remember when the litmus test was "are you a matt or a ben?"
the new one: "are you a cedric or a krum?"
cedric is lovely, he's the prince. krum is the jock. i am most definitely a krum. yum. poor guy only got one line in the whole movie, and he could just barely spit it out, which they kind of make a joke about later..
saw a midnight show on 84th and broadway last night. i live in brooklyn. got home at 4am.
this takes me back to when i waited 6 hours to get tickets to the midnight show of 'the phantom menace' way back in '99. i had waited 16 years to see that film and nearly fell asleep at the screening, thanks to lucas' clunker. i'm happy to say that i enjoyed 'goblet' enough to never check my watch, think of checking my watch, yawn, or ponder that 'i'm usually in bed by the time this film started, and here i am on the upper west side at 2am.'
the average audience member was 19 years old, male, cute, and not necessarily gay, making these kids about 13 when the books came out. no doubt about it, harry potter is the new star wars, and as i hoped, this film, like the book, does for the series what 'empire strikes back' did for star wars - matured the characters, expanded the world, raised the stakes, and deepend the breadth of the story.
it does try to pack a lot of stuff in, perhaps too much. it puzzled me why they spent precious time with rita skeeter when they left out hermione's revenge against her - better to cut the entire subplot. i understand the difficulty in doing so, as miranda richardson's performance was spot on. but that time could have been better spent beefing up the emotional impact of the post-graveyard scenes.
newell directly expands on the world cuaron built in 'azkaban.' it's gritter, filled with characters who have stories that extend beyond their screentime, and is so wonderfully selective in its moments. maggie smith's every utterance is golden, as is alan rickman's. there is so much genuine humor in this film, that, between laughs i was mostly just grinning at how damn right
they got it. i don't understand why so many of the reviews have criticized daniel radcliffe's performance, saying that he isn't growing into much of an actor. are you serious? i never saw a false moment. in fact, it's quite remarkable how much radcliffe stays out of the way of the story. he does his job, keeps it simple, and has many great honest comic moments - i mean, c'mon people, have you already forgotten about hayden christensen??? radcliffe is olivier compared to him, and he's been asked to play many of the same notes here that christensen butchered in 'clones.'
sidenote: this class at the atlantic theatre company has really been an inspiration. it's focused on practical
approaches to bettering yourself as an actor. things you can actually do
, like using their brilliant repetition exercise to engrain the habit of focusing your attention off yourself and on the other person (rather than 'work on emotional accessibility! NOW!'). attention placed on one's self is, i think, the seminal cause of bad acting. it's the reason madonna has never been credible in a role. she's never actually talking to the other character. a part of her, however small, is really still talking to the camera, and when we detect that, everything she does 'in character' is a lie.
back to potter: i really want to hear how the film plays to someone who hasn't read the book. does any of it make sense? some major plot points fly by with only passing mention. is it enough to pick up all the details? does it matter? fans of the 'azkaban' book talked on end about how the climax of the film was shortchanged - whereas i missed nothing i didn't know was supposed to be there. in fact, the third film turned me on to the books in the first place.
can't wait to finish up the next 2 books and catch up with everyone else..