this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
340 points (97.8% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
5229 readers
2 users here now
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [[email protected]](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: [email protected] [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I generally respect Michael Gambon and am sad to hear of his passing, but personally I thought he was a horrible Dumbledore in comparison to Harris. His general manner was a stark contrast in Prisoner of Azkaban, and his treatment of Harry in Goblet of Fire was very unDumbledore IMO, and whatever might have been excused regarding differences in style was somewhat destroyed when he said he'd never even read the books in prep for the role.
https://www.slashfilm.com/1406736/dumbledore-actor-michael-gambon-never-read-harry-potter-book/
By the final movies I found him passable, and I will go to my grave believing it's because he didn't understand the character well enough for the first couple, and by the end he did.
I wouldn't discount Harris' innate advantages there too; he was 10 years older than Gambon, aged more poorly (having been an alcoholic hellraiser in his younger years), and his natural delivery - even when he was much younger - had that sort-of wizened wheezing sound to it; "old and physically frail but with incredible magic power" was sort of baked in even before he added any actual acting to the mix.
But I don't know if there's an alternative who would have been better in that regard; the three I'm aware of them talking about were Christopher Lee, Ian McKellen, and Peter O'Toole, but the latter two would have played him very much like Gambon did, and I'm not sure if Lee could have pulled off "frail" either given his voice + physical stature.
You don't have to know the source material to absolutely kill a role though.
Source : I know next to nothing about acting but I saw Werner Herzog in "The Mandalorian" and he nailed that role despite allegedly not giving a shit about the universe and not watching a single movie or reading any of the books.
I mean that was more-or-less Werner Herzog's natural delivery, they just had him go in and read a buncha lines; somebody decided that Basically Werner Herzog was the right fit for that character and then they went out and got him to do it.
(I imagine this is how Stephen Tobolowsky gets many of his acting jobs too)
I agree, that's true. But when you are taking over in a role from another actor who was beloved in that role, even if you are determined to make it your own, and even if you are Michael Gambon, it seems rather careless and unprofessional not to familiarize yourself with that material.