Every Monday morning, InsidePulse Movies Czar Scott “Kubryk” Sawitz brings an irreverent and oftentimes hilarious look at pop culture, politics, sports and whatever else comes to mind. And sometimes he writes about movies.
One of the subplots of this week’s Harry Potter release, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, is being remarkably overlooked. What happens next for Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint? That’s what I’m curious about, if only because they’re the three actors in this franchise most likely to have difficult careers post-Potter. Why?
Because they’ve been child actors for the bulk of the series … and are playing characters that have become so remarkably popular that all three are going to be permanently attached to them.
One of the things that Carrie Fisher has said about her time in the Star Wars trilogy is that she didn’t play a character. She just happened to really look like some gal named Princess Leia who was massively famous. Her career kind of fizzled out because of George Lucas’s trilogy, at least as an actress. She’s one of the best screenwriter types that no one thinks of as a screenwriter, though, and Mark Hamill is in the same boat in that he’s always going to be Luke Skywalker. Harrison Ford escaped that curse, though, and Han Solo is part of the handful of memorable characters he’s played over the years, but they weren’t children when they started, either.
Han Solo: Badass
Grint, Watson and Radcliffe all were children when they starred in the first Harry Potter film and are leaving it as they begin the progression into adulthood. None of the three have taken significant roles outside the franchise, either, as all three are closely connected to the franchise and haven’t done anything to imperil it with their personal behaviors. Radcliffe did “Equus” on the theatre scene and got totally naked but that’s a bit different than doing the same in a film.
My guess is that there was contract language from Warner Bros. giving them approval on any roles they chose outside of Potter, or at least strong input, because all three have worked on a combined seven non-Potter films since 2001. It’s either that or they really didn’t have the time for it. A film the size of a typical Harry Potter sequel is a massive undertaking, leaving little time for other films of similar size or scope one imagines. When you’re in production as long as a film like a Potter film requires, as well as all the press junkets to promote it, you’re not looking at a lot of free time.
The Potter kids
For better or worse the three are going to be attached to the franchise for some time, if not the rest of their lives, from the time they won the parts. This was a series that was nearly guaranteed to be a massive success no matter how poor the films were and it was shocking that they all ended up being reasonably good as well as being popular. It’s not too often you get a franchise this big and this popular going in to end up being consistently good throughout. All three are intrinsically identified as their characters, more so than they probably thought going in, and this leaves them in a precarious position: none have proven to be drawing cards or major actors outside of those films …. And might not, either, because there’s a saying about those who don’t learn from history about situations like this I think.
This is fascinating on any number of levels.
Technically they’re still unproven commodities despite being famous across the world and in a slew of popular films that collectively have made a stunning $6.4 billion from seven films so far. I imagine none of the three have been able to be in public like they were before the films, either, and by all accounts the three have pocketed a tidy sum for their work. Radcliffe is alleged to be worth $50 million or so and I imagine the other two probably aren’t hurting for money either. But here’s the thing: can they bring in audiences without being their iconic characters?
Megan Fox in a Star Wars shirt: Because I needed another picture
That’s the amusing thing. Are the three headed towards a career of Star Wars curse proportions, with them in the same boat as the kids from Twilight? The latter series gives us some recent (poor) history while the former gives us some historical context.
Harrison Ford got out of Star Wars without being typecast but his other two major co-stars didn’t. But he also was a working actor beforehand with a number of roles in films; Fisher and Hamill both counted A New Hope amongst their first screen credits. They were largely unknowns at that point, which is something Ford wasn’t. Ford at a minimum you could say was slightly known, as he had American Graffiti under his belt as well as an armful of credits before the Star Wars made him famous.
The Potter kids stepped into the spotlight in that franchise and have had their careers defined by those characters. They really didn’t have a chance to establish themselves outside it first as child actors, which is a little bit more than the Twilight kids had before that franchise took off. And there are enough parallels between the two to see where they’re headed, career wise. Why?
