Who Killed Dumbledore?

Amen to that!

Even a dead Richard Harris would do a better job.

I’ll back you to the hilt (of the sword of Gryffindor!) in any effort along this line.

Matt

Yeah, the GoF script sucked. I can’t see anybody doing a passable Dumbledore with what he was given.

As it is, I see the movies only several months after release, when they’re on DVD or cable. I’m much more into the books. It’s pretty easy for me to push the movie-versions out of my mind.

YES, Travis, I will support you! Granted that book Dumbledore can seem cruel and callous, especially to Snape, he is nonetheless NOT like Gambons’ portrayal in either movie. Book Dumbledore is an imperfect, but good and wise, person. Gambon Dumbledore is a thug. Gambon plays small cruelties (which are not in the books) for laughs - I was completely repelled by his grabbing and shaking Ron’s foot while the boy winced in pain in POA. His grabbing and shaking Harry in GOF just capped it. Dumbledore can seem to use Harry and Severus as tools, but, in the books, it becomes clear that he does care about them, particularly Harry. Gambon’s Dumbledore doesn’t seem wise, kind, powerful or caring - in short, he’s not Dumbledore. Give me Ian McKellan’s Gandalf any day! Poor Richard Harris didn’t have energy enough, but he was much closer to what I imagined.

I’ll happily back any campaign to replace Gambon! But let’s not wish him on poor Aberforth.

I had a funny reaction one day when watching a (non-HP) Alan Rickman film. I thought, “now Rickman would make a great Dumbledore…!” before my brain clicked in and reminded me he was already Snape.

If we can cast a vote for a non-English Dumbledore, I think my vote would go to Christopher Plummer.

And I’m with Maggie…I am already dreading what Gambon might do (or not do) in movie 6.

YEEEEEEEEEEEES! “Snape didn’t kill Dumbledore, Michael Gambon did.” Well said, and I totally agree for all the reasons listed above. Gambon lacks finesse, and plays a boorish Dumbledore.
Peter O’Toole’s elegance would’ve been perfect for the part! Thanks, Travis!

nester, I normally try to avoid strong responses that might discourage dialogue, so please take this with a grain of salt:

This is a silly response. We Harry Potter fans who are exceedingly familiar with these books and characters have all the right in the world to judge whether an actor (particularly one who hasn’t read the books!) is accurately protraying a character, whether we are professional actors or not.

In fact, you’re statement “I like Michael Gambon” is every bit as much a judgment as “I don’t like Michael Gambon.” Are you an actor? If not, you have no right to judge, right?

The idea of not judging is silly…everyone is going to judge whether a performance is good or bad. You simply can’t say, “You can only make positive judgments about an actor, unless you’re an actor, too.”

I will agree with you (as you’ll see in above comments) that blame should be placed on the director as well. Cuaron should not have hired Gambon. It was a bad move, in my opinion.

I definitely agree that the script is bad. Awful lines were given to Dumbledore, and his character has been minimized.

That said, Dumbledore was minimized in the first two films as well, and Harris still did a great job of creating the Dumbledore auro, the presence as well as the quirkiness.

I think there are multiple places where blame is due, but I still think, even given the bad writing, that Gambon has not captured Dumbledore’s character, and indeed, that he has given us someone entirely unlike Dumbledore.

I’m not sure the blame is Rowling’s either. I think at this point, all she has to do is approve the script after it’s written (correct me if I’m wrong).

I’m not sure Howard, Shyamalan, or Scorcese would have done a good job at all with Harry Potter. Sure, they’d make a great movie, but it’d be so vastly different from the books that fans would be really, really upset. You just don’t tell directors of that caliber that they have to be faithful to the story.

I don’t understand why they changed his looks… Dunno if anyone’s ever seen the HP parody “HP and the Secret Chamberpot of Azerbaijan”? (made for comic relief, you can find it on youtube) The guy that plays DD, doesn’t at all look right for the part. But he wore the costume of Richard Harris, and he looked about ten times better than Michael Gambon did. Oh, and the whole parody is just brilliant =P

The most popular story line of modern times and the producers of the Potter films could find no one better to replace Richard Harris’ Dumbledore than Michael Gambon?! That’s like replacing a cozy, candlelight dinner with burgers and fries. Whereas Harris’ character provided a soothing, quietly confident mentor to Harry, Gambon’s seems to be skirting the Dark Side as he looks like he’s going to kick Harry in the shins at any moment! My top 3 replacements would be:

1. Ian McKellen - Although I understand why he couldn’t take the job. It would be a virtual replay of his Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings movies. Had he not nailed that role, be would’ve been THE MAN to replace Harris.

2. Patrick Stewart - He can play anything, anywhere, anytime. His range as an actor is incredible (see his peerless rendition of Scrooge).

3. I was thinking Anthony Hopkins, but now I think the suggestion above of Peter O’Toole would have been an inspired choice. Harris and O’Toole are very similar in appearance, mannerisms and acting styles. The only question would’ve been whether O’Toole’s partying days were behind him.

The suggestions above that the scripts of the Gambon as Dumbledore films were inferior to the earlier ones is a valid one. However, this is being judged on the finished product, i.e. the film we get to see on screen. How much of his portrayal wound up on the cutting room floor because the kinder, gentler Dumbledore the writer and/or director wanted came off looking like Edward G. Robinson in a romantic comedy? It is very possible that the script or final cut of the film were changed to fit the actor, and not the other way around.

