BY PAUL T HORGAN

Child actors. These unfortunates are thrust into the adult (in the decent use of the term) world well before they are capable of dealing with it. It is usually at the behest of an ambitious parent and their vicarious desires based on the reflected glory of their offspring’s success. 

That, and, of course, money.

The career of a former child actor ending in the tragedy of addiction, death, or poverty as a result of obscurity when older has occurred so frequently that it is a trope. Movie companies now seem to be better aware of the risks and it may be that they include some form of post-fame welfare. Child actors succeed almost entirely because of their youth, and little beyond that, such as actual talent. For girls growing into young women, there is the prospect of transitioning into quasi-burlesque vocalists, but this is only delaying the inevitable when firm flesh begins to sag and attention drifts away to younger counterparts.

But another way to remain relevant after the cuteness has been sloughed off by developing body parts, and, in boys, deeper voices, is to espouse trendy causes, so ‘allies’ of whatever the cause is will want to support the adolescent, despite them growing out of all the features that made them bankable stars.

This seems to have been the solution espoused by the children made globally famous by starring in the film adaptations of the works of billionaire authoress J K Rowling. They did not get their roles because of acting ability, but because they were cute children whose appearance best matched the vision of the directors of the films. Unlike, say, Phil Daniels, Pauline Quirke, Drew Barrymore, or Sarah Chalke, they do not seem to have been able to survive professionally the maturing process. The casting calls for works similar to the paganist academia – or others at the same level of enterprise – that launched their careers are not there. They aren’t appearing in a Star Wars film. All their recent productions have lower budgets and audiences.

But they have badly bitten the hand that gave them their boost into global stardom. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have all denounced JK Rowling in a manner not too distant from a young member of the Red Guard attacking their elders during China’s Cultural Revolution. The argument is over transgender ‘rights’.

But they should not be blamed too much for doing this. JK Rowling is but one authoress, despite the billionarity, and Hollywood is much bigger. And it is the ideology of Hollywood that is more important to these adults. They want to remain at or near the top of the acting profession, and they have had to be rather Maoist about doing so. Perhaps they do hold deeply held and sincere beliefs, but their beliefs are also rather too conformist to be entirely credible. The movie industry is all about creating entertaining lies and a dependency on the audience’s willing suspension of disbelief. These poor – and I apply this in the non-financial use of the term – people are obliged to seek work in an industry which has been subject to ideological capture by the progressive left for decades.

Emma Watson is trying to make amends with JK Rowling, and Rowling is having nothing of it, pointing out that Watson’s elite opinions are a product of a life of comfort compared to Rowling’s before she persistently topped the bestseller lists and guaranteed profits for Warner Bros. films. And it is brutal. Rowling writes:

Like other people who’ve never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she’s ignorant of how ignorant she is. She’ll never need a homeless shelter. She’s never going to be placed on a mixed sex public hospital ward. I’d be astounded if she’s been in a high street changing room since childhood. Her ‘public bathroom’ is single occupancy and comes with a security man standing guard outside the door. Has she had to strip off in a newly mixed-sex changing room at a council-run swimming pool? Is she ever likely to need a state-run rape crisis centre that refuses to guarantee an all-female service? To find herself sharing a prison cell with a male rapist who’s identified into the women’s prison?

I wasn’t a multimillionaire at fourteen. I lived in poverty while writing the book that made Emma famous. I therefore understand from my own life experience what the trashing of women’s rights in which Emma has so enthusiastically participated means to women and girls without her privileges.“

Why is Watson trying to make amends? Another career move, now that the woke nonsense is being successfully trashed? Donald Trump was much better prepared for his second term as President, and has strongly rolled back on progressive causes like those that directly harm children, and prevent women athletes from rising to the top of their chosen sport. The murder of Charlie Kirk, and the appalling reaction by progressives on social media has sickened the country, leading to defections from the Democrats and more people signing up to the GOP, a trend that started during the Biden presidency, but accelerated after Kirk was murdered.

IT moguls had to kiss the ring of Trump after his victory, and it seems that Hollywood may have to do so as well, especially after the box-office bombs of high-budget films that were contaminated by wokeness. 

So Watson may be part of this shift.

What could any of the trio otherwise have done, given their choice of an extremely precarious profession, and also the known fate of far too many child actors? They had to read from the script they were given by progressive ideology.

They could have instead departed the profession and done a real job, only to be accosted years later by a TV crew doing a ‘Where Are They Now’ segment. It might not have been pretty.

It seems clear the beliefs that brought them into conflict with Rowling only developed after they exited the film franchise that launched their acting careers into the stratosphere. And they did not have to extend their pronouncements into open denunciation, and instead have been rather English about it all and respectfully disagree. But it seems that respectfully disagreeing in the USA can lead to a person being shot. So they went all Hollywood on Rowling.

But this is all understandable. Hollywood is Hollywood, and this is what Hollywood does. And what Hollywood does permeates through the acting profession in the Western world (China is another story). Extremely rich and self-centred people still have to project an aura of saintliness, and ideology is cheaper than charity balls.

So, while their career chicanes may seem indefensible to us mortals, given that nature of their chosen (assuming their parents ever gave them a choice) profession, the precariousness of this profession from top to bottom, and the profession’s prevailing ideology, they should be excused for trying to protect their careers to the best of their ability, even if it creates some terrible visuals outside the rarefied atmosphere of Tinsel Town and offends the billionairess whose works launched their careers.

They should be partially forgiven. 

Ringo Starr allegedly said that being rich just allows people to be miserable in comfort. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson live comfortable lives.

---

Paul T Horgan worked in the IT Sector. He lives in Berkshire.