Smarmy Society: Term XXV, Activity 3: Character Replacements

[anbyrobanby.livejournal.com]

Activity name: Character Replacements
Points: 24hr debate: Participation 10pts, Additional comment: 5pts. 30pts limit.
End date: Monday 1st April @ 14:00 UTC
Details: Over the course of the films, some of the characters were written out, assimilated into others, or played by multiple actors. Do you feel this is the right approach? Does the change of face affect how you feel about that character? A 24 hour debate to end the month.



So I was considering my next activity for the Smarmy Society, when I read on the news that the actor Richard Griffiths, who played Vernon Dursley, passed away on Good Friday following surgery complications.

I was reading some of the assosciated articles related to this, and one thing that came up was how he was perceived as "perfect" for the role of Uncle Vernon. This got me thinking- without doubt he was excellent in the role, but had someone else played the part, would it have still been as good? The thought reminded me of when Richard Harris was replaced by Michael Gambon and the ensuing dissonance.

I would like to invite a quick discussion about the synergy between actor and character. If an actor or actress becomes unavailable, walks away from the project, etc, how would you think this impacts on the character role? Would it change? Does a strong actor or actress fit into the role smoothly, and would a transition be smooth? More importantly to the Smarmy Club, would your view change if it were a major role versus a minor one?

I'll give 10 points for a substantial, thought-out comment (let's say about 200 words, minimum). Further comments of at least 50 words will be awarded five house points.

As it's a topic with broad scope I shall not be assigning debate motions here. I would just like to see some free chatter. But of course, feel free to play devil's advocate with each other. I love to see a bit of that over a circle of people nodding among themselves. ;)


_{The Smarmy Society: Because loving the Trio is too mainstream.}

Comments

[caitieness.livejournal.com]

To be honest, super minor characters changing actors doesn't bother me. For example, from the novels we know that Hufflepuff Cedric Diggory was the only seeker to out-snatch Harry Potter but it was due to a Dementor attack in HP's third year. This is shown in the movies and some rando plays the puff seeker (his robe is labeled Diggory but I can't even tell you what he looks like). Diggory becomes an important character in the next movie so he has to be recast based on the level of importance. Maybe that rando was just some extra that was there that day. Maybe his ability to read lines was minimal. Maybe he was busy. Either way, his relevance in PoA is so little that a recast doesn't matter to me. I'm going to say the same thing for Lavender Brown. I didn't even know she was in any of the other movies until reading everyone else's comments.

I think for characters that are a little less than minor, it would be a problem. Like if they re-cast Cho Chang between Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix, it would be confusing for the audience. Is she super important? Not really. Should you remember who she is? Yes. So you would have to not only reintroduce her ("Oh hey it's Cho Chang") but also remind the audience why she is important ("Didn't you have a crush on her Harry but she was dating Cedric when she died?") and it gets a little clumsy, IMO. With more major characters like Dumbledore, that isn't necessary. Not only does the age and make-up help Harris and Gambon look really similar (old white guy with a long white bear and spectacles), the character importance to the film made it obvious who he was supposed to be. If that makes any sense!

caitie / puff

[anbyrobanby.livejournal.com]

Interesting comment about cedric. It reminded me a bit of the situation with Marcus Belby- the kid in HBP whose uncle's wolfbane potion got him invited to the Slug Club. The actor who played this kid was tragically murdered before production ended, yet they kept his role in the film, however minor. Despite being a character who really serves no purpose, it could have been recast, edited, whatever- but it was deemed right to keep it as so.

The point I wass trying to make with the above got marred when I realised I was confusing him with roger davies- I was going to comment on how the Ravenclaw quidditch team was non-existent in the films. But yeah. The kid on the puff broomstick may not have been RPattz- in fact, i assume it was a stunt actor or somesuch. There was simply no need to cast any given person for that role.

rob/gryff

[flipflop-diva.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with all this. Most of the minor character recastings I didn't even notice or realize. I suppose it helps that the movies came out so far apart, too. (Well, I mean, I know a lot of people rewatched them, but sometimes I was lazy and didn't go back and start at movie 1 and go all the way through, so by the time I went to see the new one, it had been awhile since I'd seen the earlier ones). Also, it probably helps that there are tons and tons and tons of characters in these movies, so it's really hard to keep track of everyone on-screen.

But I also agree that once they become even a little important, then it gets weird. If they have lines and/or a significant moment that I'm supposed to remember, then it would be weird for them to suddenly be played by someone else. A bit jarring, especially if they didn't look similar.


Kristine | Puff