by Travis
Update 2, New Poll: In light of the Gambon discussion, I thought I’d link an article I stumbled across a couple weeks ago: McKellen turned down less superior Potter role. The article doesn’t seem clear to me whether there was an official offer to McKellen, or if he was just responding to the general buzz about the possibility of his taking over the Dumbledore role. In any event, I’ve put up a new poll for fun: Who would win in a Dumbledore vs. Gandalf duel? That might be a more fun discussion than another round of Gambon-bashing anyway.
Update: The truthfulness of this report has been questioned (see comments). If anyone has verification or denial of this story, let me know, and I’ll fix it!
London, Dec 12 – Actor Michael Gambon who plays Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series threw a fit at the film’s latest script.
The 67-year-old actor was in costume on set when his anger got the better of him, reports thesun.co.uk.Gambon was upset that the lines in the script were lifted directly from the book. Dialogue is generally modified for actors from the source.A source said the actor was later allowed to rewrite his lines.
The ironic thing about this is that Gambon has freely confessed he has not, nor does he plan to read the books – which means someone simply told him that the lines were lifted from the book, and he threw a little fit. Now, not only is Gambon entirely destroying the character of Albus Dumbledore with his acting, the man who has no understanding of this character whatsoever is in charge of his lines.
PotterMom05 on 
Red Rocker on 
Joivre on 
Arabella Figg on 
Loading ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 51 comments… read them below or add one }
This is why I will scream with joy in the theater when Dumbledore dies in HBP instead of feeling bad & possibly even crying. I keep assuming they pegged Gambon to play the role after Harris died because they couldn’t find anyone better. A cardboard cutout of Harris with a badly done impersonation could do a better job of playing the role of Dumbledore.
Not that I have any strong opinions on the matter…
Here Here, Travis! Well said. Last night when watching the OoTP DVD it struck me just how bad Michael Gambon is as Dumbledore. I was trying to imagine him talking to Harry in King’s Cross at the end of DH and I couldn’t do it.
And RevGeorge- I agree with you. I could have done a better job than Gambon and I am neither an actor, nor British, nor a male- last time I checked.
Really, does anyone like Gambon’s portrayal of Dumbledore? I have to keep from prying my eyes out with a spoon (cuz it would hurt more) whenever he’s on screen. I have not heard one good opinion of his work in the HP series. I would have no problem whatsoever if they fired him. Forget continuity. Continuity that stinks isn’t worth it.
Hmmm.
We were just arguing about whether JKR’s post-publication comments have greater significance than anyone else’s interpretation of the text. Now it seems we have a case of someone who feels his interpretation trumps the actual text.
Sigh.
Mind you, prima donna behaviour is neither unusual or unexpected for actors. And everyone – actors, director, producer – wants to be the screenwriter. So it may not be as much a case of Gambon disrespecting the text as making his imprint.
If you read carefully in the article you link to, the original source is the UK uber-tabloid The Sun. While I am fully prepared to believe the worst of Gambon and have just as low an opinion of him as everyone else here (and also think I could do a better job
–to be fair one cannot take anything written in The Sun at face value. Nor can I find the story there on a quick search.
I did just find it on The Sun website:
Whether or not The Sun article is reliable, Gambon was still totally miscast for the role of Dumbledore. He may be good in other films; doesn’t he have a knighthood for that? But the casting crew blew it when they picked him for Harry Potter.
Is it too late to kidnap Ian McKellan & force him to assume the role?
all these negative comments make me feel duty bound to say something positive, maybe I’m just contrary?
Sir Michael Gambon is a brilliant actor regardless of the fact that many people really dislike his portrayal of AB.
So my positive ’spin’ on this story (and I have my doubts about its veracity) is this: Sir Michael could have simply recited the lines and taken the money thank you very much. The fact that he is reported to feel really strongly about how the lines he has been given will read has got to be a good thing! So there you are – always look on the bright side of life…
SeaJay,
I acknowledge that he is probably a great actor. You don’t get a knighthood for being a schlep. I’m just saying he’s been miscast as Dumbledore. I mean, has anyone spoken well of his performance in that role, despite however great he may have been in other roles? But maybe I feel so strongly is that Dumbledore’s character is rather pivotal in the story of Harry Potter & it doesn’t really come off well on the screen.
reyhan:We were just arguing about whether JKR’s post-publication comments have greater significance than anyone else’s interpretation of the text. Now it seems we have a case of someone who feels his interpretation trumps the actual text.
