Out of Order in the Film

I find The Order of the Phoenix such a difficult book to read. In fact, it's a little like torture. Which shouldn't be much of a surprise since the first three-quarters of the book involves the torture of our favourite wand-carrier, both directly by Dolores Umbridge and more subtly by the Ministry, the wizarding community and the other kids at Hogwarts.

Even though I know what's coming, I still cringe when I read this book.

That's not an insult to J.K. Rowling. In fact, it's a huge compliment. J.K. wanted to make this book an ordeal both for Harry and her reader and she succeeds remarkably.

That's why I get so angry when I watch the film version of it. I honestly don't know which movie I detest more, The Order or the Deathly Hallows Part 2, and that's saying something since I really really really hate Part 2.

The fifth novel is a claustrophobic, harrowing ordeal. It's a gut-wrenching experience of a kind that is rarely found in literature. Because we identify so closely with Harry after the first four books, we feel every tiny sting he receives in this fifth one. We hurt for him and suffer with him.

So why did the movie makers have to turn this ordeal into a slapstick comedy (and a poor one at that)? Instead of ominous and evil, Umbridge is presented as a silly nuisance in the movie. I'm not taking a shot at Imelda Staunton -- she does a beautiful job of acting the role she was given -- but the role itself is a mockery of Rowling's villainous original.

The only thing, in my opinion, that saves the movie is the very strong performances of Evanna Lynch (as Luna Lovegood) and Katie Leung (as Cho Chang). These two make strong impressions, with some great scenes, even if the film reduces the part played by each in the main plot.

So I leave the film version of The Order of the Phoenix on the shelf while I battle my way through the tremendously well written novel. Too bad. Another wasted filmic opportunity.

Oh, and by the way, I've finally joined Pottermore. And I'm happy to report that I was sorted into Gryffindor House, meaning I can keep my wonderful hand-knit scarf! I don't have as much time as I wish I did to enjoy this amazing, interactive site but I'll keep plugging away.

Evanna is the question mark for me

I've been wondering lately if any of the young actors from the Harry Potter films will be able to continue with successful acting careers.

I know that Daniel Radcliffe has made some much-talked-about appearances on the stage and Tom Felton is currently playing a supporting role in the film Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which is getting a lot of positive reviews. Will they be able to make it last? Once the Harry Potter luster has worn off, will they and their young colleagues still be getting good parts in big films, plays or television shows?

Much to my chagrin, the actor I think has the best shot at making a lasting career out of acting, Emma Watson, seems to be the least interested in doing so. I read somewhere that she's returning to University to complete her degree with no immediate plans to accept new roles. It's too bad. I thought Watson was by far the best of the younger set of actors in the films and would have been interested to see her continue to grow as an actor.

I think Felton has a future, especially if he's willing to continue to play villains. I'm not so sure about Radcliffe: as you already know, I think he was the weak acting link in the Potter films so, unless he gets better quickly, I can't see him doing much.

And what of Rupert Grint, Evanna Lynch, Matthew Lewis and Bonnie Wright, who played Ron Weasley, Luna Lovegood, Neville Longbottom and Gina Weasley respectively?

I like Grint and I think the entertainment business will always have room for the big, lunky, lovable guy with the easy smile. Lewis seems to have attracted a big female fan following, which should help him to land roles, at least for a while.

I can see Wright doing well too. She has a classic English beauty in both her physical appearance and her demeanour. I can see her keeping very active in the busy British film industry.

Evanna Lynch is the big question mark for me. I'm not sure what will happen with her. I think she's fantastic in the Potter films but I'm not sure if the Luna character is really that great a representation of Lynch the actor as she is today. Casting directors will want to place her in roles that are similar to Luna but I'm don't think Lynch will be able to pull of mystically bewildered innocence any more.

Daniel Radcliffe is the weak acting link

The last couple of posts to this blog have got me to thinking about a couple of things: first, how lucky (or amazingly prescient) the casting people for the first Harry Potter movie were to have chosen so many very young actors who would turn out to be so talented and grow up to be so attractive; and second, how Daniel Radcliffe is clearly the very worst of the actors in continuing roles in the films.

I don't think anyone can deny that Emma Watson, Bonnie Wright and Evanna Lynch have all proven themselves to be very strong actors. And my review of the worldwide web tells me that all three are generally considered to be very attractive young women at this point. On the other side, Rupert Grint, Matthew Lewis and Tom Felton are all accomplished performers and, from what I've read, considered to be fairly easy on the eyes as well.

But what of Daniel Radcliffe? He plays the title role and he's on screen more than any other single performer. Does his performance stand up?

I don't think so. In fact, I find scenes where he's asked to show any kind of emotional depth to be particularly cringeworthy. I mean, any time the guy has to hug someone you want just to cover your eyes until it's over.

Go ahead. Watch the scene on the street in Hogsmeade in The Prisoner of Azkaban, just after Harry has overheard that Sirius Black is widely believed to have betrayed his supposed best friend James Potter to Voldemort. "He was their friend," Radcliffe barks, his eyes wide, his voice hoarse. It's a pivotal, emotionally charged scene and Radcliffe, for all his histrionics, flatlines through it.

Okay, so maybe he was still young then. It was, after all, only the second movie. He's learned, he's grown, you tell me.

Now watch the scene in The Deathly Hallows, Part 1, where Harry finds out from Hermione that his wand has been broken in the escape from Godric's Hollow. "Where's my wand, Hermione?" Radcliffe, now a mature, supposedly accomplished actor, barks. This is a scene where Harry loses his most trusted friend in the magical world, the implement that has saved him time and again from Voldemort, and all Radcliffe can muster is a couple of grunts and a hard stare.

I think Emma Watson is the best young actor by far in the films, the one most worthy to appear beside the who's who of British acting that populates the adult roles. On the other end of the spectrum, Daniel Radcliffe is pretty awful. He's just lucky the material is so strong it can carry him (and the movies) through his flat, emotionally vacant performances.