Personally, I can’t see what the fuss has been about with Harry Potter actor, Daniel Radcliffe, appearing naked.
This afternoon, I had to laugh too - whilst, at the same time, being immensely frustrated by the interference - when Spanish phone company, Telefonica’s “nanny” service Canguro Net, which even though I have the service DISACTIVATED, initially, prevented me from accessing the page at the Londonist, accusing it of being porno.
Blimey, the photo they have is of the young man, naked from the waist UP. You know, the very same thing you can see on any beach or construction site. What gives?
What the hell happened to European permissiveness?
To be honest, even if Radcliffe was shown naked from the waist DOWN, I still wouldn’t call it porn, when it’s talking about art and theatre in this context. And Londonist’s comments are nothing more than the truth and what you’ll hear from any discussion on the matter either.
Anyway, nudity aside, including the Telegraph’s reference to his full nude performance, commenting on Radcliffe being ‘diminutive (but perfectly formed)‘ aside, I do want to take issue with Charles Spencer’s review, calling Dan “a thrilling stage actor of unexpected range and depth.”
OK, maybe this will be unexpected to those who only know him from Harry Potter, but I find nothing unexpected about it at all. Indeed, the only reason I took any interest in Harry Potter in the first place was because Daniel Radcliffe had been cast as the star, having first seen him in his stunning 1999 performance (at the tender age of nine) as the young David Copperfield in the Dickens classic.
Anyone who has seen that, I think, would find nothing unexpected in the range and depth of Radcliffe’s current performance. He was a bloody genius then and, in my estimation, the best ever child actor, capable, even at that age of “turning the emotion on a sixpence, switching from sullen anger to raw vulnerability, or from terrible pain to a sudden childlike innocence and charm.”
In that sense, it does seem a bit of a shame he has to grow up, but he has and we have to accept it. Perhaps if the viewing public focussed on more important things than Radcliffe’s willie, they would see this, but then who can blame Dan for giving the audience what it wants?
If you found something you like here, why not subscribe?
Sponzurz
