Well, now that Harry is done vanquishing evil with magic, he's using his charm to talk to women and pursue a starting spot on a professional Quidditch team. Sounds like a well-deserved break for our over-worked hero.
But Potter apart, I would like to congratulate Susie Figgis, the initial Harry Potter casting director, for such a spectacular find! Not only did she assemble a magical cast of (soon-to-be extremely wealthy) child stars, but she also found Harry Potter. Now, that's some true talent.
Jest aside, I would like to address an issue of some relevance. Scores of the members of the initial cast of the Harry Potter films were 11 or younger when they began filming. At such a young age, no one can make a decision as large as acting in a major motion picture without parental consent, and I am sure that many of the original cast were encouraged to act in the films by their parents (for fame, fortune, glory, etc.). Surely, the films have benefited many of their stars (the three protagonists, Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint, have made almost $150 million from their short acting careers). However, at the same time, many of the actors have devoted almost half of their lives to the film series, significantly changing their lives and definitely keeping them from pursuing normal courses of development. As such, is it ethical for children to commit to such long commercial contracts or should governments move to enforce limits on them? There have surely been dozens of prominent child stars that have turned to substance abuse and other destructive behaviors as a result of their childhood stardom. Perhaps Lindsay Lohan or Macaulay Culkin (the star of the Home Alone series) ring a bell?
In any case, between late-night ventures to Harry Potter premiers and dressing up for Harry Potter-themed spirit days, I hope that all of you potterheads are having a wonderful Thanksgiving weekend!
11 comments:
I don't think that it's the government's place to limit children's commercial contracts. If they want to work, and they have decent working conditions (which I'm sure the Harry Potter cast, Lindsay Lohan, and Macaulay Culkin all had) they should be able to. It is the parents' responsibility to take care of their kids and raise them the right way to prevent them from getting into bad habits. For example, much of Lindsay Lohan's descent to drugs and rehab has been attributed to her unstable family and its inability to provide her with proper support. Government limits cannot do the job of a parent. Even if the government did have limits, it would probably not be successful in preventing certain child-stars from resorting to destructive behavior.
This is the subject of interesting debate. Whenever I see an infant in a movie or TV show, I wonder if the parents already have an agent for their tiny baby. On the one hand, I think that show business is extremely exciting. But on the other hand, children in front of the camera are too young to decide for themselves whether they like being in the spotlight. Because my brother acts professionally, I've seen my share of stage parents over the years - and let me tell you, they are not pretty. Sometimes it's sad to see just how pushy they really are. Luckily, there are now laws to prevent parents from stealing their child's money, so they can't take everything (like Macaulay Culkin's parents did). But unfortunately, there's no way to prevent them from throwing their kids into auditions rooms in front of agents and directors in an attempt to gain fame and "star power."
I agree with Jessia; the ethical issues with children acting for long stretches of time is a huge gray area. On one hand, child actors with stable supports have gained so many benefits from their careers. Think of the High School Musical Kids, Natalie Portman, this HP trio, Hilary Duff, and so forth. But also, children who have dsyfunctional families tend to crumble thanks to the prolonged exposure often forced by their parents. Lindsey Lohan, Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, and so on.
But I think we should think about these kids out of their stardom for a second. Its common knowledge that children from more supportive backgrounds do better than children from unstable backgrounds. Is it the government's responsibility to take a child away if he or she was well taken care of physically, but lived with parents that truly didn't care for helping them reach their highest potential and become better people? Some may think yes, but like Rashmi said, its not the government's job to be parents for these children.
Also, many of these actors mature faster and gain more independence and savvyness about the film industry. If they didn't want to be in it, I think they would have stirred up a storm at home. And if their parents gave them a hard time, they could file for legal emancipation, like that girl from Charmed did.
And finally, the media and us seem to exacerbate the downfall and issues these poor children must deal with anyways. I think Lindsay and Britney would have more strength to make better choices if we weren't so keen to document their breakdowns or give their camerawhore parents opportunities to lampoon their children for fame and money.