Sigh.
You can’t really call it Gambon’s “interpretation,” since he hasn’t read the books. It seems also that, if this story is indeed legit, that Gambon is arguing for a fundamental difference between books and their film adaptations, so it’s sort of outside the discussion we’ve been having.
In any case, I think I’ve been unclear in my explanations about this whole thing…I’m hoping soon to bring clarity to what I’m trying to get at.
All: I’m trying to see if the story is true, and so far every news source is citing the Sun report. Let me know if anyone comes across a verification or denial of this story.
I’ve tried to like him as Dumbledore, and as ill as Richard Harris was, I’m not sure he could have continued in the role even if he had lived. (But he was the perfect choice, IMO.)
Right now, I’d like to see anyone else playing Dumbledore, and that was before I read the comments about Gambon wanting to change the lines because they were taken from the book. Good grief, man, get over yourself.
I’m re-reading COS and have come across several lines that made it directly from the book to the movie and I love it. Why would anyone think that diminishes the role? Maybe Gambon can’t say the real lines because he is so clueless about who Dumbledore is.
To say the least, I’m worried about HBP as a movie–there’s a lot of Dumbledore in that book and his conversations with Harry aren’t something that can be severely shortened or left out (which was the way Yates dealt with him in OP). And they can’t just give Dumbledore’s lines to someone else, which is another way they’ve got round that particularly bad casting choice.
Didn’t Gambon say once that all it took to be Dumbledore was to put on the wig and beard and the robes–or something like that? So, give the wig, the beard and Harris’s old robes to someone else–anyone else. (Someone mentioned Patrick Stewart–I think he’d be great as Dumbledore actually. I like McKellen, but it would be hard to not think of Gandalf if he were to play the role of Dumbledore.)
Pat
Why would Gambon be infuriated about acting from lines directly from the book? The movies are based on the book. Either Gambon has problems or this article is sensational. I don’t know. Gambon has said in another interview that he plays Dumbledore as himself. That’s the problem. Michael Gambon should be acting as Dumbledore not Michael Gambon. Maybe it’s arrogance or something else, but Gambon does not take seriously his role. Otherwise he would be reading the books, getting insight from JKR, and collaberating with the director. That said, I’m not sure if the Sun article is true. Whatever the case, I still don’t like Gambon as Dumbledore.
I won’t speculate on Gambon’s motives, because I’ve never paid much attention to any of the actors’ interviews, except only occasionally. I’m not upset too much by what Gambon has allegedly said here. He’s already destroyed the character for three films; nothing in this story changes that.
For me, though, I like the character that Gambon plays in the films. I think Gambon nails that character very well. Unfortunately, the character isn’t Dumbledore. Honestly, I wouldn’t have such a problem with Gambon’s portrayal if Richard Harris’s take on the character hadn’t leaned so heavily towards the books’ version. But I can accept the movies as entities different from the books…
Oh well. Barring some catastrophic turn of events with respect to Gambon, I think we’re stuck with him for the duration.
So Dave, can you describe the character that Gambon plays in the films?
I find him kind of intriguing too. There is one scene, I can’t remember which movie, where he sits down on the steps in his robes, and it’s not a powerful wizard, or the Headmaster, but a bedevilled man, at a loss as to what to do. I said to myself: that’s not Dumbledore, but it is someone.
Maybe Gambon plays Dumbledore without the gravitas, the veneer of calm and authority, the knowingness and the deep understanding and compassion which the rest of us associate with the character. Maybe he just plays him as a desperate man, barely holding things – and himself – together as evil rises. Maybe that’s the real Dumbledore, when he’s alone, or with Madam Rosmerta, when he lets his hair down and takes off his robes and schlepps around in his underwear, chugging butterbeer.
