Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Harry Potter = Harry Puffer?

Okay, I'm getting off topic again. I should seriously change this blog to Disney/Harry Potter or something...

Anyway, yet another child star has fallen into the evil temptations and pitfalls known as SMOKING. And that person is our own Harry Potter, boy wizard, the Chosen One, defeater of He Who Must Not Be Named....... also known as Daniel Radcliffe.

Supposedly, our own Harry has gotten addicted to ciggies, lighting up on the set of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince constantly. It's reported that Dan goes through about twenty cigarettes a day, and that his co-stars, including Rupert Grint, are frustrated about his nasty habit and are begging him to stop. Producers are also trying to persuade Dan to quit - or if anything, not smoke in public - so that the Harry Potter franchise won't get tarnished.

Yeah I know - at least he's not doing drugs (well, as far as we know). In fact, there really isn't even any proof that Dan is going through 20 cigs a day, nor is there any proof that Rupert and crew are begging him to stop. But I still believe it. It seems pretty legit, considering that pictures of Dan smoking DO exist...

The only thing I kind of don't buy about the "co-stars being outraged" part is the fact that I've seen pictures of Seamus Finnigan and Ginny Weasley with ciggies, which also sucks a lot that they smoke but doesn't account for why exactly they'd be outraged that Dan would. Unless it's solely Rupert we're talking about here.

But WHY would anyone smoke to begin with - whoever it is? Smoking is DISGUSTING!! Seriously, smoking is probably one of the filthiest habits known to mankind. I don't understand why someone would want to voluntary suck on a lighted stick full of nicotine, tobacco, and other crap that first of all smells awful and second of all is known to cause serious health problems. It always makes me sad when I see someone I know lighting up - whether I know them personally or if they're celebrities.

However, there's a few things that have seriously cracked me up about this. First of all, I'm laughing about the nickname (Harry Puffer? HAHA. I'm trying to figure out who gave him this nickname in the first place. Please tell me Neville Longbottom did.) Second of all, I'm amused and slightly bewildered by the fact that allegedly, the Harry Potter producers are riled up about this and NOT about the fact that Dan Radcliffe has spent two seasons on a stage butt naked, where he played a boy who has sexual fantasies about horses. Say WHAT? If that didn't already tarnish the Harry Potter franchise, I don't know what did...

6 comments:

Serina said...

hahahahah omg, srsly. AMEN. nakie vs smoking.... hmm, it's a toss-up! LOL. i don't get it either. seamus sooo smoked first!! and then hermione went all drunk crazy. and now ginny is a druggy whore. cut the boy some slack, like DAMN. but yea, it's so gross. i don't know why so many people do it. granted, i probably have enough second-hand smoke to last me a lifetime.. since my dad does it, and i used to hang out with a lot of people who did too so yea.

the nickname still cracks me up like whoa. puffer.... LMFAO. that is just TOO freakin good. i also wanna know who came up with that geniousness. =P

Carol said...

Just a little accuracy check here ... the "pictures" that are supposedly proof of the claim that Dan is smoking are actually publicity shots from Equus in which he did smoke as part of the production ... so it was part of his job and not a newly acquired bad habit. I can't say Dan doesn't smoke in real life (although I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt it), but no one has posted a pic of him smoking OTHER THAN in a scene from his work (either Equus or December Boys). As for the bit about him being nude on stage, Equus has only had one season so far (last Feb-Jun in London's West End). The second season of Equus will not start until September of this year on Broadway in New York. He was BRILLIANT in the role of Alan Strang and the production got fantastic reviews. I can't see how that can do anything but HELP his career, and what he does outside of Potter should have no impact on that particular franchise.

R2C said...

Hi Carol, I don't know if you're going to receive this message as I can't access your blog... however, I just wanted to mention that I WASN'T putting a smoking picture up as a proof that he does smoke. I completely realize they are publicity shots for Equus. It just seemed to fit in very well with the blog post and I just wanted to put it on. Secondly, I don't care whether it's part of the job or not, it's a habit that has been picked up, plain and simple. He didn't need to smoke for the role. It was unnecessary for him to do so.

Also, isn't that what I exactly said? There's no proof of him smoking other than in Equus. However, I just stated an opinion that I believe the claim.

I also don't know how many seasons he's played in Equus, although I do remember that because he did such a good job, producers wanted him to return to the stage to reprise the role. Maybe I'm confusing my facts here, but I definitely remember reading that and assumed "coming back" meant a second season that has yet passed. I'll be sure to check up on that though, thanks.

And I only brought up this role in Equus to state the irony of the news articles I read about his smoking habit. The articles all stated that the Harry Potter producers are begging him NOT to smoke in public because it would tarnish the clean cut Harry Potter image. No matter how fantastic Dan was in Equus, the story is by NO MEANS "clean cut" and appropriate for children. It goes hand in hand with smoking.

Thanks for commenting!

Carol said...

Sorry if I offended you somehow. I really wasn't trying to pick a fight. I just wasn't sure from how you said "It seems pretty legit, considering that pictures of Dan smoking DO exist..." whether you actually did know those were from Equus. Many people don't realize that.

You did say there was no proof of Dan having a smoking habit, and it was your opinion that you believe the claim. And I was stating my own opinion that I don't believe Dan smokes in real life (I personally think he's too smart to do that to himself), and that he just does it when the part he's playing calls for it.