None of the Twilight kids have massive grossing films outside of that franchise, either.
The Twilight kids, right?
Robert Pattinson has had two respectable small films gross close to their budgets back and that’s the best it’s gotten between him, Taylor Lautner and Kristen Stewart. Lautner had a small role in Valentine’s Day but you can’t really call that a vehicle for him like Water for Elephants and Remember Me was for Pattinson or The Runaways was for Stewart. For all three, they’ll end up probably back where they started once the final Twilight film ends. And once that franchise ends, in the same sort of manner that Harry Potter is with a two part finale, the same questions arise.
And it comes down to something we know and something we don’t. Harry Potter puts asses in seats. We don’t know if Daniel Radcliffe can.
A Movie A Week – The Challenge
This Week’s DVD – The Cider House Rules
There’s something … off … about hearing Michael Caine use anything but his natural British accent is just off-putting. I’ve never been able to get used to it, despite all the tons of films I’ve seen with the man in it. Something about Michael Caine not using his British accent just is off. I don’t know why, or how, but if he doesn’t have that British accent it just doesn’t feel like it is the real Michael Caine. He won an Oscar for this but I don’t buy it was him. So I began to think.
I’ve come up with a theory: he has an identical twin cousin from Indianapolis with the same name who steps in when he’s busy doing other stuff. It softens the distaste I feel seeing Caine not being British; it’d be like Clint Eastwood adopting an Eastern European accent. Just doesn’t feel right. But I imagine Eastwood going “You are going to make day, punk” like he was Ivan Drago would be unintentional comedy at its finest. Heck, my favorite movie scene of 2011 so far involves Michael Caine without actually involving him.
But The Cider House Rules isn’t Caine’s film; he plays an integral role in the first act but he’s not the lead. Tobey Maguire, pre-Spider-Man, is as Homer Wells.
An orphan twice returned to St. Cloud’s, ME, he’s raised by Caine as a son of sorts. Trained as a first rate obstetrician, but never having properly gone to medical school (or even high school), Homer decides to leave the orphanage with Wally (Paul Rudd) and Candy (Charlize Theron) to explore the world on his own. And he does, beginning a new life as an apple picker and seeing the world outside of his life at the orphanage. But things will conspire to bring him back to Maine and back to the orphanage he grew up on.
It’s an interesting story about a boy becoming a man, and realizing his destiny, and it’s interesting to watch this film and think that 12 years ago Rudd was still best known for being in Clueless, a year away from Wet Hot American Summer establishing his true comedic bonafides. Theron was still four years away from being in Monster and changing her career trajectory from “token insanely hot blonde love interest in action films” to respected actress. And Maguire was a couple years away from donning the blue & red tights and becoming the Spider-Man.
It’s a young talent showcase, with Caine getting a plump role, and years later it’s odd to think of these three actors as being young and unproven. It’s a solid film but it’s not a brilliant one by any stretch of the imagination. The principal cast is still unproven, still hasn’t been refined and developed, and it shows.
Mild recommendation.
What Looks Good This Weekend, and I Don’t Mean the $2 Pints of Bass Ale and community college co-eds with low standards at the Alumni Club
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 – It all ends. Allegedly.
See It – The first half was interesting and it’ll be closure to all of this.
Winnie the Pooh – The bear comes back for stuff.
Skip It – I’m conflicted. Part of me loved the bear as a kid. The other thinks this is a cheap cash in on a beloved child tale. Gut says the latter.
Salvation Boulevard – Pierce Brosnan leads a mega church. Greg Kinnear wants to take him down because he’s a crook. Or something.
See It – I’m all about comedies involving mega-churches. Plus Kinnear and Brosnan combined for The Matador many moons ago and that ruled.
Scott “Kubryk” Sawitz brings his trademarked irreverence and offensive hilarity to Twitter in 140 characters or less. Follow him @MMCritic_Kubryk.