Don’t get me wrong. I deplore how Gambon plays Dumbledore, because that is not how I see him. But there is a small – very small – part of me which thinks that Gambon won’t do too bad a job of Dumbledore at King’s Cross, when most of the old deceiver’s masks have been stripped off and what’s left is a tearful old man sobbing his apology to a boy he loves.
You know, as much as I dislike Gambon, I think Dave and Reyhan are on to something here. There is some very small part of Gambon’s Dumbledore that potentially reflects the inner turmoil underneath the calm, patient temperament. I really get upset at those scenes where Gambon seems to lose his patience, but this might give me at least a little more tolerance for it.
I don’t know about Gambon’s performance echoing Dumbledore’s inner turmoil. Because you never really see Dumbledore in inner turmoil. He’s always under control. Even when he seems to be open & honest, like at the end of OOTP, he’s still holding things back. He only comes clean after he’s dead, & even by then Harry has figured most of it out anyway on his own.
I’ll echo the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, “Worst Casting Ever!”
To start some new stuff, I’ll address Travis’ question as to who would win in a duel between Gandalf & Dumbledore. I see from the poll that current numbers are running Dumbledore 67% & Gandalf 33%.
To which I say, come on, people! Gandalf would so waste Dumbledore in a duel. Here’s why. First, Gandalf is part of the Maiar, lesser angelic beings who serve under the Valar. He is immortal. He’s accounted as the wisest of the Maiar. He was a servant of the Vala Nienna, the patron of mercy. He bore one of the three elven rings, Narya, the ring of fire.
He appears weak throughout the LOTR because his power is cloaked & he is forbidden from using direct power to oppose Sauron. But none of that means he doesn’t have great power & that he can’t use it when necessary. He fights the Balrog, a demon of fire, for 8 days before casting him off a mountain. He’s also capable of physically fighting, especially with a sword.
He’s not as manipulative as Dumbledore. He didn’t fall like the other wizards in Middle-Earth. He didn’t lust after power & so didn’t need to repent of anything.
So, while Dumbledore is more identifiable for us as he is a sinful human being like us, he would still get toasted in a duel with Gandalf.
re: Dumbledore vs Gandalf:
Expilliarmus.
Exit the staff
Accio ring.
Exit Narya.
Aveda Kedavra
Exit Gandalf.
Gandalf doesn’t necessarily need his staff to do things. Plus, he’s immortal. He’ll just keep coming back. All he has to do is get Dumbledore once.
Anyone remember what Dumbledore did to escape in Order? (the book version, not the film).
I’m with reyhan on this one. Gandalf goes down a minute into the first round.
Yeah right. I still firmly say that Gandalf toasts Dumbledore. I patiently await JRR Tolkien’s post book comments affirming my view.
Longtime (off and on) reader, first time poster. I’d normally leave a thread like this (and all the rest of them, too) alone, but I detest echo chambers, especially when I disagree so strongly with the echoes.
I’ve read Travis’s and others’ reasons for disliking Gambon’s portrayal of AD. And I disagree. I like Gambon’s Dumbledore. It’s as valid an interpretation of what’s on the page as Harris’s was. Not necessarily better, but certainly not worse… and I like it.
I like it because it isn’t saccharine. It isn’t cloying. It is masculine, strong, and intense… adjectives that are not antonymous with JKR’s Dumbledore, not even if we accept her revisionism (which I don’t). So what if he occasionally barks at the kids? Show me a teacher (I am one) who doesn’t, every once in a while. Doesn’t mean they don’t love them. And it efficiently convinces me that Gambon’s Dumbledore has really spent a lifetime educating the young. This is a Dumbledore who is real, who could exist in a world outside of the books.
Also, laying aside the fundamental stupidity of any “character from universe A vs. character from universe B” type question, it’s hard to believe anyone with any familiarity with both HP and LOTR would say that Dumbledore would win. In the first place, they both serve the side of good, so they wouldn’t fight to begin with. But if they did, it would be like a wizard fighting an angel. Dumbledore uses magic; Gandalf IS magic.
