Strange comment today at the Washington Post, referring to the Half-Blood Prince movie:
The book has an important battle involving Harry Potter, Draco Malfoy, Severus Snape and Albus Dumbledore, but it won’t be in the movie. It’s too much like the climactic battle in the previous Potter film, the producer has said.
That doesn’t really make any sense. The only possible scene this could refer to is the Astronomy Tower, and they obviously can’t avoid doing the Astronomy Tower scene.
Thoughts?
(HT to “Mrs. Weasley”)
Arabella Figg on 
revgeorge on 
SPT on 
miles365 on 
Flu-Bird on 
Loading ...
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
I think he means they are not having the battle (DE vs. DA & Order) at Hogwarts after the Astronomy Tower scene because it would be too much like the battle at Hogwarts in the NEXT movie.
That’s what I thought, too, Delma. Because, as Travis says, they’ve got to have the Astronomy Tower scene.
It seems like the Post was trying to say as much as possible in as few words, but didn’t end up saying anything. From all of the early reports from the movie, the conflict on the astronomy tower occurs and we can see in the trailer that Harry pursues Snape, because he says the “fight back you coward” line. So I agree with what everyone else has said.
“They” are capable of doing anything, including truncating the battle between the DE’s and the Order. On the other hand “they” haven’t done too bad a job (imho) filming the first five books. I mean, the movies may not have been finely nuanced and scenes may have been left out which would help explain future developments, but overall we did get the gist of the plot without too much story drift. In fact, they were pretty darn faithful to the books. So I am not going to read too much into any one article or comment.
Another way of looking at it (and here comes the bitterness) is this: what’s a missing battle when they’ve already denatured the story by a fatal piece of miscasting? The heart of the story being flawed, all other faults pale.
That’s not bitterness speaking, Rocker. That’s just hard cold cynical gut wrenching painful reality. We must endure the miscasting & hope we live to see a remake of the movies done right. I mean, despite their flaws, they’ve been good movies, except for that one, painful thing you mention.
It makes you wonder, with Deathly Hallows split into two films, what liberties might they have taken with spreading the story out — a la The Two Towers/Return of the King — to roll out a more even storytelling?
That being said, I have the utmost confidence in the three D’s (David Heyman, David Yates and David Barron — and Steve Kloves, actually) to deliver the closest approximation to the canon as is possible for any book-to-film translation. We just need to remember that the films are not the books.
Even so, all along JKR has given the studio tips and direction — while not being the ultimate “decider” — to help them produce the best representation of her story. Heyman, in particular, has been a stalwart ally for fans of the books, keeping the films in line with the narrative as much as possible while still delivering blockbuster films for WB to sell.
Oh, I’ve been generally pleased with the movies, & I’ve think they’ve done the best they can do to condense really long & really complex novels into an enjoyable film, except for maybe GOF. But the miscasting, the miscasting, that’s where I shudder!! And I’m only talking about one part but it’s a pretty darn important one!!
If the quote is correct (oh boy) I’m cringing. I also wonder what liberties are going to be taken with The Hobbit as two movies.
The Hobbit will be different because the second of the films will incorporate material from Tolkien to fill out the spaces between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. I think the two Deathly Hallows will be very much to the book. I heard that the filmmakers secured a rare and valuable printing press to use (probably for the scene with the Trio and Mr. Lovegood). The producer did say that with two films, they have a chance to do the last book justice so I have every confidence about the last movie.
This quote disturbed me at first, but a look closer reveals that the producer was probably just talking about the Death Eaters fighting the Order in the midst of the scramble. The film will most likely focus on Harry chasing Snape. They have to include the scene on the Astronomy Tower. I think this quote is an indication that the reporter who wrote this most likely did not read any of the Harry Potter books and just summarized (and misunderstood) what the producer said because it would, seemingly, contradict what we seen in the trailers.
