as i said, i finished all the potter stuff and i have two thoughts. one: where are the finest actors of my generation? and two: i forget two, now.

well, the thing is, i finished them, all the books and the movies.  and they were okay.  the movies were pretty much a phone-in, but for the admirable alan rickman who is fabulous even in his sleep, i think, and is so here in what amounts to little more than a cameo all put together, really.  and david thewlis was lovely, although he had even less to do and was more on the order of lovely in acting class scene-like bits.  there wasn’t much at all to any of the movies but, as spielberg is supposed to have said, why should there be? (or something of the sort) so i understand, they didn’t have to do much, what difference would it make (the producers of the movies, i mean, not the actors.) there is no coherent vision, but then there so seldom is.  i am reluctant to call the omission of even the barest continuity “cynical”, since it’s presence would be more on the lines of “needless”, as they obviously and correctly assumed most of the audience would have read the books. they don’t even bother identifying the most obvious necessary expositional things (eg, they refer to padfoot, or wormtail, when they introduce the map but don’t identify them; but then later they do use those names for sirius and pettigrew, but with no connections made.  in a pivotal scene, harry yells to snape that “they have padfoot!” but padfoot had not heretofore been introduced as sirius. because we all know that from the books, of course.  and what makes harry think the appearance of the stag patronus is his father? because ibid.)

one real problem i have had with the films is the dilemmas they provide the actors, the bare script that gives hem nothing to work with and can lead them to choices that wouldn’t seem to serve the whole (if there were a whole.) i’m chiefly thinking of a climactic scene involving the flawless rickman.  lupin is suddenly turning into a werewolf and snape, whom we’re supposed to think may be a villain (although are we? we do in the book but, come to think of it, in the movie i don’t really remember seeing anything indicating he is anything other than a stock mean teacher character) gives himself away to be a hero with a sudden appearance that is all about protecting all the children (with a beautiful gesture, of course; rickman is, well, rickman.) a hero move down to the core, and i don’t see any other choice the actor could have made given the material, actually, but surely it is a directorial mistake?  there is no ambiguity to exlploit.  but then, somewhere thewlis says he was told by his director to play lupin like a gay junkie so he thought he was gay the whole while he was making the first one he was in (whichever it was, i don’t remember.) as i say, the direction is not coherent, but then why should it be?  i watched them all the way through, and the last three twice, but i couldn’t bring myself to do any more: i found very little to look at except perhaps in the third one, but again, why should there be?  just because i’ve been immersed in middle earth all year?  the endeavors were completely different.

which led me to my question: where are the finest screen actors of my generation?  there aren’t any.  i think it skips from the generation before me (hoffman, et al.) to the one after (depp.) why is that?  my generation became directors, entrepreneurs, movie makers, not movie stars.  likewise can think of several very fine actors, some of the best, but not screen actors.  is it that mid-century blip of theatre that got us all?  movies weren’t something we cared much about, acting meant theater.  the finest actors of my generation were not in the movies (other than to make their nut.) we were playing a different game.

oh, here’s two: likewise, i am reluctant to judge the potter books.  as i said, they’re okay, but they’re no middle earth.  but then why should they be? there already is a middle earth.  it seems to me the potter phenomenon is just that: the phenomenon itself.  the base quality, or lack of, is irrelevant, it’s a different ballgame.  and isn’t that what we were all after, back there in the 70s and early 80s, before it ate us? identifying that mechanism, that new ballgame, and then appropriating it?

well, it worked.