I'm personally very much of the mindset that smoking is bad for you. I sincerely hope Dan doesn't smoke in real life, and I wish no one did. While I personally agree that I can't see why smoking was necessary in Equus (or in December Boys, as he did it there too briefly), it most definitely was part of the script (I've read the play) and Dan seems to be a firm believer in doing what the script calls for, not having the writers make modifications just to suit his personal preferences.

I think I did read an article where Dan said the cigarettes in December Boys were some non-addictive herbal sort (not being a smoker, I wasn't aware there even was such a thing), but I don't know about Equus. I suspect they were real because I saw the play from stage seating on the side where he and Richard Griffiths were seated when they had a smoke together, and the smoke at least smelled real.

The play was written and first produced in the early 70's when smoking was more widely accepted than it is today. I truly HATE that they left that in now that we know more about the dangers of smoking, and I can't personally see any necessity for it myself, but someone more astute than me about the symbolism of theatre said it was there as a sort of bonding moment, building trust between the patient and the psychiatrist. Personally, I wish they'd bonded over something else.

And I knew you brought Equus up as a comparative ... how it was odd that the Potter producers would be upset over the smoking, but not over the nudity in Equus. And your point there makes sense. But if it's true that he is smoking, I suppose their objection would be because Dan could smoke in public, but he isn't too likely to be running around the streets of London starkers.

You are right, Equus was certainly something not appropriate for children ... but then, no responsible parent would take a child to see it just because the actor who plays Harry Potter happened to be in it. Even if you overlook the nudity for a moment, the story itself was more than a little disturbing.

As for the seasons he's done Equus, I think I know where you probably got confused. There was an article about Dan doing a summer theatre workshop and it talked about the Equus writer having wanted to do a revival of the play for quite some time. When he saw Dan do a bit from it in the workshop, that's when he knew he'd found the actor he wanted to reprise the role for him. But last year in London, from the first preview on February 16th through the final night on June 9th, was the only time Dan has done Equus so far. (Equus is currently being done in a touring production around the UK, but with Alfie Allen playing the part Dan played). Dan will be doing it again on Broadway beginning mid-September of this year and running through early February of next year. Richard Griffiths will be doing it with him, but all the other cast members will be different from the London production.

Again, I'm very sorry if my earlier comments were in any way offensive to you. I certainly meant to harm.

Incidentally, the reason you couldn't access my blog is that I don't have one. I just have a google email account.

R2C said...

Oh, no - please don't think I thought you were trying to pick a fight. I certainly didn't think so and I do appreciate your comment! What else are comments on blogs for, right?

I do see your point about how they incorporated the smoking because they wanted to stay true to the premise of the book. It's a very valid point, considering that I've read Equus as well and the play itself has a very unique structure; the playwright had a specific image of the play in his mind, which consisted of some bizarre staging tactics - if they were not applied on the stage, the play would lose much of its qualities. Smoking in the play only brings around a more literal adaptation. I don't agree with it, and I know you don't as well, but I do see WHY they did it.

As for the nudity, I know there certainly won't be a problem of Dan running stark naked in the streets anytime soon. But I'm sure kids who are Harry Potter/Dan Radcliffe fans and who follow all news pertaining to Harry Potter religiously know about the play, both regarding the physical aspects (aka the nudity, the horses) as well as the subject matter (even though they may not have FULLY understood it). They're not actually seeing the play, but they DID hear about it and probably saw the promo pictures as well. To me, that's bad enough. It's not AS bad as physically going to see the play, and I do hope young kids won't go see it (yikes!) but it's still pretty inappropriate in my opinion!

Again, thanks for the Equus seasons explanation. My bad completely. I know Alfie is now playing his role, but I did think Dan performed twice and has now completely finished. Ah well.

No problem at all, don't worry about it at all! I appreciate all your comments! It's great.

Carol said...

I'm glad I hadn't said anything to offend!

You are so right about the bizarre staging for that play. Before I went, I'd read the script and seen the film, and from having seen the film version, I could not imagine in my head how on earth it would ever work on stage with such a minimal set design. Now that I've seen it, I think it was actually better than the film version because having so little in the way of background really forced the audience to focus on every detail of the action on stage so they could keep up with what was happening.

I'm sure you're quite right that there are lots of young Potter fans, who are fans of Dan's as well, who will have read about Equus and the nudity and the scenes with the horses, and from comments I've read in some of the forums which cater to the younger fans, most seem to think it's gross and can't understand why he'd want to do it, but don't seem as disturbed by it as they would by things like smoking, drinking, etc. That's probably a good thing. As for being in the audience, I know in London, there was no age limit for admission. It was left up to parental discretion. The youngest I saw when I was there looked to be in their mid-teens, and I happened to sit next to a girl who mentioned in conversation that she was 14. That's too young, in my opinion, for some people, but others are mature enough to handle it at that age. Personally, I don't think this girl understood alot of the play...she just wanted to be there to see Dan.

One thing that surprised me when I saw the play was the actual importance of the nudity. In the film version, because of all the background influences, the nude scene at the end was more of a private moment between two characters, that went badly and resulted in the violence. Although in many ways, it still is that in the stage production, the lack of any real visual aids and the fact that you can still see the psychiatrist standing at the edge of the scene watching what's happening emphasizes the fact that what the audience is seeing is actually the boy (Dan) retelling the experience to his doctor, and the nudity just serves to increase the sense of his overwhelming vulnerability at that point in his treatment. I don't think I really understood that until I'd seen it myself.

I don't know where you're located, but if you're anywhere within a reasonable distance of New York, it really would be worth going if you can. I think it was incredibly well done.

And my apologies for getting so impossibly far off your main topic! I really hope the smoking reports turn out to be a false alarm.