Ah, I think I understand now. I reread the article, and saw the sources listed at the bottom. At the Internet Movie Database site, there is a section labelled FAQs, and one of the questions is “Is it true that the fight scene from the end of the book has been cut from the film?” Answer: “This is true to an extent. But it is literally ONLY the fighting that goes on between the teachers, DA, Order and the Death Eaters in the background. Everything else happens virtually how it does in the book. Yes, that includes Snape killing Dumbledore, Harry chasing Snape and the Death Eaters from the castle with Hagrid’s Hut being set on fire, and then Snape and Harry’s “conversation” (though slightly different from the book). ”
So it sounds like the Astronomy Tower scene is safe (although I must say that I, too, cringe at the thought of what Gambon will do to it), and the Post writer played around with the wording by saying the fight scene involved Harry, Snape, Draco, and Dumbledore. Actually, the final fight doesn’t involve Dumbledore, since he’s already dead at that point.
Here’s the link to the IMDb site:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/faq#.2.1.28
~Mrs. Weasley
I think Steve Kloves loves the books especially Deathly Hallows – in the interview below he was all for doing the DH in three parts !
http://filmonic.com/steve-kloves-talks-deathly-hallows
What’s the miscasting everybody’s talking about?
Andrew, there’s a majority on this site that thinks Michael Gambon sucks as Dumbledore, and his casting was a huge error.
Wow, I didn’t think Red Rocker & I constituted a majority?!
Most vocal perhaps.
Well, I’m with both of you, and since it’s my site, I count for like 57 people.
Ah. Count me in. Many are the times I’ve lamented the loss of Richard Harris. I figured that was it, but I wasn’t aware that it was such a given.
Count me in, too! Also, Bob Rozak, who wrote “Bring Back Richard Harris”.
Check it out here: http://www.bobrozak.com/music/bringbackrichardharris.html
Now that we’ve read through the end of Deathly Hallows, are we so sure that Michael Gambon is indeed the “real” Dumbledore?
Remember, we see Dumbledore in the early books through Harry’s naive eyes – his view of Dumbledore and perhaps the reality of Dumbledore if were to see the Headmaster independently of Harry’s perspective (though written in third person, the HP books are third person restrictive, everything – for the most part, with some interesting exceptions – is from Harry’s point of view).
In Deathly Hallows we learn far more about Dumbledore than was ever revealed from Harry’s point of view in the early books. Now looking back at Richard Harris, no – that’s not the Dumbledore we meet in Deathly Hallows. Michael Gambon is able to bring more of the dark side of Dumbledore to the part – not what we expected. His Dumbledore is what I pictured as I read the final book.
-Mary
NOTE: I’m sorry – I need to get a new typewriter – and perhaps while I’m at it, a new head. Do you mind if I try this again? Webmaster, feel free to delete the earlier entry.
Now that we’ve read through the end of Deathly Hallows, is not now possible to consider that Michael Gambon is indeed far closer to the “real” Dumbledore than Richard Harris was? From a “post-Deathly Hallows” perspective?
Remember, we only see Dumbledore in the early books through Harry’s naive eyes – his view of Dumbledore contrasted with the reality of Dumbledore as we might see the Headmaster as adults independent of Harry’s perspective (though written in third person, the HP books are third person restrictive, everything – for the most part, with some interesting exceptions – is from Harry’s point of view) could be dramatically different. Harry sees him as the kind old grandfather and so do we. But as adults, would we see the same Dumbledore or would we see more of his flaws, as Harry does as he begins to become an adult? Would we be more conflicted, thereby strengthening the suspicions the ministry has about Dumbledore? Because we see Dumbledore through Harry’s eyes, we have no doubts. But in a post-Deathly Hallows perspective, we know that Dumbledore is far more Machiavellian than we ever dreamed.
In Deathly Hallows we learn far more about Dumbledore than was revealed earlier from Harry’s point of view in the early books. Dumbledore moves away from the kindly and quirky grandfather to someone with far more depth and encompasses far more of our human frailties and tragedies – as well as his ability to engage in a plot that was confounded by Dumbledore’s own surprise that he would care more for Harry than he expected – not exactly grandfather-like. Now looking back at Richard Harris’ early interpretation, no – that’s not the Dumbledore either – and certainly not the one we meet in Deathly Hallows.
It may be the Dumbledore we want to cling to, as Harry does as well. But as we can see now, perhaps surprisingly from our post-Deathly Hallows perspective, Michael Gambon is able to bring more of the dark side of Dumbledore to the part. This man has a secret. Indeed, his Dumbledore is what I pictured as I read the final book.
The Dumbledore with a secret.