Any Dumbledore partisan who disagrees with me on any of the foregoing is free to cast as many curses on me as they wish. Go ahead. I’ll stand still and let you.
Frodo vs Harry: Harry
Sam vs Ron: Sam
Aragorn vs Sirius Black: Aragorn
Saruman vs Snape: Snape
Wormtongue vs Wormtail: Wormtail
Sauron vs Voldemort: ?
Mr. Tilson,
Being convinced as you are that the Dracula vs Frankenstein comparisons are puerile, I wonder that you would cast your vote in the debate. But if you do decide to play in our sandbox again, a little more attention to the “Rules for Commenting” (see the sidebar) would go far.
Gosh, folks…it’s as if I’m making a serious inquiry about a potentially realistic duel! “fundamental stupidity”? “peurile”? Ouch! I wrote that the poll was “for fun.” Can it just be that?
Stephen, welcome. Anyone, of course, is perfectly welcome to like Gambon’s Dumbledore. I just don’t think it’s fair to call it “as valid an interpretation of what’s on the page as Harris’s was,” since as we’ve noted time and again here, Gambon refuses to read the books. (Anyone know if Harris read them?)
That said, I understand your reasons. I don’t tend to think of Gambon’s Dumbledore as masculine and strong, though. I think he’s a cranky old man.
Well, I read somewhere that Gambon knew enough about HBP, while filming OotP, to know that his character would die in the next book. And joked that he hoped JKR would bring him back as a “ghost” in the final book.
Reads enough to find out if his retirement income is still guaranteed, I’m guessing.
And Travis, I too find Dracula vs Frankenstein comparisons a lot of fun. I should have written “Since you are convinced that …”
Hey, I just started things off on D vs G to lighten things up & to move away from talking about Gambon’s portrayal. It’s kind of like the whole Ginger/Mary Ann debate. So, I’m not taking any of this seriously. Can’t we all just get along?
I’d thought that my participation in the “fundamentally stupid” debate would sort of tip it that I didn’t really consider it that stupid. Geeky and laughable, yes, but not stupid. Sorry for being confusing.
Thanks for the welcome, Travis. I enjoy the blog and podcasts. I think the Gambon thing is probably the only point of major bifurcation between us. In fact, I normally read your analysis and think “Now, why hadn’t I thought of it that way?”
And calling the “a vs. b” questions stupid doesn’t originate with me. It was Christopher Lee, I think, responding to a question as to who would win in a fight between Dracula and Count Dooku. Which reminds me: Lee would have made a good Dumbledore, probably better than Gambon. Too bad… but I’m still happy with Gambon.
Too bad, that is, that Lee wasn’t offered Dumbledore. Again with the confusion.
I definitely needed an emoticon for my last comment. No offense taken, just for the record!
Gandalf all the way. Dumbledore had a mean kick to the nethers but Gandalf can poke someone in the eye like no-one’s business.
How about their accessories and pets?
Glamdring vs the Sword of Gryffindor: they both have provenance (Turgon vs Godric Gryffindor), but SoG can take out Horcruxes and basilisks and doesn’t seem to have any equals while Glamdring is just a basic High Elven sword, along with Orcrist and Sting, so the point goes to SoG.
Gwahir vs Fawkes: Fawkes because he’s magic and his tears can heal (although that’s a close one because Gwahir helps Gandalf out quite a bit), but Gandalf also has Shadowfax, so maybe Gandalf gets this one.
But Gandalf needs his pets to transport him whereas Dumbledore can apparate, so that cancels Shadowfax.
And Gandalf does not have his own Chocolate Frogs Wizards Card, so Dumbledore definitely gets this one.
Fascinating discussion! First-time poster, having read here and there after getting the sign-post from John at HogPro.
First off, The Sun is suspect– it’s my understanding it’s basically the British equivalent of the Enquirer– you know, that wonderful, reputable newspaper of news from Hollywood, California, available near other impulse items in grocery stores everywhere. It may be true, but I have my doubts, so let’s leave that out of the picture.
