Michael Gambon, who inherited the role of Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore from the late Richard Harris with the third Harry Potter film, has never read any of the J.K Rowling novels. "You'd get upset about all the scenes it's missing from the book, wouldn't you?" he tells the Los Angeles Times' Hero Complex blog, noting that Alan Rickman (Snape) and Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort) have also chosen to rely on their scripts. "No point in reading the books because you're playing with [screenwriter] Steve Kloves' words."
I can understand as actors them wanting to leave themselves a bit of wiggle room when the films are already so faithful to the books. And I have no complaints about their performances (yes, Gambon is a little...gruff compared to Harris, but his Dumbledore has been facing even darker days). Yet, a piece of me would like to know that they -- and really, I just mean Gambon, who's embodying the most beloved role after Harry -- have turned every page and cried when I cried.
How do you feel about this? Does an actor have to have read the books for you to believe that his role means as much to him as it does to you? Or does the fact that he's actually spent more hours walking in the characters' shoes than it took for you to read all seven novels mean that he wins?
More 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince':
'Harry Potter': Your favorite Daniel Radcliffe talk show appearance?
'Harry Potter' and the 10 Teen-Movie Parallels
'Harry Potter': 8 Exclusive EW Cast Pics!
Sex and the 'Harry Potter' movies: Does anyone want this?
Poll: Will you reread 'Half-Blood Prince' before seeing the film?
A fun activity for these economically strapped times: Go to your local library, rifle through the shelves, and try to locate the most ridiculous book you can find! Or, if you prefer to save gas money -- or are currently wondering, "What are books?" -- just log onto Awful Library Books, an awesome blog that posts the worst reads available in local libraries. The blog, which was started by two Detroit-area librarians -- see TIME's article about the duo here -- is a little like a literary version of FailBlog, highlighting long-forgotten treasures like Bert Bacharach's Book For Men, Dee Snider's Teenage Survival Guide, and Guide to the Return of Halley's Comet (useful once every 75 years!).
Will publishing a mystery novel "penned" by Richard Castle, Nathan Fillion's best-selling crime writer on ABC's Castle, win the show a new audience? Probably not. But it's a pretty genius idea to keep fans interested over the summer until the show's Sept. 21 return. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the first half of Heat Wave will debut on abc.com one-chapter-a-week starting Aug. 10, with the full novel being published by Hyperion on Sept. 29. During the first season of the show, Castle shadowed NYPD homicide detective Kate Beckett (Stana Katic) for inspiration for Nikki Heat, the heroine of his next series. Presumably, Heat Wave is the first installment in that collection. (It was among the titles Fillion's Castle playfully brainstormed: Summer Heat, Heat Wave, In Heat...).
The real mystery is who will actually write the book. The identity of the author(s) is being kept secret for now. I hope they at least let Fillion take a final pass on the manuscript. As we all suspected, and he's confirmed, he's responsible for a fair amount of Castle's clever dialogue. Not sure it'd read like Castle without him.
Are you planning on reading Heat Wave? I'm in, assuming it doesn't blow. (The Hyperion run is hopeful. It's not like this show's Lost; you wouldn't gamble on fans buying it on the title alone.) I want to see if/how Castle incorporates Beckett's mother's murder into the character and plot -- though I suspect that will come in the second half of the novel so the show has a chance to deal with the fallout first...
More 'Castle':
Nathan Fillion answers your questions
Nathan Fillion takes the EW Pop Culture Personality Test
'Castle': Great, now I'm invested
'Castle': Nathan Fillion making your clock tick?
'Castle': Snap judgment on Nathan Fillion's new show
TV is a social surrogate, studies say. Which show is yours?
If you're looking for something to read about Michael Jackson that will give you some insight into the man's talent and life, I recommend these three very different books:
1. The Michael Jackson Story, by Nelson George. First published in 1984 as a paperback quickie, The Michael Jackson Story is actually a first-rate cultural study by the journalist-critic-historian Nelson George. George draws on his deep knowledge of soul and rhythm & blues, along with lots of original reporting, to place Jackson in the history of popular music in a lively, exciting way.
2. Trapped: Michael Jackson and the Crossover Dream, by Dave Marsh. A 1985 book by the well-known rock critic that argues that Jackson's background as an abused child and his subsequent attempts to live in a safe, self-contained world of Peter Pan-like surroundings, trapped him in an artistically limiting way. Despite being critical of many of Jackson's decisions and those of the people surrounding him, Trapped also brims over with love and knowledge of Jackson's music, and offers some of the finest analyses ever about what made Jackson's hits work, and why his best music is so brilliant.