-Mary
Mary, that reminds me of something I wrote a while ago, after watching Chamber for the umpteenth time. I was listening to Harris/Dumbledore do his typical end-of-book wrap-up for Harry, and heard in his voice echoes of themes and events which at that point hadn’t even been written by the author. It was as if he was looking ahead, and guessing at some of the ways the plot would turn. I can’t remember the specifics, just the suggestion of things to come. Anyways, I invite you to watch/listen to the last conversation (and strangely enough, it really was the last conversation) between Harris/Dumbledore and Harry in Chamber and see what you see and hear.
As for Gambon bringing in Dumbledore’s dark side, it would depend on how we see Dumbledore’s dark side. The revelations of books 6 and 7 show Dumbledore to be a deceptive plotter, not above manipulating those who work for him. We also see that early in his life he had a hankering for power and Muggle domination, and not much compassion, patience or tolerance. We see that he deliberately chose not to wield temporal power, knowing his own weakness, but always played a lone hand, trusting no one. The overall impression is one of courtesy, calmness and control, masking a fairly cold, if intermittently remorseful puppet-master.
What Gambon brings to the picture, on the other hand, is uncertainty, anxiety, even fear, combined with (or maybe resulting in) rudeness, yelling, and physical aggression towards the students. The way he manhandles Harry/Radcliffe at the end of Goblet is so out of character that it completely breaks the belief that this is Dumbledore: he looks like an actor in long robes, dragging Radcliffe by the arm. You could call it a dark side, sure; but it’s not Dumbledore’s dark side.
Some good points, Mary, but I must agree with Red Rocker. If the Dumbledore of DH was disorientated, deranged, & abusive & that were his secret, then I’d be the first to say Gambon nailed the characterization. As it is, in the movie, there’s not going to be even a hint of shock at the dark side of Dumbledore cause he’s been half cracked already.
The dark secret of Dumbledore is exactly as Red Rocker put it. I don’t think Gambon could’ve pulled that off. Well, strike that. I think he could’ve pulled that off if he had tried to play the character even somewhat close to the book. Whether the fault lies with him or the screenwriter, I don’t know. But he doesn’t wind up being the Dumbledore of the books, either pre-DH or post.
But hey, there’s no crime in us all disagreeing.
I was thinking that James Cromwell might’ve been a good Dumbledore.
Richard Harris was too much the wise, old man, I thought. There’s always been an edge to book Dumbledore – sharpness, irony, sarcasm, mischief. Richard Harris was too calm, too still.
I like Michael Gambon’s appearance and costume, and I liked him grabbing Harry after his name came out of the goblet. I thought it showed the strength of DD’s anxiety over Harry’s safety. But then the scene with Prof McGonagall and Snape made him seem indecisive. His shouting at the students in OotP after the Umbridge-Trelawney incident was out of character. He should have aimed for wry, not angry.
I used to wish for Terence Stamp as Dumbledore. He’s certainly edgy and he’s got the blue eyes!
revgeorge said: “I think he could’ve pulled that off if he had tried to play the character even somewhat close to the book. Whether the fault lies with him or the screenwriter, I don’t know. But he doesn’t wind up being the Dumbledore of the books, either pre-DH or post.”
I agree with you mostly. But you seem to be giving the director a pass, and I think, no matter how it was written or how Gambon originally read the scene, it could have been fixed by the director stepping in and re-interpreting Dumbledore’s response. In the book, he does keep calling Harry’s name until Harry finally goes forward, and when he talks to him later, he does ask if Harry put his own name in. It was the lunging and grabbing that were so out of character.
I think the other thing that didn’t work there, was that they tried to compress two things into one by having Dumbledore himself say that he was worried, when in the book, Dumbledore appeared calm, and it was Hagrid that told Harry how worried Dumbledore was. That was one instance where they should have filmed the extra scene. By showing Dumbledore worried in GOF, then it takes away from his being worried in OP, when he finally tells Harry himself.
And yes, that bit when Umbridge is firing Trelawney and Dumbledore arrives is another missed moment. Book Dumbledore was strong and decisive, but didn’t yell at the students. And I always read it that he would have said it all with a wry sense of humor, but not the anger or hesitation that Gambon showed. I liked most of what Yates did with OP, but he must have been napping through that scene.