Second off, I have to contest that Gambon’s portrayal isn’t a valid choice because he hasn’t read the books. In the auteur theory of film, the director is the ‘author’ of the film (forget even the screenwriter). For illustrative purposes, let’s say someone’s acting as Faust in an adaptation of Goethe’s novel by the same name. The Faust written by Marlowe in Doctor Faustus is a different Faust, even given that they both come from the same legends. I think it is a perfectly reasonable decision to decided that one will not blur the two by restricting oneself to the text upon which the play is based. I’m not a big fan of auteur theory myself, but it *is* accepted. Gambon may well think that he needs to act what is written there without clouding it with the original text.
My objections to Dumbledore are basically script objections– I think Gambon played the character he was given. In OotP, nowhere did we see the AD who was merely above all of the Ministry’s shenanigans– for that matter, we didn’t see Minerva McGonagall’s strength, either. I really missed her imperviousness in handling Umbridge– it wasn’t until the old bag was ragging on Harry’s career plans she lost her cool with her, and even then, I generally felt like McGonagall never surrendered her liberty. In OotP (film), I didn’t feel like any professor, neither Dumbledore, whose great skill and perceptiveness generally *do* put him above the likes of Umbridge’s attempts to manipulate situations, nor McGonagall had much to them. McGonagall looked scared half the time– that’s not the McGonagall I know.
Do we only mind more because it’s Dumbledore, who did act more parentally towards Harry that hard-nosed McGonagall? I really think the blame lies more with the script and direction, atleast in OotP. I generally liked AD until this one (and even then I still generally like him). I think it’s directorial choices. Maybe it was good, too– after all, I don’t think Harry was the only one who felt estranged from D in OotP, and that was very useful filmically.
also, D fan though I am, Gandalf would totally kick his butt.
just a few thoughts that make me more long-winded than Dave in this instance…
~Nzie
Nzie, welcome! Excellent points. I agree that Gambon is certainly a “valid” choice, and that one does not have to read the books for it to be a valid choice. I agree that the movie stands alone, and that Gambon is simply doing an interpretation of a not-so-good script. I’m with you on all that!
Although we should remember that Gambon has plainly stated that when he acts, he simply plays himself. He says, “When I play Dumbledore, I put on a beard and play an aspect of myself.”
I just don’t like it, and I’m very vocal about it, that’s all.
Concerning the duel poll:
From my point of View, Gandalf wins one point for trusting his allies without controlling them. By the way, I agree with Stephen that neither he nor Dumbledore would feel any need to fight each other – another point for each of them.
What about the One Ring compared with the Horcruxes and the Deathly Hallows? The One Ring contains part of the evil soul of its creator as the Horcruxes do and it cannot be destroyed easily, as well. It makes the bearer invincible as the Elder Wand and invisible as the Invisibility Cloak. It cannot bring back the dead as the Resurrection Stone but it prolongs life to almost (?) immortality as the Philosopher’s Stone does.
Old Man Willow is much creepier than the Womping Willow, I think, but would he have been able to cope with a mad Ford Anglia? Would Hagrid have loved Shelob as he loved Aragog? Well, probably, if she gave him a chance.
Nzie,
You might be right: this might be a case of a tempest in a teacup, and mild irritation being reported as a hissy fit in order to sell papers.
However, I don’t think the director as auteur explanation would explain why an actor rejects the screenwriter’s lines. I haven’t actually heard of an actor defending a director’s supremacy before this – his own, perhaps, but not the director’s.
Also, I don’t think that the script usually tells the actor how he’ll read a line, or what he’ll be doing while reading a line. That is often worked out between the actor and the director. So if Gambon manhandles Harry (as he regretably so often does), or if he yells or gasps or glares or has histrionics all over the set, it’s either his reading of the line, or the director’s.
What I’m trying to say is that I think we’re getting the Gambon interpretation of Dumbledore.
And my previous comments notwithstanding, I don’t like it either. It’s just our luck, with all those British actors who do cold reserve and upper-class hauteur so well, to end up with the one English actor who wears his emotions on the sleeves of his robe.
thanks for the welcome, Travis!