3. Moonwalk, by Michael Jackson. This 1988 autobiography was a typical bit of non-music Jackson product. Which is to say, it was marketed as a revealing tell-all but published mostly to promote his then-new album Bad, while trying assiduously to reveal as little as possible. Filled with banalities such as "The price of fame can be a heavy one" and "It hurts to be mobbed," Moonwalk ultimately cannot help but disclose more than its author intended. His chronicles of his upbringing under the brutal hand of his father Joe are far more poignant and painful than he alluded to in the TV documentary Life With Michael Jackson. And Michael's discussions of his show-biz models -- what he calls "the real showmen: James Brown, Sammy Davis, Jr., Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly" -- are fascinating. The book also captures Jackson's contradictions, such as when he speaks of his muscial achievements and his multi-million-dollar contracts for Pepsi-Cola commercials with equal pride. It's a rare peek into the way Jackson's mind worked.
Have you read any of these? Are there other books about Jackson you'd recommend?
I've read all the Harry Potter books. Once. I don't understand the people who are rushing to reread Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince before the July 15 film release. The fact that I haven't read the book since 2005 means that the movie might still have a chance of surprising me. Perhaps I'm so against "the rereading" because I hadn't read any of the series when I went to see the first film, and I ended up enjoying it more than the friends who were already hardcore fans... What's your MO when it comes to preparing for Harry Potter movies? Tell us in the poll below. (And explain in the comments section. There's still time to sway me...)
More Harry Potter:
Jeff Jensen on the set of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
New Harry Potter posters: Love! Jealousy! Betrayal!
Stephen King on J.K. Rowling's Ministry of Magic (Deathly Hallows spoilers)
I was talking with some friends over the weekend about the recent "performance" of James Joyce's Ulysses on Twitter. "Highlights" of our conversation included:
"How do you condense a massive literary classic into 140-character Tweets?"
"More importantly, why would you do that?"
"There's a long and storied tradition of Ulysses reenactments, though, isn't there?"
"But on Twitter? Seriously?"
"Wait. Has anyone in this room read Ulysses?"
"Nope."
"I started it once."
"Yeah, me too."
"[Crickets.]"
Okay, so it wasn't exactly a high-minded throwdown. But if Twitter is the new forum for breathing new life into highbrow literature, which classic should "come on down!" -- Price Is Right reference, hell yeah! -- and get its Tweet on next? Vote in our poll below, then make like an English major and take it to the comments section!
As one of EW's book reviewers, I've written dozens of critiques, both laudatory and negative. And, admittedly, some of my reviews have been so negative, they've bordered on being a tad snide. But aside from an email here and there from an author kindly refuting my reviews, I've been treated rather well by my subjects (and that includes the wonderful Adam Davies, an author so appreciative of my B+ review of Mine All Mine, he sent me a nice, hand-written note that still hangs on my office wall to brighten bad days. So thank you, Adam!).
But one Boston Globe reviewer, Roberta Silman, has found herself in a bit of a pickle thanks to novelist Alice Hoffman, who was not very pleased with the reviewer's negative write-up of her latest novel, The Story Sisters. After Silman's piece ran in the newspaper, Hoffman took to Twitter and began lashing out at Silman over the course of several tweets: "Roberta Silman in the Boston Globe is a moron. How do some people get to review books? And give the plot away." "Now any idiot can be a critic. Writers used to review writers. My second novel was reviewed by Ann Tyler. So who is Roberta Silman?" "No wonder there is no book section in the Globe anymore -- they don't care about their readers, why should we care about them"
Okay, so freedom of speech, right? But then Hoffman's next tweet bordered on harassment: "If you want to tell Roberta Silman off her phone is [Silman's number here]. [Silman's email here]. Tell her what u think of snarky critics." Now, Hoffman is free to form her own opinions about her reviewers. But at what point does she go too far? Releasing the email and phone number of a reviewer to her fans? Is it acceptable for novelists to exact revenge on their reviewers, especially considering the fact that Hoffman is already a successful author who hardly needs to rely on good reviews for sales?
And get this: For the most part, Silman's review was hardly negative. The Globe writer included several sentences full of praise for the author, like: "There are some wonderful passages as the book winds to a close," and "One of my favorite books is her Illumination Night, which amply displays her gifts of precise prose and the ability to create sympathetic characters." In fact, the worst Silman seemed to write about Story Sisters was that the novel "lacks the spark of the earlier work." Looking at those passages, it seems to me that Hoffman's vengeful rant will only hurt her image in the long run. And it looks like Hoffman might be having second thoughts about her reaction—her twitter page has been down as of this morning.
So, PopWatchers: Team Hoffman or Team Silman?
UPDATE: Thanks to a tipster, we stumbled upon an interview with author Richard Ford, in which he admits to putting a gunshot hole through a book written by a writer who panned one of his books. The reviewer? Alice Hoffman. An excerpt:
"Robert Birnbaum: Are you going to go out and shoot it? Is that a true story that your wife took a pistol and shot a bad review Alice Hoffman gave you?
Richard Ford: Yes, it is a true story. Shot her book. Seemed so good to do. We had another copy so I went out and shot it. I don't read my reviews anymore.
Birnbaum: Well, that might save you on ammunition."
