Good morning, Thursdayheads! In the morning, I always like to pour myself a cup of old, reheated coffee, burn a bagel, and pretend to read a newspaper. (Usually I just flip around until I find “The Wizard of Id” or “Pickles,” because I am basically 12.)
If I were like a real adult, though, maybe I’d be reading the Wall Street Journal right now, but then again, probably only its movie reviews. And I’d be looking for the pictures—you know, the distinctive little stipple-and-crosshatching dealies. God, I love those. They’re so classy.
Here are six consecutive years of Harry Potter portraits (or, as I just mistyped, “Harry Porters”), commissioned for the Wall Street Journal‘s movie reviews section. In them, Daniel Radcliffe is visibly aging at a breakneck speed. Boy, it really piques your morbid fascination, doesn’t it? Puts you in touch with your sense of mortality? (Yeah, I know, it’s too early in the day, sorry.)
These illustrations, I just discovered, are properly known in publishing lingo as hedcuts, which makes sense, because I always (correctly!) assumed they are meant to look like woodcuts. They are not called “hedcuts” because the “heds” appear to have been “cut” away from the subjects’ bodies, although that is a pretty good guess.
Hedcuts are the WSJ’s trademark, and the WSJ is duly self-obsessed with them. I think they’re beautiful. I will probably use a hedcut of Kelly Ripa or Alex Blagg as my iPhone wallpaper.
Like basically everyone else in these films, he definitely looked best in Goblet of Fire. The excessively short hair is a bit difficult for me to look past in the more recent films.
are you kidding me? the hair was too shaggy in gof. prisoner of azkaban was truly the hottest he will ever look to me (which makes me feel awkward since he’s /still/ thirteen in the picture and i’m not twelve anymore…
this post is hilarious