Harry Potter Chapter by Chapter: New Cover Designs

Michael Gambon has not read the Harry Potter books. Discuss.

He's a good actor. This does not mean he's not an idiot.

 

Why should he be considered an "idiot"? Are Alan Rickman and Ralph Fiennes also "idiots" because they haven't read the books either? They're film actors playing roles whose characters are encapsulated in the script they were hired to interpret. I've seen interviews with Gambon, Rickman, and Fiennes, and none of them strikes me as an idiot. I wonder how many book-to-film adaptation actors haven't read the book the film was based on, yet still manage to turn in a convincing and appropriate performance?

 

You're getting paid, do your homework. This kind of thing irks me.

 

This mostly. If nothing else, read the parts that apply to your character. The reason I've always disliked Gambon's portrayal of the character is that he doesn't seem to personify the character in the book. Richard Harris did. He had the quiet grace, the wisdom and the quiet power that the character exudes in the book. And as I understand it, Harris never read the books either. Maybe he did read the parts about his character though I'm not sure.

But Gambon's Dumbledore is shocked and surprised too much. He manhandles Harry in movie 4, the scenes in 5 were also off. His Dumbledore gets angry too much. That may be the fault of the writers or the directors but one of the most powerful things about Dumbledore in the book is his patience and control of his voice. Book 5: Dumbledore calmly replaces Trelawny with the centaur. He doesn't shout "Don't you have studying to do!" at his students. When Harry trashes his office (not even in movie 5, but still) the fact he just sits there is excellent. And then this movie, where he is a real main character, He's shocked and surprised about the horcruxes and doesn't know what the other items are. That's the fault of the writers, but Gambon's acting as well as the writing makes Dumbledore less helpful then in the book. The whole point of those memories was to prepare Harry to go it alone. Instead, he's left Harry to fumble around in the dark to locate 5 horcruxes and Harry only knows what one is. They never touch on the founders items or the cup or the snake. Basically Dumbeldore is barely any help.

Even Alan Rickman, who is fantastic, deviates from the character of Snape in the books. The irony there is that I like this Snape more as he is more kind to Harry and the others than the Snape of the books. A perfect example is when Snape shields the trio from werewolf Lupin in movie 3.

So ironically, I hate angry Dumbledore but I like kinder Snape.

 

He's playing the part as written in the screenplay for the film he was hired to work on. So are Fiennes and Rickman, yet somehow they're not being taken to task or called idiots. If we look at every book-to-film adaptation produced for the last 75 years, I guarantee you that a HUGE proportion of the actors involved never read the books those films were based on either. But Gambon is singled out as an "idiot." This kind of thing irks me.

 

So your problem, then, isn't actually that Gambon hasn't read the books, you just don't happen to like his portrayal of Dumbledore.

And it was perfectly within character of the book-version of Snape to protect the trio from Werewolf-Lupin.

 

I hate this because it's an actor trope. They like to boast that they do their own stunts and that they have never read the books the movies they star in are based upon. Give me a break.

Of course, Ben Hecht wrote the ur-script of "Gone With the Wind" without ever reading the book. If you believe him.

 

My problem is that the Dumbledore portrayed on screen since Goblet of Fire has more significantly deviated from the book's characterization than Snape, Voldemort or most other characters. You are right that it is in Snape's character to protect the trio. My point was that in the movie, likely for time reasons, we don't see Snape being as cruel. Yet, for some reason Dumbledore comes across as more angry than Snape. I do not blame Gambon for this because I don't know if it's the writers or the director causing this problem. I do believe that for scenes that are crucial in the movie, he should at least have read those parts because they might help him better understand the scene if the writers and/or director fail to. Now, if this truly is all Gambon and not the writers or the director, then yes I would say I don't like his portrayal because it deviates significantly. Were Harris still alive, I might be upset with his portrayal from 4 on. So it may just be the writers.

 

What bothers me more is that Alan Rickman's life has never been graced by the books. Poor Alan. I will gladly educate him.


To be honest, the fact that Rickman has never read the books surprises me, especially after seeing HBP last night. It seemed as though he was acting with reluctance in making the Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa and later again when he kills Dumbledore, which is more foreshadowing of the final book than of how his character is portrayed at that point in the films.

 

Seemed to me that it came across that way moreso because of the editing rather than Rickman.

 

It shows that Rickman didn't read in the end. He shows little emotion when fending of Harry in the end. He probably figures that Snape always remains cool, but in the books it was the one scene where Snape lost it.

 

Whether the actors have read the books or not, it's up to the director to make sure performances are where they should be. If they're not, it's either because (1) he didn't get the performance from the actor he wanted (Lord nkows the actors involved here are more than capable) or because the director decided to go in a different direction than the books. If the latter is the case, then he's an idiot.

 

If the actors have the script, which by the way is always approved by JK Rowling, from an acting standpoint, there's no absolute requirement they should have to read the book.

Everything they need to know should be in the script. Actors make movies all the time that are NOT based on books, so it's not like everything isn't available in the script. The fans have read the books, but not the script, nor does the audience know the direction they were given.

No book is ever going to receive a direct translation to the screen, nor should it. Books and movies are two different ways of telling stories, each with their own peculiarities, which should be respected.

Actors interpret material based on many, many factors. Their instincts and intuition, the direction, whether or not their lunch agreed with them. Just because a reader saw the scene a certain way in their head, doesn't mean it's going to be precisely transferred on to the screen that way. In fact, the odds are against it.

