Dan in Details magazine

[Geoff Bannister]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Geoff:
> > I think it may be a personal reaction to the article but I would 
> not 
> > have expected a piece written in that  form in a UK magazine.
> < HUGE SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Okay, I feel wierd because it is you Geoff, but the more you are 
> explaining your position the more it makes me raise my eyebrows. UK 
> magazines do not write sensationalistic articles about celebrities?
> 
> Like none of them? At all? Okay, if this is true, then my hat goes 
> off to them, really.

<another huge snip!>

Geoff:
I am glad that Steve tended to agree with me because I was 
beginning to feel isolated in my opinion but I am coming to 
think this is one of those UK v US things.

In the UK, many people have the perception, rightly or wrongly, 
that young actors and actresses in the US are bratty because 
they are spoiled and given a false impression of their intelligence 
and fame with the result that many of them go into adulthood 
with problems – sexual relationships, alcohol, drugs etc.

Here, in the UK, we are blessed to be provided with a large 
group of young thespians who have the reputation and public 
image of being modest, sensible people with their feet firmly 
on the ground who are not seduced by the glitz and pseudo-
glamour of the "high life". This list includes many HP actors 
such as Dan, Emma, Rupert, Tom Felton, Mathew Lewis and 
other actors such as Jamie Bell – who is a couple of years 
older - and William Moseley. They are seen as excellent 
role models to their peers.

Now, Alla, there are indeed newspapers and magazines in 
the UK whose content is suspect. There are several tabloids 
which are not above trying to get scurrilous stories to print 
about these folk in order to increase their sales. Sensible 
people over here don't read them because they are aimed 
at the lower common denominator of those who enjoy sleaze, 
whether true or not.

Dan has given many excellent interviews both to the press 
and television and good media providers are always ready to 
acknowledge the positive sides of folk such as Dan and those 
others I named.

Which is why I winced when I read the beginning of the 
"Details" article. In hindsight, the latter part of the article is 
quite good and draws on well-known information about Dan's 
background. 

He must be a great guy because he and I (unknowingly) lived 
about three miles from each other for five years. :-)

However, it must be acknowledged that Dan is not without a 
sense of adventure. Back at the beginning of February last year, 
I admit there was a collective sharp intake of breath when the 
pre-opening "Equus" photographs were released and we had 
all the silliness about people going off the HP books because 
off the play and wringing their hands about the dreadful effect 
this would have on their offspring. Yet, about half of the views 
had Dan shirtless with jeans on and those where he was nude 
were so angled or cropped that the even the most prurient were 
unable to get wound up. There was the now notorious nude 
photo of Dan which still raises its head on the Net from time to 
time but that was admitted to be a manipulation very early on 
by its creator. 

I went up to London to see "Equus" because I wanted to see 
Dan on stage and felt that the nude scenes fitted seamlessly 
into the thread of the story and were not gratuitous. Mind, the 
furore went over my head because I must admit  that I have a 
very minimalist approach to dressing. My village considers me 
slightly eccentric because when I take my dogs out for a walk, 
I always try to go shirtless every day of the year and only carry a 
t-shirt for any emergency such as heavy rain or a gale. That will 
have the photographers swarming to Porlock with their telephoto l
enses – not.

But, looking at what I have outlined above, perhaps you will 
appreciate why I reacted very negatively to the opening sentences 
of the article because I felt that they built a very distorted view of 
Dan from what I have seen and read about him over the years.

Changing topics, Anne Squires wrote:

Geoff again:
> There is a personal angle here because I never 
> > swear in public. I was famous for declaring my classroom a 
> > non-swearing zone - and the kids accepted it. 
 
> Anne:

> Sorry, I could be misinterpreting here.  However,  this statement
> implies that in other classrooms swearing was/is  allowed.  I teach at
> a high school which  I believe is a rather typical American high
> school.  Enrollment apx. 1350. Urban.    Swearing in all forms is
> against the rules for the entire campus at all times.  Direct and
> indirect swearing.  That means no one is allowed to swear. Not ever.
> Period.  Anyone who does swear is suspended.  So, I ask you, is
> swearing more or less tolerated in the US than in the UK? 

Geoff:
If I might enlarge on these comments. When I used to say this, I 
was thinking of pupils swearing at each other or out loud if something 
went wrong – not at me. Generally, if a child swore at a teacher, he or 
she would be sent to their House Head, or the Deputy Head or the 
Head depending on the circumstances. In my case, I was only ever 
sworn at on a handful of occasions. There were two occasions involving 
physical assault on me but that is a different story.

The non-swearing thing arose towards the end of my teaching. I 
taught in the same school for my entire career – 32 years. That was 
not an indicator of inertia but the school changed structure twice in 
that time – from 11-16 boys to 13-18 mixed to 12-16 mixed – and 
I held a number of senior posts, both teaching and administrative in 
those years. By the end, I was teaching the children of former pupils, 
which could be great fun(!), and I believe I was considered to be a 
teacher who was actually human. This is perhaps borne out by the fact 
that I am in contact with a couple of dozen old pupils via a website 
keeping school communities in touch.

That was when the no-swearing bit came in. I laid this down as a 
basic requirement in my room and it was accepted. If a pupil did 
swear, I usually only needed to raise one eyebrow and there would 
be an apology. So it was just one of the things "sir expected".

It was really part of a low-level disciple I exercised to keep the rapport 
between the class and myself, and the whole group in a degree of 
harmony with each other. As i have intimated, it seemed to work well.