I'll start this post with the requisite SPOILER ALERT for those of you who haven't seen this weekend's weepy cancer-centric Jodi Picoult adaptation. But for those of you who have, you might understand why faithful devotees of the novel are outraged by the Nick Cassavetes-directed film. Outraged enough that at one point, fans even started a Facebook group called "Save My Sister's Keeper!!"
So what's the big deal? Why, the film adaptation boasts a completely different ending than the book. Though the book ends on a somber note, killing off a character in an unexpected manner, the movie takes on a decidedly more Hollywood-esque ending, keeping said character alive. Even Picoult herself felt iffy about the change: "Having the ending changed would certainly not have been my choice. I
wrote the ending very intentionally because I wanted to leave the
reader with a certain message. And changing that ending changes that
message. However, I am excited to see the movie and to judge it on its
strengths."
Now, screenwriter Jeremy Leven wouldn't be the only scriptwriter who has taken liberties with book adaptations. Even Peter Jackson, the writer/director obsessed with staying faithful to J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings saga, condensed and added new material to his film. But it's a bold move to change an entire ending of an adaptation, especially considering that Picoult's novel boasts such a large following.
So if you were Leven, PopWatchers, would you have changed the ending in the film? For those of you who have seen it, were you happy with the bold choice, or would you have preferred the movie to have stayed 100 percent faithful? And what's the most egregious change you've ever seen in an adaptation?
More on My Sister's Keeper:
My Sister's Keeper: Lisa Schwarzbaum's movie review
Nick Cassavetes: 'I changed The Notebook's ending, too'
My Sister's Keeper: EW's review of the novel (2004)
If it would possibly stop raining at some point and actually turn into summertime (Mother Nature, I'm talking to you), I'd need some form of material to read on the beach. That's why I'm preparing with this week's Must: Along for the Ride, the latest from Y.A. queen Sarah Dessen.
The book, fresh off the presses as of last Tuesday, is about an 18-year-old insomniac who spends the summer with her dad and step-mom in a quaint beach town (so a synopsis tells me -- I'm saving it for when I actually find a nice day to spend outside). I started reading Dessen's novels as a teenage girl disappointed by the dumbed-down chick-lit-lite offered to my demographic. Now, even though I'm clearly not in the same age group as the protagonists anymore, I still find the books enjoyable and inherently relatable.
On the surface, the plots of the novels are similar: introverted teenage girl dealing with some sort of crisis (parents' divorce, best friend's pregnancy, sexual assault), meets a love interest whom she ignores at first, but when he helps her realize something new about herself, she blossoms into the butterfly she didn't know she was all along. But there's something about the way Dessen addresses the minutiae of teen-dom with out talking down (like how, at 17, every single thing your parents do pisses you off for no reason), that makes me connect. Hollywood agrees: Two of Dessen's novels were combined into the Mandy Moore movie How to Deal in 2003.
What's on your Must List this week? List up to three items from current TV/movies/music/books/games/online. Don't forget your e-mail address, in case we decide to use your submission in the magazine. Deadline is Thursday, June 25 at noon ET.
We knew that Kelly Osbourne inked a book deal late last year. That news came as no surprise, seeing as how publishers are always hungry for juicy memoirs from drug-addled starlets, even ones who spend their days trying to eke their way off the F-list. But yesterday, WWD.com received some intel from Osbourne herself regarding the theme of her book, which is titled Fierce: “It’s about all the major things girls go through before they turn 21.... It's 16 chapters where I explain what I did and where I
went wrong, and then I offer professional advice on how to do things
differently.”
First off, I have to applaud the 24-year-old Osbourne for rejecting a run-of-the-mill memoir that makes most readers question whether or not the author has lived long enough to churn out his/her life stories (or, a run-of-the-mill memoir that leaves readers thinking, "Who cares?"). Young girls coping with their own troubled times are well-served reading about the trials of those who have experienced drug addiction and rehab. And it's interesting that Osbourne is opting for some image rehab as well, seeing as her own mum devoted time hosting the first season of Rock of Love Charm School, an entire program centered around image rehab (and, let's face it, boobs and trucker hats).
But after seeing Osbourne grace the feature pages of People and other magazines discussing her rehab experience, I'm beginning to wonder if the singer is just milking her troubles a bit too much for her own good. It seems as if Osbourne's career has become intertwined with her addiction just as much as Kirstie Alley's career has become intertwined with her weight problems and, really, that isn't the best move for someone who actually had promise in another field. Granted, I can't fault Osbourne for trying to improve the lives of others -- as I mentioned above, it is admirable -- but do we care enough at this point to read yet another book/watch yet another interview with a member of the Osbourne family discussing drug addiction? Why doesn't she just filter her problems into song, and release one heckuva comeback album?
Thoughts, PopWatchers? Would you read Fierce? Buy it for your daughter? And do you think the celebrity rehab genre has grown tired, especially considering there's an entire VH1 series called, you know, Celebrity Rehab?