The quote you mention is interesting to me, however. I had thought it was simply him saying he plays himself on stage, but the key words “an aspect of” make a big difference, actually (well, they do to me!). I’m a theatre major (costume design, so I’m not an actor) and had to take an acting class where we used a text by Uta Hagen. In the first pages she talks about “representational” versus “presentational” acting– the first being that one represents an idea of a character, something which works well in Commedia/stock character comedies, etc., and the second being more natural and, atleast according to her, better acting.
The theory behind presentational acting is that, in order to truly convey the character, an actor must latch onto something within themselves that is like that part. Certainly an actor cannot have the same experiences as a character, but, say a character is supposed to be grieving the loss of his whole family- an actor might think about losing a grandparent or something, and use that memory to make the performance honest, and not just play pretend. Thus the actor presents part of himself. Hagen references great actress Eleanora Duse, who said, “The only thing I can give an audience is the revelation of my soul.” Revealing an aspect of himself comes straight from Stanislavsky, Hagen, etc.
Reyhan, you’re right, although once a script is ‘bought’ (effectively) it’s almost out of the screenwriter’s hands. A sales script versus a shooting script could have a lot of differences, and at that point, an actor could go to the director and say, “I don’t think this works here.” However, if the Sun is right, and Gambon totally pitched a hissy fit because the lines were from the book, well, that’s ridiculous in my opinion, but then, I’m a hardsell purist when it comes to adaptations anyway– rare is the change I don’t disapprove of (only thing I can think of is that Boromir’s death in LotR was better in the movie, but that’s it). As far as Gambon wearing his emotions on his sleeve: I haven’t seen much of his work, so I don’t have an adequate response in any way, but his character in Amazing Grace was the consummate politically savvy British MP of the 18-19th centuries, so he has chosen to ‘wear his emotions on his sleeve’ for this role.
So, I guess I’m just grasping at theories here behind why Gambon acts Dumbledore as he does, but what can I say, I’ve always been one to make excuses for other people (maybe I’m just hoping people will be so generous with my flaws!).
of course, no explanation, even assuming they’re true (I could, after all, be completely off-base!), can really impact whether one liked the performance or not.
If you don’t like Dumbledore after Harris, well, you’re perfectly free to– and atleast as far as OotP, I totally agree. I just lay the blame more squarely at the director’s feet over Gambon’s. This is also, of course, my own prejudice; I am generally a more tolerant person, but I was totally stepped on in my costume design by a director all last term, so I’m pretty happy to blame directors as this point, lol. 
best and great discussion– fascinating points!
~Nzie
Good points, Nzie, especially about Boromir’s death, but then Sean Bean is (to my mind) a superlative actor and can act rings around most people he’s cast against, including (heresy!) Viggo Mortensen’s Aragorn.
I’d only seen Gambon as an irascible aristocrat (in Gosford Park) who certainly does not dispaly any self-restraint, so I didn’t have much to compare him with either.
I’m reading a book, ‘The Great Movie Makers of Hollywood’s Golden Age’, a series of interviews by George Stevens. When the directors are asked about actors they are usually circumspect but you can see that by and large they view them as a necessary evil, insecure, temperamental, sensitive and volatile children who don’t take instruction well. One director (I can’t remember which one, sorry) says when an actor gets it in his head to do something his own way, there’s no getting around it, he has to let it run its course and hope that he’ll eventually come around.
David Lean, speaking of actors says:
“Dangerous subject … I always try not to speak in a loud voice when I’m talking to an actor on the set. I gently take them aside, and I whisper because I don’t want to give the impression, for their sake, that they’re being told to do this or that by a teacher. I try as hard as I can to make them suggest something that I want them to think of.”
And:
“I can’t bear some actors, the rambunctious types, who think they know everything … If you’ve really done your homework on the script, you, the director, know the part better than any damned actor because you’ve been at it for months. I’ve had lots of actors who want to change dialogue. I see them dong it. I won’t have it. They took on the script and they’ll stick to it.”