I agree with a lot of what's already been said here - I don't see the point in the government trying to enforce limits on commercial contracts such as these. It's true that these child stars were not able to "pursue normal courses of development," and Emma Watson has said before that she seriously considered quitting the role of Hermione in the middle of the series, which is understandable considering the pressure of the actors' positions. However, the three of them have so far grown up into seemingly decent adults, which can be attributed to their own personal characters, their parents, and the people they were surrounded by on the set of Harry Potter- not anything the government ever did. One can only hope that these actors don't turn to destructive behaviors the way many other child stars have.
I agree with what a lot people above me have mentioned. In addition, I would like to bring up the fact that the government already has limits on child actors and such. For example, way back in the 90's, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson were cast for Full House partially because they are twins (well on top of their adorable faces... and round eyes). There was a limit on how many hours child actors could work, so they cast twins in order for them to split the hours due long filming hours.
Like Jessia said, governments should not try to do the jobs of the parents... but these days... governments are trying to get a say in a little bit of everything.
I loved this video and found it really funny! However, as to your more serious subject, Amrit, I don't think that more should be done to regulate child actors. I myself see both sides of this issue and I realize that both sides have merit. On the one hand, putting myself in their shoes, I wouldn't want to be told that I couldn't be in all of the Harry Potter series because the government wouldn't allow my contract to run for that long. If a child actor is genuinely excited about something, then I think he should be allowed to do it. However, there is a flip side. The parents might be pushing them into acting, which is where the government contracts would be good. It would be harmful to have parents who live vicariously through you, pushing you into auditions and such, as Jessia said. I also think it would probably better to receive an education in a proper school rather than a tutor when you're not on set, although I'm not sure. I think there are certainly benefits of having the government regulate it, in terms of child labor laws, but also what about kids having fun?! In my opinion, governments should not regulate the commercial contracts of child actors.
-Alice Bebbington
This is a really funny video! Kudos to you Amrit for finding this and relating it to a serious debate!
I agree with Jessia in that this is a very tricky area. On the one hand, I believe that growing up with pushy stage parents is a horrible and scarring experience. However, how can we really tell if parents are just trying to get money, or really looking out for the best interests of their kids. If acting is something that a child truly enjoys, then they should be thanking their parents for setting them up on such a road to success. But this is hard to tell when kids are too young to make decisions for themselves. It is good that, as Jessia said, there are laws now preventing parents from taking their kids' money, but I'm not sure what more the government can do. Each family's situation is so different that more regulations may end up hurting instead of helping.
I think that government should have, the obvious regulations that LuShuang mentioned, but they should not restrict the amount of years kids can dedicate their work to films.
Also, Being kind of a huge Harry potter fan, I know that many of the actors auditioned for their roles because they wanted to act, in fact Daniel Radcliffe was very much interested in the role, and it took a while for Casting to convince his parents. Gladly this shows that the actors were not pushed by greedy parents, the cast is made up of people who love to act.
Also, it's hard for me to compare the likes of Emma Watson or Bonnie Wright to Lindsay Lohan, because they have, from the public eye, grown up to be respectable women and actresses. This is very different from the reputation Lindsay Lohan has made herself.
I believe that child actors should have the right to sign contracts, although it is unfortunate that there are many crazy parents that take advantage and exploit their child's abilities.
Who knew Daniel Radcliffe was hilarious? I probably spent 5 minutes just straight laughing. He normally seems awkward and uncomfortable in the movies, but apparently not in real life. Or as he would say, "Actor Dan's" life.
Yee! I love Harry Potter!
Anyways... I agree with most people on this post, in that it's the parent's responsibility to ensure the welfare of their children. It is definitely not the government's responsibility; they have bigger problems to worry about! But I have to disagree with Danielle about allowing children to sign contracts. This as well, should be their parent's responsibility because they can probably better assess how well their children would do in such an environment than the child itself. At 10 yrs. old, I definitely would have not had all the knowledge to be able think critically enough and realize how much this could impact the rest of my life. They're definitely not mature enough to understand the benefits and repercussions of taking on such a large responsibility.
I don't think the government should get involved in the decisions actors make if they want to commit themselves to contracts or not for an extensive time. I believe that this decision should be taken by the actor because ultimately it will benefit him/her or be bad for him/her like it was for Lindsay Lohan and Macaulay Culkin. I think the futures of these actors should be up to them because they're the ones who will live this experience.
Post a Comment