Daniel as Harry

[eleri at aracnet.com]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., genevieve373 at y... wrote:
> > # Hurts to say this, but Dan Radcliffe is really not very good. 
He 
> > has the "stillness" which moviemakers seem to look for in child 
> > actors, and which Harry needs, but otherwise he's a bit wooden. 
> > Absolutely likeable, but not very interesting or revealing to 
watch.
> 
> 
> I agree that Daniel wasn't extrordinarily expressive all the time, 
> but I think that is more the character than the actor.  I wouldn't 
> expect a child who grew up psychologically abused to completely 
come 
> out of his shell all at once in a drastically different 
environment.  
> He used more expression at the appropriate times, and was stoic at 
> other times...I guess this is just what I might expect from Harry.  

(Trying to play catch up here...)
This is just the thing I was discussing with another mom who's had 
experience with abused children. Daniel as Harry comes across just as 
a child whose been abused for 11 years.
Consider that Harry, every time he showed some emotion or expression, 
was punished or degraded in some way for the entirety of his life, so 
he learns to hide all emotion and expression. That sort of survival 
reflex doesn't go away quickly or easily. Someone who's been in a 
situation like that doean't act and react like a normal child, and 
often comes across as stiff, unemotional and fake. 
IIRC, there was an interview that said that Daniel had that "haunted" 
look they wanted, that he could portray an abused child well. I think 
that came across perfectly in the film (Although I do think it took 
about a third of the film before any of the kids hit their stride.)

Eleri