, or body langauge. He's been 
> force to keep all that inside. I also think that explain 
> a lot of the decisions that Harry makes. When I read the 
> books, I often find myself thinking,'well, why didn't he 
> do this instead, that would have solved everything'. But 
> then I'm not thinking with the mind of a 12 year old who 
> has lived in isolation, without validation, and without 
> any indication that he can turn to other people in times 
> of need.
> 
> 
I, too, agree that Daniel Radcliffe's understated interpretation of 
Harry is right on - in keeping with his history.  If you'll remember, 
in subsequent books, Harry begins to find his voice a bit more as he 
discovers his self-confidence (and as adolescence decends with its 
lack of emotional control.)  He gets into quite a rage at the 
beginning of PoA, and blows up Aunt Marge! Later, he comes close to 
killing Black in blind anger. Beginning as early as the next film 
(with his cheeky exit from the Dursleys in the flying car) I would 
expect Daniel's performance to intensify as the storyline dictates - 
and I believe that this talented young actor is fully up to the 
challenge. What actor wouldn't relish the thought of being able to 
develop such a rich and multi-layered character?  I hope he stays 
through to the end!