And:
“You know, I find constantly that actors really are not too interested in anything but their own parts.” He goes on to tell the story of an actor on The Bridge on the River Kwai: “What Sessue had done was to learn all the lines that were only his. He had cut out all the lines that were anybody else’s. The main script was about that thick, and his script was only that thick. He marked only the pages in which he spoke. He had thrown out the rest and bound it together.” He talks about filming the scene where the actor gets killed: “Guinness walked off the bridge … and Sessue stayed there lik a rock. I said ‘Go on, Sessue, follow him.’ He said, ‘I follow him?’ I said, ‘Sessue, this is where you find the wires and where you get killed.’ He said, ‘I get killed?’ He had thrown the page away because it had no dialogue.”
Looking at it from that perspective, we should be grateful if Gambon even bothered to read the whole script, let alone the books.
Dumbledore vs Gandalf the Grey: Dumbledore
Dumbledore vs Gandalf the White: Gotta be Gandalf.
Someone also mentioned the One Ring vs Horcruxes. The One Ring is definitely the more powerful artefact. The One Ring is created to rule all life whereas the Horcruxes are meant to guarantee the creator a type of immortality. Horcruxes could be destroyed. The One Ring had to be unmade.
What about Pippen vs Neville?
And nobody, I mean nobody in the Potterverse can withstand the mad lyrical genius of Tom Bombadil.
Oh, I forgot! As far as Gambon goes, I don’t like the way he’s interpreting Dumbledore. I thought he was alright in PoA, but since then, it’s almost unwatchable. I kinda like the idea of Billy Connelly for Dumbledore. I know it’s an odd choice, but I think he’d be brilliant at it.
Kevin,
Bombadil puts on the ring – and doesn’t vanish.
House-elves can apparate where others can’t. House-elves can do magic without wands.
I think there are similarities with regards to both not being constrained by the usual laws.
Lyrical genius? There is a close match, although without lyrics: Fawkes’ song.
Reyhan,
I like the comparison between Fawked and Tom Bombadil, but I do think Tom is more crucial to the very survival of not only Middle-Earth, but of all the world than Fawkes is. Of course this is only if we are speaking of a strict comparison, which is probably not possible.
In regards to magical systems, I am more drawn to the magical system of Middle-Earth. It is more natural than technical, or alchemical. It is part of the creation. Tom Bombadil himself, more than being magical or a personage who can employ magic, seems to be part of magic. In some way, we can almost say that he is magic incarnate.
And to switch gears in comparison, what about Gimli and Legolas (Fred and George?), or Elrond (Maybe Remus? or Mr Weasley?)
Enjoying the blog, guys.
I agree with Kevin’s assessment of LotR-Middle Earth versus Platform 9 3/4 Potterdom. But then, I have to say, I love HP dearly, but had I to choose I would choose The Lord of the Rings. In fact, I need to reread it again.
I realised I never stated that I personally have objections to the whole auteur theory blahblahblah etc. I think part of what made Ian McKellan’s performance as Gandalf so strong is that he literally walked around with the books- and actually did ask to change lines, but to things closer to the books. So, in short, my entire argument is only valid because auteur theory et al. have become so prominent, not because they’re actually right.
The David Lean quotes are interesting. Actor-wrangling seems to me something of an art form, really, requiring a whip in one hand, a feather in the other, and a box of chocolates hanging from a string on the nose. I ended up making a really random, odd, ridiculous hankerchief for an actor in my last production because, as the director said, he’d let the actor use it for too long and couldn’t take it away anymore. I had a taste of directing for my major doing a short play which almost reached tragedy status. I almost tortured one actor– I made him do one set of lines outside in the pouring rain to try to get him where he needed to be. If I’d been a more experienced director, I would have “tortured” both of them more (it was a play about the Rwandan genocide): I would have started out every rehearsal with the saddest, most tragic, life-isn’t-fair story I could think of.
Maybe one of these directors needs to just take Gambon aside and discuss the character with him. It could be inadequate direction, whether from too much trust or seeming-fear of working with an established actor, etc. I bet Gambon seems pretty intimidating, but the director has the ‘right’ and responsibility to enforce his will, so if one of these fellows would take him aside and say, “I need you to XYZ” we might see a big change. Conversely, it could be he’s acting as directed- there have been several different directors, so we could be seeing their visions as well, an idea supported by the fact that some folks pick a specific film in the timeline where they hate him most.
and to conclude with more LotR/HP comparisons:
Gimli and Legolas vs. Fred and George — tough call! I’d have to give it to Freorge based on ingenuity, and the fact that even Tolkien said Legsie was the least important member of the Fellowship.
