In defence of our hero trio's performances in early films

I'm sitting at home, not feeling well, watching the Harry Potter movies through from the beginning. It's not just fun: it's also educational.

I have just finished watching The Philosopher's Stone and now have The Chamber of Secrets in the Blu Ray player.

And I'm checking out the acting. Several people have said to me recently that they feel the acting of the three young stars in the early movies is really bad.

From what I can tell (not having studied their acting careers), Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone represented the first real movie roles for Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. They were all around 11 years old at the time so that's not really surprising.

Are they bad in this movie? I'm not so sure. First, it is their first real acting experience. Second, they were acting in a huge-budget film, for which expectations were extremely high. Third, they were acting alongside some of the greatest actors and actresses of their age, beside whom they couldn't help but come across poorly.

But those simple answers are not, I think, the only reasons. Think about it. You're 11, you're in your first major role and you have to do much of your acting in front of green screens, imagining the scenes and magical characters that will be created by computer graphic imagery later.

That's not easy for anyone, even the most experienced of actors.

On top of that, if you watch the performances of people like Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, Richard Harris and Alan Rickman in that first film (consummate actors all), you'll notice that even they are hamming things up a bit.

This first film was made specifically for children. Most movies aimed at a younger audiences involve broader acting performances, over-emphasized voices and movements, and all that. It's a regular part of these films.

If you were to compare the performances of Coltrane, Smith and Rickman in the last couple of movies with their performances in the first film, you'd probably see a significant difference. As the target audiences of the films matured, so did the performances of all the actors, not just the youngsters.

The later films were made for adults, so the performances were quieter, more subtle, more realistic than those in the earlier entries in the series.

I'm not saying Radcliffe, Watson, Grint and the other "first years" are deserving of acting awards for their work in The Philosopher's Stone. I'm just saying that, for a variety of reasons, I don't think we should judge them too harshly.