He is a good Dumbledore! I will stand by this. We randomly listen to the Harry Potter audiobooks online, and it is SO DIFFERENT when you hear someone else read them like that, you catch a lot more. These books are not as light and sweet and pure as they seem, and Dumbledore is definitely not as saintly as Richard Harris would have painted him, especially later. I think RH was great for the first two, but Michael Gambon has rocked Dumbledore since. For real.
And man, if Ian McKellen had done it, he would have rocked it as well. Dumbledore is dark. Dark-ish. Not to be confused with dark magic, a la Voldemort. Oh my god, I think way too much about this. Are you baiting me?
I agree Richard Harris wouldn't have been great playing Dumbledore through the whole series. Maybe if it had been made 10 years earlier, but he was just too.. old to be convincing. Dumbledore was this strong and invincible character, which is why it is supposed to be such a shock when he dies, and Richard Harris just couldn't pull that off.
As for Michael Gambon, I don't know if the fault lies with his acting or with how he was directed. I remember Taylor using movie 4 as an example, when Dumbledore rushes in and grabs Harry after his name comes out of the cup, and yes, that was terrible and totally not something Dumbledore would do. But in general that movie was directed in a way that came across as much, much darker than the book, and there were quite a few quirks that seemed to come from the directing and not the acting. (Plus The Goblet of Fire was the only one that director worked on, so maybe there's a reason for that.)
Knowing Richard Harris the way that I did, I'm sure that if he were with us today he would tell you lovely ladies to "suck his butt." I'm sure he would then launch into an empowered tirade saying "YOU DON'T KNOW ME! I'M RICHARD FUCKING HARRIS! I COULD PLAY THE PART OF OXYGEN AND YOU SONS OF BITCHES WOULD RUN AROUND TRYING TO BREATHE ME, I'M SO CONVINCING!" Or something like that. The point is, Richard Harris was an amazing actor and I'm sure he could've lived up to whatever the role demanded, if he had simply lived.
Michael Gambon's "Dumbledore" embodies very little of the kindness, good humor, omniscience, or control that make Albus who he is. Also, in my most recent viewing of Half Blood Prince, I noticed something else. This "Dumbledore" never seens to have any real affection for Harry. He treats Harry like my teachers treated me. Which is to say like any other well intentioned student.
Its definitely the fault of the directors too, though. Gambon has never read the books and somehow that's OK with Yates. I just can't imaging Heston going into the 10 Commandments not having read any scripture, saying "I'm just gonna read the script and wing it, pardna'." However, Gambon's performance makes me wonder if Yates has read the books either. Obviously, everyone left over from the Chris Columbus movies has read them and maybe the franchise has been coasting on his good decisions all this time. Thank goodness for Chris Columbus!
Gambon's "Dumbledore's" biggest fault is his lack of control. The thing that's great about Dumbledore is that he's always a step ahead, even if it seems otherwise, which is why he's so cool and level headed all the time. Does Gambon's "Dumbledore" seem like he knows the deal to you? Or does he manhandle students, and need to sit down for a breather when he finds out that Tom Riddle made some horcruxes (which he was supposed to already know many and was just looking for confirmation with Slughorn's memory)? No, this "Dumbledore" isn't in control, isn't laid back, doesn't seem terribly friendly, and is, in fact, a little bit of an ass.
So you guys keep telling yourself that Richard Harris couldn't have played the role, if it makes you feel better about having to watch this guy tarnish one of the best literary figures of our day, but I will not go along.
Ralph Fiennes hasn't read the books either, and he's a kick-ass Voldemort.
I will say that in general I have been very disappointed in the movies. For the first few all the kids were terrible actors, and in the later ones they changed the story too much. Especially this last one. I mean, they burned down The Burrow!! WHY did they think that would add anything to the story?!
True, I guess Ralph Fiennes just has great taste in determining what makes a good dark wizard. But there also isn't as much source material for Voldemort, so he probably felt like he had more freedom for interpretation.
i have never read the books, but prefer Gambon to Harris. Mabe its because i liked the third movie a lot, but thought the first two were very mediocre films.
The Columbus films are obviously the worst films in the franchise, but all of his casting decisions turned out great. Even though the kids weren't great actors then, they've really grown into their roles now. The 3rd film is when the movies did start actually being good movies though.
agreed, casting was very well done, and i am amazed that WB has been able to retain all of the actors over this span of time. Between, hollywood party life, sheer rebellion, tragedy, etc. franchises can see some changeover and usually with it a fall off of fanbase.
