A few thoughts on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Every year there's a summer blockbuster that I end up catching months later on DVD and wish I'd seen it at the movies.

I didn't want that to happen with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, so this afternoon I became part of a record-breaking opening weekend for the final film installment of J.K. Rowling's series.

I've been kind of indifferent toward the Harry Potter movies. I saw the first couple, then skipped a few in the middle. To me, they weren't as interesting as the books, all of which I've read and enjoyed. Still, this was the last one, so I really wanted to see it on the big screen.

I never got around to Deathly Hallows: Part 1, and I was surprised that Part 2 began without any introduction to the characters or story. It just begins, like there was a short intermission and you've returned from the bathroom or getting a snack. Luckily, I remembered enough from the book that it didn't matter.

And I can understand the point of view of director David Yates. If you've never read a word of the books or seen any of the movies, it's unlikely you'd start with this one. Still, if you're thinking about taking it in just to see what the fuss is about, don't bother. Or at least rent Part 1 first.

Deathly Hallows: Part 2 has a dark, apocalyptic look that's so appropriate for a climactic battle with Voldemort. I got a bit choked up at the end, even though I knew what was coming. I liked it, although it's obviously special effects and action driven, which is why in the end, I prefer the books.

I was thinking afterward what a great job Rowling did in synthesizing British history and literature and culture. She explores this idea of a mythic, idealized English character in a strong and absorbing way.

There are shades of Shakespeare, Dickens, Tom Brown's School Days, the Arthurian legend, St. George and the Dragon, the Duke of Wellington and probably other influences that I'm not sufficiently Anglophile to pick up on.

And Rowling blends everything together in a way that's masterful. I wish there had been a series like Harry Potter when I was growing up. They're thick and detailed and wonderful books to just lose yourself in. (The closest would be Lord of the Rings but they're more for high school or college.)

The other thing I'd like to mention is Daniel Radcliffe. I was never a big fan of Radcliffe's from the movies. He always struck me as kind of a passive actor. But I realized in this final Harry Potter that he's perfect for the role.

I read online somewhere in the past few days where someone questioned (jokingly, I assume) whether Warner Bros. had been hoping for a growth spurt somewhere between the first and last films. The writer concluded that Radcliffe's size actually works in his favor, and I agree.

I think part of Radcliffe's strength as Harry is that he's not 6 feet 5. He's got this boy-man look and that gives him an appealing vulnerability and he uses it well. It heightens the underdog quality. I think his slender build also makes it easier for young audiences to identify with him. He's a life-size hero.

But the place where I've truly come to appreciate Radcliffe's talent is onstage. I thought he was riveting in his Broadway debut in 2008 as a troubled teenager in Equus. And he's utterly delightful making his Broadway musical debut this year, in How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying.

I'm hoping Radcliffe will continue his theatre work, becoming part of a tradition of great British actors who move seamlessly between stage and screen.

How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying

How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, at Broadway's Hirschfeld Theatre
Gratuitous Violins rating: **** out of ****

The Broadway revival of How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, starring Daniel Radcliffe, put a smile on my face from beginning to end. Judging by the rapturous applause, I wasn't the only one having a great time.

Before the show I took in the Harry Potter exhibit at Discovery Times Square. It was great to see props and costumes from the movies and it's clear why Radcliffe engenders so much goodwill - he's the orphaned boy wizard we've watched grow up. We want him to do well.

And he brings oodles of boyish charm to J. Pierrepont Finch, a window-washer who uses luck, pluck and a how-to manual to climb the corporate ladder at the World Wide Wicket Company. Sporting an eye-catching blue bow tie he sings sweetly, dances up a storm and speaks with a flawless American accent.

I'll admit that Radcliffe isn't the most powerful singer, which detracts a bit from "I Believe in You." But not every role requires a big Broadway voice - think David Hyde Pierce, who was wonderful in Curtains and doesn't have one either. What's important is that Radcliffe creates such an engaging character.

Plus, director/choreographer Rob Ashford has put together the splashy, exuberant production numbers around Frank Loesser's catchy score that I love in a Broadway musical. "Company Way," "Coffee Break," "Paris Original," "Grand Old Ivy" and "Brotherhood of Man" were so much fun.

And this isn't a one-man show by any means.