Pat
Pat,
I guess I gave the director a pass because I assumed he wouldn’t presume how to tell someone with a knighthood for acting how to act.
Eeyore-I couldn’t have said it better myself, that’s for sure.
In my readings, Dumbledore was strong, decisive, calm, and even toned. I also think it is very uncharacteristic of Dumbledore to yell at students and cannot picture him truly angry as Gambon chose to show it. I don’t think Gambon matches Dumbledore’s personality or mannerisms very well. He is too loud and animated (not sure if that’s the word I really wanted). IMHO Richard Harris was the perfect Dumbledore that I had pictured, although I guess we’ll never know if he would have been able to pull off the darkness of DH.
I don’t know if the elderly Richard Harris (let’s remember he was frail and ill by the time he made the HP movies) could have pulled off the physical performance needed in the later movies, but I think he could have delivered the goods in spades on emotional nuance when he was younger and healthier. Think about his Arthur in Camelot, or for that matter his turn in Mutiny on the Bounty. Truly an amazing actor.
Gambon’s been wrong from the start, in my humble opinion. Which I gather is a safe thing to say here. I’ve got reams I could opine about the character of Dumbledore in the books, but I keep trying to save my energies on that one because I hope to work up an essay sometime (I live in hope!). Love hearing everyone’s thoughts…
I had no idea who James Cromwell was, so I Googled him. He’s done a lot of work, but the only movie/show where I can distinctly remember him is Babe where he played Farmer Hoggett. Didn’t have too many lines, in fact the only one I remember is “That’ll do, pig”, but it had conviction.
Terence Stamp? A little too edgy, I think. Too apt to forget that he is a plotter and schemer and start zapping people. I can see him as Malfoy Sr. Or Fenrir Greyback.
Eeyore, I wouldn’t let the directors totally off the hook either. On the other hand, I’ve read that directors more or less have to let actors do as they want, and hope they’ll eventually take direction. Or just not work with the actor anymore. Obviously not an option in the case of Sir Michael.
My short list has Peter O’Toole, Patrick McGoohan, Christopher Plummer and Nicol Williamson.
When Cuaron directed Azkaban Dumbledore came across as gentle playful, thoughtful, eccentric and certainly not excitable and indecisive. For me Cuaron’s Dumbledore was spot on.
Mike Newell made it clear in interviews that he was making a ‘our hero is in danger and only dimly realises it’ thriller. Newell cited North by North-West as his touchstone, and I therefore think that it made sense to Newell (but not to me) to show Dumbledore as very alarmed – so the audience would also feel worried.
I would be willing to bet that Sir Michael takes direction very well (but how to prove it?). In conclusion I do not let the directors off the hook as far as the portrayal of Dumbledore or any other character is concerned; in my opinion it is the directors film, and they must take full responsibility for what appears on the screen.
For that reason I find frequent attacks on Gambon rather dispiriting. If ever Sir Michael or someone else who knows for sure, tells us for a fact that Sir Michael refused direction and went his own way, then and only then will I accept that responsibility for the distortion of Dumbledore’s character on screen rests with MG. Until then, for me at least, MG is ‘innocent until proved guilty’.
For the most part, I’ve avoided the Gambon discussion, because I tend to get a bit riled. I’ll toss a few thoughts in here.
I don’t think either director or Gambon should be “innocent until proven guilty.” Both are guilty. I think Yates did the best of the three who had to work with Gambon so far, and if he’d just have eliminated that “Don’t you all have studying to do” line, Order would have been almost alright. Almost.
Cuaron’s the guy who picked Gambon, right? So if we’re gonna blame a director, I vote for Cuaron. I really disliked movie-Dumbledore upon watching PoA.
One of the most disturbing things about that scene in GoF when he grabbed Harry was that the calm, under-control demeanor of Dumbledore was completely ruined from that point forward. He was no longer a mystery. There was no longer any wonder what was going on behind Dumbledore’s eyes, underneath that ever-tranquil face. He had a temper, he got anxious, and he couldn’t keep himself under control. He had to physically shake a student in order to get over his anger and anxiety.
Not Dumbledore, ever.
What Travis said.
Not Dumbledore.
Agreed not Dumbledore
(but I blame the directors )