Alan Rickman is a solid, world class actor. Actors that good aren't robots, they make choices, along with the director, about how to play a scene. I'm sure he had his reasons. After all, he's been playing that character for a long time now.

 

It's surprising that he hasn't read the books (Gambon OR Rickman) but considering the way they've played the characters, to me at least that's not a big deal. They've done a very good job all the same. Granted, their performances might have been a little more nuanced if they'd read the books, however it seems to me that they've done very well with what they've been given.

JWD hit the nail on the head.

 

One thing about Rickman, though, iirc JKR had told him quite a bit of info ion the Snape character before it was revealed in the books.I've always taken that to mean that she told him what Snape's motivations and true nature were.

 

That's not entirely true. A script may describe a character as an ex-Navy Seal, but it's not going to tell you everything you know to play such a character authentically. And while the Potter books and movies are obviously two separate entities, I'm under the impression that the movies are supposed to be reasonably authentic depictions of the events in the books (it's not like these are the Jason Bourne movies and they're just working from a loose outline to develop an entirely different beast). Especially given the wealth of material I understand was cut for the films, it's simply lazy acting not to tap such a resource. Again, it would be different if the movies weren't being presented as the books brought to life, but they are.

Not that I don't sympathize. I tried reading those books and couldn't make it past the first few chapters of Book One. But then it's not my JOB to understand one of these characters and the world they inhabit.

 

I have to agree that its disappointing Gambon hasn't read the books and unfortunately I think it shows sometimes. Often he seems to lack the gentle personality of Dumbledore. I don't hate his performance of the character either I just feel like his predecessor did a wonderful job bringing to life the soft spoken nature of the character.

Normally I would agree that its not a necessity for an actor to have read the source material. Its partially up to the director and script to guide the performance and there is always a degree of interpretation the actor is usually granted. I can understand him wanting to find the character himself and not be influenced by other factors. But for such a pivotal and significant character, particularly in this movie, its disappointing that he hasn't made the effort to explore the source material.

In the case of Rickman I can forgive it entirely because frankly he encapsulates the character so completely that when I read Snape speak in the books I can only hear Rickman's interpretation. The man is outstanding as Snape and even though they under use him in these films he still manages to steal just about every scene he is in.

 

Gambon is extremely gentle and caring in HBP, if that helps anyone. He's received criticism for being angry in a few moments in GoF, but aside from that he strikes me as very Dumbledorian! The new film showcases what a kind, caring person he really is.

 

I always personally found Harris's performance to be closer to the mark of who Dumbledore is, quite frankly.

 

Most fans seem to feel that way, but I prefer Gambon. His Dumbledore seems like a real person, with human fallibility and a gamut of real emotions, rather than a two-dimensional all-good, all-pure, Merlin stand-in.

 

That might be the product of the script more than the individual performances though. Gambon has the benefit of performing in the more involved stories where Dumbledore's character is more and more revealed. Had Harris lived to be in the current films I get the feeling you would see the same range.

 

Then what's the problem exactly? I get the sense it has more to do with personal affection for someone rather than an assessment of their acting skills or their interpretation of the role: "I like Harris' personality more and he seems like a charming guy (which he was), therefore I think his Dumbledore was better, and even though he never got a chance to show us the character's depth, I feel certain he would've done a better job of it than Gambon, whose personality I dislike and therefore believe he has done a poor job." I disagree with this line of thinking and opine that Gambon is every bit as charming as Harris and a great deal more subtle.

 

I didn't say it was a problem. I was suggesting that I am less than enthusiastic about the performance. And I submit that it has nothing to do with personality outside of the role itself given that I have no frame of reference having never seen either in anything else that I am immediately aware of. I am only aware of either as Dumbledore, and as Dumbledore I found Gambon's performance lacking. With the exception of HBP which I have yet to see, he has yet to demonstrate the sensitivity of the character. He embodies the strength and wisdom of the character and its fascinating watching him face the challenges that plague the character (I look forward to seeing what he does in this film), but he lacks the most essential and defining characteristic of Dumbledore IMO.

If its a matter of personality and charm, for the record I find Gambon to be a much more charming actor throughout these films but he still feels wrong for Dumbledore to me.

 

Fair enough. But let me just say I think you'll be pleased by his role and performance in HBP. He speaks and acts very kindly, confidently and with great compassion, yet somehow there is a hint of an underlying flaw of some kind -- an endearing trait from my POV because it is all too human.

 

But like someone else said, JK Rowling personally gave Alan Rickman information, she told him back when they were filming Sorcerer's Stone that he was secretly in love with Lily but accidentally caused her death, and has been trying to make it up by serving Dumbledore and now protecting Harry ever since. Plus, I'm sure Alan Rickman knows what happens in the books, even if he doesn't read them.

I think that Gambon's Dumbledore is spot on after reading DEATHLY HALLOWS, where we learn that Dumbledore is human and indeed has a darker side to him. He too wanted to rule the world, and take care of Muggles "for the greater good," even conspiring and falling in love with Gellert Grindelwald during his time in Godric's Hollow.


That reminds me, about the books, does anyone know if the Potter's actually moved into the Dumbledore's old house, or did they get the house from James being descended from one of the Peverell brothers? They were both neighbors to Bathilda Bagshot, the aunt of Grindelwald. Also, was it confirmed that Salazar Slytherin and Voldemort were descended from the other Peverell brother?