Because Richard Harris died and Ian McKellen turned them down. :(
ReplyDeleteHe is a good Dumbledore! I will stand by this. We randomly listen to the Harry Potter audiobooks online, and it is SO DIFFERENT when you hear someone else read them like that, you catch a lot more. These books are not as light and sweet and pure as they seem, and Dumbledore is definitely not as saintly as Richard Harris would have painted him, especially later. I think RH was great for the first two, but Michael Gambon has rocked Dumbledore since. For real.
ReplyDeleteAnd man, if Ian McKellen had done it, he would have rocked it as well. Dumbledore is dark. Dark-ish. Not to be confused with dark magic, a la Voldemort. Oh my god, I think way too much about this. Are you baiting me?
ReplyDeleteI agree Richard Harris wouldn't have been great playing Dumbledore through the whole series. Maybe if it had been made 10 years earlier, but he was just too.. old to be convincing. Dumbledore was this strong and invincible character, which is why it is supposed to be such a shock when he dies, and Richard Harris just couldn't pull that off.
ReplyDeleteAs for Michael Gambon, I don't know if the fault lies with his acting or with how he was directed. I remember Taylor using movie 4 as an example, when Dumbledore rushes in and grabs Harry after his name comes out of the cup, and yes, that was terrible and totally not something Dumbledore would do. But in general that movie was directed in a way that came across as much, much darker than the book, and there were quite a few quirks that seemed to come from the directing and not the acting. (Plus The Goblet of Fire was the only one that director worked on, so maybe there's a reason for that.)
Knowing Richard Harris the way that I did, I'm sure that if he were with us today he would tell you lovely ladies to "suck his butt." I'm sure he would then launch into an empowered tirade saying "YOU DON'T KNOW ME! I'M RICHARD FUCKING HARRIS! I COULD PLAY THE PART OF OXYGEN AND YOU SONS OF BITCHES WOULD RUN AROUND TRYING TO BREATHE ME, I'M SO CONVINCING!" Or something like that. The point is, Richard Harris was an amazing actor and I'm sure he could've lived up to whatever the role demanded, if he had simply lived.
ReplyDeleteMichael Gambon's "Dumbledore" embodies very little of the kindness, good humor, omniscience, or control that make Albus who he is. Also, in my most recent viewing of Half Blood Prince, I noticed something else. This "Dumbledore" never seens to have any real affection for Harry. He treats Harry like my teachers treated me. Which is to say like any other well intentioned student.
Its definitely the fault of the directors too, though. Gambon has never read the books and somehow that's OK with Yates. I just can't imaging Heston going into the 10 Commandments not having read any scripture, saying "I'm just gonna read the script and wing it, pardna'." However, Gambon's performance makes me wonder if Yates has read the books either. Obviously, everyone left over from the Chris Columbus movies has read them and maybe the franchise has been coasting on his good decisions all this time. Thank goodness for Chris Columbus!
Gambon's "Dumbledore's" biggest fault is his lack of control. The thing that's great about Dumbledore is that he's always a step ahead, even if it seems otherwise, which is why he's so cool and level headed all the time. Does Gambon's "Dumbledore" seem like he knows the deal to you? Or does he manhandle students, and need to sit down for a breather when he finds out that Tom Riddle made some horcruxes (which he was supposed to already know many and was just looking for confirmation with Slughorn's memory)? No, this "Dumbledore" isn't in control, isn't laid back, doesn't seem terribly friendly, and is, in fact, a little bit of an ass.
So you guys keep telling yourself that Richard Harris couldn't have played the role, if it makes you feel better about having to watch this guy tarnish one of the best literary figures of our day, but I will not go along.
I reject you, Michael Gambon! I REJECT YOU!
wow, taylor.
ReplyDeleteRalph Fiennes hasn't read the books either, and he's a kick-ass Voldemort.
ReplyDeleteI will say that in general I have been very disappointed in the movies. For the first few all the kids were terrible actors, and in the later ones they changed the story too much. Especially this last one. I mean, they burned down The Burrow!! WHY did they think that would add anything to the story?!
True, I guess Ralph Fiennes just has great taste in determining what makes a good dark wizard. But there also isn't as much source material for Voldemort, so he probably felt like he had more freedom for interpretation.
ReplyDeletei have never read the books, but prefer Gambon to Harris. Mabe its because i liked the third movie a lot, but thought the first two were very mediocre films.
ReplyDeleteThe Columbus films are obviously the worst films in the franchise, but all of his casting decisions turned out great. Even though the kids weren't great actors then, they've really grown into their roles now. The 3rd film is when the movies did start actually being good movies though.
ReplyDeleteagreed, casting was very well done, and i am amazed that WB has been able to retain all of the actors over this span of time. Between, hollywood party life, sheer rebellion, tragedy, etc. franchises can see some changeover and usually with it a fall off of fanbase.
ReplyDelete