John Larroquette, who towers over Radcliffe, has great chemistry with him as gruff company president J.B. Biggley. Rose Hemingway was delightful as Rosemary, the secretary who falls for Finch. She sounded so lovely, especially in "Happy to Keep His Dinner Warm." Christopher J. Hanke was hilarious as Bud Frump, Biggley's nephew and Finch's nemesis. And Ellen Harvey steals every scene as Biggley's secretary, Miss Jones, who succumbs to Finch's flattery.

How to Succeed is one of only eight musicals that have received the Pulitzer Prize for Drama. Based on a satirical guide by Shepherd Mead, a bestseller in the 1950s, it was adapted for the stage by Abe Burrows, Willie Gilbert and Jack Weinstock. The show debuted on Broadway in 1961 with Robert Morse, who also starred in the movie.

And I think it holds up pretty well, despite being a bit dated. Of course the women at the World Wide Wicket Co. are relegated to the secretarial pool. And how many people get the joke that the person hired to head the advertising department has the initials BBDO?

But How to Succeed still works because the songs are memorable and the characters are fun, the dancing is phenomenal and in many ways its send-up of the business world resonates 50 years later. (CNN's Anderson Cooper provides the authoritative voice of the how-to guide's narrator.)

This is the story of a young man who, despite not going to the proper school or having the right connections, still rises to the top through, okay, stretching the truth a bit here and there. With so much charm and a face like a choirboy, can you really hold that against him?

In some ways it's a uniquely American story - it speaks to our belief that with enough gumption anyone can make it, no matter how humble their background, even a window washer like "Ponty" Finch.

Radcliffe has already proved his mettle as a stage actor - I thought he was absorbing in Equus, as a troubled teenager who blinds horses. He could have sat at home in London and counted his Harry Potter earnings but he chose to take on the challenge of a Broadway musical.

I admire him for getting out of his comfort zone. I hope he continues to take risks and that they're all this incredibly entertaining - and successful.

Don't film The Catcher in the Rye

With the death Thursday of J.D. Salinger, speculation is starting over whether there'll finally be a film version of his 1951 novel The Catcher in the Rye.

It's been a long time since I've read the book, so I don't have an opinion on whether it's possible to make a good movie. But I do have sympathy for Salinger's explanation as to why he never sold the film rights.

In a 1957 letter, Salinger wrote that "for me, the weight of the book is in the narrator's voice." He says that any attempt to translate Holden Caulfield's inner thoughts into dialogue would sound labored.

Odds are at some point a movie will be made, and I will find that sad. I'll be sad not solely because it goes against Salinger's wishes but because it takes away some of the imagination and discovery involved in reading the book.

My case in point is Harry Potter.

I started reading J.K. Rowling's books long before the first movie came out. I formed my sense of what the characters were like from their description on the printed page. No one has to do that now. We know what Harry, Hermoine and Ron look and sound like.

Yes, I've enjoyed the movies but not nearly as much as the books. They're just not as rich or absorbing. Perhaps the movies are enticing children to start reading the series, and that's a good thing but it won't be the same.

For 59 years Holden Caulfield, that symbol of teenage rebellion, has lived solely in the imagination of readers of The Catcher in the Rye. It would be nice if we could just leave him there.

Daniel Radcliffe talks theatre

I loved the Harry Potter books but I've never been all that crazy about the movies. It's nothing personal, they're not bad movies. I just get more out of the books - they're richer, more detailed. And I'm not a huge Daniel Radcliffe fan. I feel bad saying this, because he was just a kid the first time I saw him on screen, but his performance always seemed a bit bland.

But I saw an interview with Radcliffe on Theater Talk and I was so impressed with what he had to say as he discussed preparing for his role in Equus, first in London and now on Broadway. At the tender age of 19, he just struck me as a very thoughtful young man who obviously takes his craft seriously.

And I loved what he said when Michael Riedel of the New York Post asked him what he'd learned from his Equus costar Richard Griffiths. Radcliffe responded that the main thing he'd learned was the importance of keeping his performance fresh.

"Someone asked me, How do you make it fresh every night? Well, I said, you just remember that people are paying exorbitant amounts of money to come and see you and it has to be the first time you've done it for them. If I change a line reading or whatever on stage, Richard is quick enough and listens so brilliantly that he will just go with it and be able to use it to make the scene fresh. So that's the main thing I've learned, just about keeping the play as sort of a living thing, not just rest on your laurels."

Radcliffe was 12 when Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone came out in 2001. While the interview has made me even more excited about seeing his Broadway debut, part of me thinks it'll feel a little weird to see him in an adult role. Even though I've watched him grow up over the course of the Harry Potter films, I still have that mental picture of him as a little boy.