Harry Potter: a Jewish-American, gay communist poet.

[Inchante]

[SIZE="5"]Daniel Radcliff to play Allen Ginsburg, the Jewish-American, Gay Communist Poet often sighted as one of the founders of the Beat Generation.
[/SIZE]

Obviously, this is not an example of type casting. I'm not sure if Radcliff can pull it off.

Here is Allen Ginsburg as recently portrayed by James Franco in "Howl":





The Announcement From Entertainment Weekly:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/03/19/da...-darlings/
Sorry, James Franco. Your brother Dave kicked box office butt this week in 21 Jump Street, and now Daniel Radcliffe is on track to erase the memory of you as Allen Ginsberg. Per People, set photos surfaced today of the former Boy Who Lived taking on a new mantle: The Boy Who “Howl”-ed. Click through for the first image!

In Kill Your Darlings, Radcliffe plays a collegiate-age Ginsberg just as he’s meeting influential fellow Beat Generation founders Jack Kerouac (Jack Huston) and Lucien Carr (Dane DeHaan). From the looks of it, Radcliffe is pitch-perfect as the tweedy Ginsberg… well, maybe slightly more adorable. It’s still DanRad we’re talking about.

When the movie began development way back in 2009, Jesse Eisenberg was slated to depict Ginsberg, with Chris Evans and Ben Whishaw playing Kerouac and Carr, respectively. Flash forward three years, there’s a whole new high-watt cast. Elizabeth Olsen is also on board to play Kerouac’s first wife, Edie Parker, and Ben Foster will portray William Burroughs. Michael C. Hall , Jennifer Jason Leigh, David Cross, and Kyra Sedgwick round out the cast.

What do you think, movie fans? From Harry Potter to How To Succeed and now “Howl” — do you buy Radcliffe as the controversy-stirring American poet?

[Pix]

I look forward to it. I'm interested, and I'm also curious to see if Daniel Radcliff is a good enough actor to play someone radically different from HP. Some actors can admirably fill several varying roles while others are pretty "one note." Time to see which one Daniel Radcliff is.

[OrphanPip]

To be honest, both Franco and Radcliff are way too attractive to ever believably portray Ginsberg.

I don't really get the sudden flourish of interest in the Beats, there's a film version of On the Road (which ends up essentially being an early years biopic centred on Kerouac instead of Ginsberg) coming out this year too. In general, none of them were particularly talented, but I suppose they stand for a certain aesthetic that remains attractive to those who are angry at "the man." It's so hard being middle class and righteously angry at the world.

[Inchante]

I look forward to it. I'm interested, and I'm also curious to see if Daniel Radcliff is a good enough actor to play someone radically different from HP. Some actors can admirably fill several varying roles while others are pretty "one note." Time to see which one Daniel Radcliff is.

I saw Radcliff in "The Woman in Black". I was not all that impressed by his performance. Indeed, the circumstances of the role were not that much different from those of Harry Potter: a guy plagued by a form of supernatural evil , an element of mystery to be solved, and the need to overcome fear.

But, as you say, I am intrigued, and it will be interesting to see what he does.

[Inchante]

To be honest, both Franco and Radcliff are way too attractive to ever believably portray Ginsberg.

Ginsburg on the right.


Oh, I suppose he wasn't all that attractive (at least not physically), but I don't think he was necessarily unattractive either . . . though, I have never thought of Radcliff as being attractive. I always thought Radcliff's face looked somewhat collapsed, as if--if it were a piece of architecture--it were missing a necessary support beam and it was swayed in the middle.

I don't really get the sudden flourish of interest in the Beats

No, I imagine you wouldn't.

[OrphanPip]

No, I imagine you wouldn't.

Ha, wonderfully snarky, Inchante.

It's not an anti-American thing though, the Beats get an inordinate amount of attention in popular culture for a group that is more interesting for their politics than their ability as artists.

[Inchante]

Ha, wonderfully snarky, Inchante.

It's not an anti-American thing though, the Beats get an inordinate amount of attention in popular culture for a group that is more interesting for their politics than their ability as artists.

I would venture to say that you have managed to miss out on a large portion of their work then, as there are quite a few examples that don't match your description.

Edit:

It also takes a while for "popular culture" to catch up with counter culture. With rare exception, it has always been that way. That is a phenomenon of which I am certain you are aware. In the artistic realm, that understanding is as well known as the phrase "a man ahead of his time". But in particular reference to counter culture vs. dominant culture, there are many theories surrounding why and how one is assimilated into the other.

[OrphanPip]

We'll just put it down to a difference of preferences, they are just not my thing. Most of my ire is directed at Kerouac.

[Rainbowmum]

I am really looking forward to it ,Radcliff is a character actor.