In any event, the new Dumbledore has not ruined the latter Potter movies for me. But it has ruined virtually every scene that Gambon is in.

I just noticed this thread and feel compelled to add my comments.

Absolutely agree that Gambon’s take on Dumbledore is not Dumbledore as we know and love him. Grabbing kids, shaking kids, hitting kids, yelling at kids - that’s not Dumbledore. And no, there is no aura of power. There’s just some man dressed in a silly costume speaking some rather silly lines in an unnecessarily agitated fashion.

Aura is a tricky thing. Trained actors, especially stage trained and Shakespeare trained, can fake it to a certain extent. The names mentioned above: McKellen, Stewart, Hopkins, could all, I think, do a better job than Gambon. O’Toole is a bit too nervy - inner calm would not be his strong suit. Rickman is a splendid actor, for sure, but for me he is now and forever, Severus Snape. Alec Guinness could have done a credible job too, I think, although maybe a little too restless inside.

But if you want the real thing, then the two actors I can think of who project an aura of power physically and with their voices best are Liam Neeson, and Sean Connery.

Neeson has already successfully voiced Aslan, which to me is a pretty close match to Dumbledore. He is a big man, projects physical power, but also inner calm. He is imperturbable. His only drawback is his age: at 54 he might be a little too young for Dumbledore.

Sean Connery projects physical power better than any other actor; take a look at him as Agamemnon in Time Bandits. Perhaps he doesn’t have quite the inner peace of Neeson, and would make an angrier Dumbledore, but that would be ok, too.

I notice that Gambon hasn’t been signed up for Half Blood Prince yet. Dare we hope that the producers are re-thinking their choice?

Travis, I have to disagreee with your penultimate point. I think that actors in the movies have had considerable success in portraying authority, charisma, power and even divine inspiration.

The actors we’ve mentioned before - McKellen (Gandalf, Magneto), Guinness (Obi Wan Kenobi, George Smiley), Hopkins (Lecter), Stewart (Professor X, Captain Picard), O’Toole (Lawrence, King Henry II, Neeson (Aslan, “Priest” Vallon, Schindler), Connery (in any role) - are all extremely charismatic, and capable of showing power and authority to a degree which would be hard to match in real life.

I think part of the difficulty in agreeing upon someone who could portray Dumbledore successfully is at least in part due to the archetypal nature of Dumbledore: the wise old mentor. We all have our own private and strongly held views of what someone like that should look like, and talk like, and act like. One actor isn’t going to fit the part for everyone. The same point would apply, of course, to Aslan.

And that point is even truer of any actor asked to play the Christ. While I think that Jim Caviezel was not the worst choice ever made for the role, I think it would be impossible to find a single man who could appear to be everything Christ is to all Christians.

But speaking of divinity, Ralph Fiennes recently appeared in a play called “The Faith Healer”. I understand that he gave a very compelling performance of a man possessed by a gift which he only half-believes, but which drives his life. I like him as Voldemort, but I think he’s wasted. Any actor worth his salt can do a mad-eyed psychopath. But he might have made a good Harry in his youth.

I’m afraid I have to agree that Gambon is not at all credible in the role of Dumbledore. He plays it in a dull and heavy fashion and as a lame tinkerer, not an inspired (and inspiring) visionary leader. And it is so bad that I (for one) would gladly sacrifice continuity between movies for the sake of reclaiming a little of the meaning and quality of the character of JKR’s Dumbledore.

Probably the think I miss most is the light that is in Dumbledore’s eye and the ‘twinklingly’ intelligent humor and playfulness that is so much a part of the character as written by JKR. Dumbledore in the books is always three steps ahead and always in on the joke even when no one else has yet realized there is one. Gambon presents us with a Dumbledore in which that “lightness of being” is entirely absent. Not to mention that his homely duffer character lacks the commanding presence, as others have commented,

McKellen portrays a number of those qualities in his Gandalf - to a degree that has entirely eluded Gambon. Frankly, I *could* see O’Toole in the role - he would have the ability to represent the whimsy and eccentricity of the character rather well, I think. And Stewart too could convincingly “inhabit” Dumbledore, I believe.

However, as has been said, the point is probably moot given that a change for the final two movies may be too much to hope for. Dearly though we may wish it.

Sign me up for the campaign to oust Gambon - I just saw Order of the Phoenix and was so disappointed (again) at his interpretation of Dumbledore. Rowling’s Dumbledore is master of every situation - not the bumbling, moody farce displayed by Gambon. Rowling’s Dumbledore exhibits great love and compassion for students and for Harry - this was non-existent in the film. OotP had so many great scenes for Dumbledore - the ministry hearing, the escape from Fudge and his Aurors, the duel with Voldemort “as if he [Dumbledore] were walking in the park”. This is not a man who is caught unawares, who yells at students, who is, in a word - weak. The great draw for Rowling’s Dumbledore is that he wasn’t flashy, wasn’t loud - but exuded a palpable sense of quiet power that commanded respect. Gambon insists on jumping up and down, waiving his hands to say “look at me” rather than allow Dumbledore’s gigantic presence draw our eyes irresistably to him.

I appreciate that Michael Gambon is a very well-trained and extremely decorated actor; however, he is so far off the mark as to nearly ruin the film for me (anyone remember Jar Jar Binks?)