Elrond vs. Remus or Arthur Weasley– Elrond, hands down.
Shelob vs. Aragog — Shelob. Aragog’s got the army of vile spider young, but Shelob is basically evil incarnate, and has an impressive kill-rate evidenced by her lair.
Weathertop vs. Godric’s Hollow– Godric’s Hollow, because, despite the fact that Frodo was hurt worse than Harry was, knowing you’re fighting someone is an advantage. Plus, Frodo had more help. Also, okay, the Nine are freaky, but Nagini animating the dead body of Bathilde Bagshot has a totally edge on the grossness factor.
Elven Cloaks vs. Invisibility Cloaks– Elven cloaks, because they not only helped them hide, but helped them pass themselves off as Orcs in Mordor. Also, the Invisibility Cloak is a Hallow, so, yeah, it’s really powerful, but it also can give one false confidence (after all, Dumbledore could see through it, right?).
any more ideas?
~Nzie
Jo thinks he’s done a great job capturing her vision of the character. I’d defer to her judgment, since she’s the one who actually created and developed the character.
By the way, Jo says she’s sure he was joking, which is the most charitable way to take his comments. Yet it never occurred to anyone here to question to interpretation of some bystander who probably missed the context.
Thanks, Jeremy. I see that it never occurred to you to read all that was written here before writing this post, as the validity of this report has been questioned multiple times.
You’ll also note this site doesn’t, on the whole, take a “let’s just defer to Rowling’s opinion” point of view.
Can you provide a link to Rowling’s approval of Gambon? And furthermore, do you expect her to do anything different, even if she does have reservations about his portrayal?
I’m reminded of Anne Rice taking out page sized ads in Variety magazine, declaiming her absolute certainty that Tom Cruise would make a marvellous Lestat, after previously having dissed the casting publicly.
So no, I don’t think JKR would ever say that Gambon was other than totally appropriate in his rendering of the character.
I’m not going to spend the time reading every comment in this huge thread carefully for such a small matter. Redundancy is much less unfortunate than wasted time for someone with a very busy schedule who just wanted to make sure someone had pointed that out. I did skim through the every comment, and I actually saw nothing in this thread about the specific point I wanted to make sure someone had said. It’s not as if I spent no time seeing if the information was here. But my point wasn’t about whether the information was available. It was about so many people’s absolute trust in an account that has all the makings of unreliability.
Jo Rowling’s discussion of Gambon and this incident was in her appearance on Pottercast. I don’t have a link to it at hand, but I suspect it’s easy enough to find.
My son looked up from re-reading Deathly Hallows and asked, “When did Dumbledore die?”
“At the end of book 6,” I replied.
He shook his head. “No, I mean the real Dumbledore.”
He is a product of the video era. The real Dumbledore = Richard Harris.
It was about so many people’s absolute trust in an account that has all the makings of unreliability
Jeremy, I understand your point, and it’s a good one. I’m just saying that, given the suspicion of the report evident both in the comments AND in the initial post, that criticism is not deserved here.
Even so, I thought there was still far too much trust in it.
Just a thought on the Gambon v. Harris issue. (Disclosure: I prefer Richard Harris but his delivery was fractured and unnatural at times.) How much of the difference can be attributed to costuming? Gambon’s robes are, frankly, awful. Dull colors without contrast. Bland colors. No deep purple with gold stars for him. And the hat? Flat. No point. And the beard in the belt? He looks like he is wearing last week’s dirty laundry. He looks like the grumpy old man who is not quite in charge and doesn’t seem to know why. And that is not his fault is it? Why did the producers/artistic folks make such a great change in costume, away from JKR’s descriptions in the books (no bland wizard colors there: plum, midnight blue and emerald green for starters.) How much of our preference for Harris is due to the perception of Gambon based upon his costumes?