[HPFGU-Movie] Dan's acting (with serious deviation)

[Richard]

At 20:47 28/11/2005 , JenD replied to my previous:

>I just don't think the HP series of films belongs anywhere in serious 
>film-making.

The first two, maybe not (but then, Columbus isn't a serious film-maker of 
serious films, and I don't mean that disrespectfully). But Cuaron and 
Newell have shown that it's possible to make serious movies from this 
material which require the audience to use their grey cells and not just be 
passive onlookers, allowing the experience to wash over them. In some ways, 
this is similar to reactions to the books themselves: they can be analysed 
as deeply as one wants to.

The one thing that surprises (and, frankly, shocks) me about some elements 
in the online HP fandom is that sometimes the very people who are prepared 
to analyse the books with amazing literary precision and insight, dismiss 
people like myself who try to apply the same level of cinematic analysis to 
the movies. Am I wrong to consider the movies seriously?

I'm going to go a bit OT here with something I feel passionate about. 
However and wherever we're educated, we all spend a certain amount of our 
formal education learning literary analysis at some level or another, but 
very few people have any kind of introduction to analysing moving pictures 
(TV, cinema) in the same way, learning the grammar and structure of films 
so as to be able to discuss them rationally, the way we're all expected to 
be able to do with the written word. For various reasons, western culture 
has decided that the written word, including plays, are Important (capital 
"I")  to our heritage, but the moving image, being an extremely young art 
form, isn't seen as worthy of genuine, detailed study as part of a general 
education. Considering it is the dominant art form of our generation, I 
find this saddening and even troubling.

We end up with a self-selecting group of cinephiles who end up discussing 
this or that movie while the world looks on and considers them (well, us... 
:-) as somewhat strange. Yet sitting around classrooms discussing one 
sentence of a book is seen as "intellectually valid". While some sections 
of the literary establishment consider adult HP fans as something of an 
aberration, that the material doesn't *deserve* the degree of analysis to 
which we submit it, are some sections of HP fandom not doing exactly the 
same thing by accusing cinephiles of taking the movies "too seriously"?

And then, of course, there's the core question: despite my comments last 
night about the movies being an "abbreviated" version of the books, does 
that necessarily make them less worthwhile? I assume that my answer to that 
question is obvious, but everyone should ask that question of themselves.

As far as GoF goes, I found the book meandering, unfocussed and 
under-edited (even moreso when it comes to OotP) and it doesn't pain me in 
the slightest to admit that I MUCH prefer the movie to the book (despite 
the couple of reservations I've raised before), and as IMO OotP is even 
more meandering, etc than GoF, I'm hoping that a better job still will be 
made of it.

>Has there ever been a film made, or a series of films made from such a 
>beloved and popular series of books?

Yes, actually. For just one example, although I wasn't around at the time, 
Gone With The Wind was considered an aberration on its release, despite now 
being considered a classic (and the book was amazingly popular, arguably an 
even bigger hit in relative terms in its time than the HP books are now). 
There was a backlash against the Bond books being made into the movies 
until they took off, as well.

<snip>

>It seems to fit that we have an amateur giving it his all. After all, 
>itsn't that the British way?

The definition of "amateur" (in this context) with which I was brought up 
was "someone who is not paid to do a job for which others are paid". He is 
being paid very handsomely to do a job. I think we're entitled to expect 
that he does it well. In any case, four movies in, he's hardly an amateur 
anymore.

>Pluckiness wins the day. And Dan gets my vote for plucking up his courage 
>and doing this gig, even when really brilliant people tell lots of other 
>folks he isn't really any good at it.

I have no problems with Dan's courage (though personally, I am more 
impressed by the courage of an unarmed police officer who enters a 
dangerous situation, or a firefighter who kicks people out of a burning 
building only to run in himself). :-)

I have problems with people saying he's something he isn't. Namely: a great 
actor. At least, not yet. Although I have every hope he has it inside him 
to become one.