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

[flyingharmony.livejournal.com]

Oh, dear... I think this is quite a difficult topic... It's kind of obvious that, when it comes to these kinds of replacements, everybody gets a lot of feelings; nobody likes them (at least I don't know anybody who does), and likely everybody makes a silent vow to never prefer the second actor to the first; but, looking at it in an un-biased way, there are some times where the second actor gives entirely new ideas about the character and we find ourselves actually starting to be glad about the replacement. Generally, it's pretty understandable that some characters simply need to be replaced - for whatever reason, but most of the time, the audience is not very happy about it.

Looking at the Harry Potter series - I have to admit, there were more replacements than I actually noticed - I honestly had no idea about Lavender! While, in my opinion (and I have to add that I was around eight or nine when the first Harry Potter movie was released, so my first impression was certainly a different one than an adult or teenager's first impression) Richard Harris is a perfect cast for Dumbledore - at least a Dumbledore for Harry's point of view as a child - I've learned to appreciate Michael Gambon's portrayal of him too. More or less. At first I was shocked and did not know what to think at all, but over time I got used of him, very well aware that it was simply impossible to just write his character out of the movies; there was no other chance than to find another actor for Dumbledore, and I am not quite sure if any of this makes sense anymore.

Then, there were silent replacements, that never actually affected the watcher - what I am talking about is the replacement of Helen McCrory with Helena Bonham Carter; she was initially supposed to play the part of Bellatrix, but then had to withdraw due to her pregnancy and returned one movie later as Narcissa; while I adore Bonham Carter as Bellatrix and am one of these few people who actually think McCrory's Narcissa was fantastic, I cannot help but think - how would she have portrayed Bellatrix? Both, Helena Bonham Carter and Helen McCrory are (not due to Harry Potter, but several other movies) my favourite actresses - Helen McCrory likely my most favorite - and I am more than happy that I got to see both of them (I don't think that HBC would have been cast as Narcissa), but I can spend hours thinking of how McCrory's Bella would have been; I am convinced that she would have been as amazing as HBC, yet completely different (more cruel, colder, more terrifying) - and I am still convinced that the part might have fit her a tad better than Narcissa did, even though, as already stated, I do have a very high opinion of her as Cissy.

Now, what even is my point after all these ramblings about Helen McCrory and Helena Bonham Carter - we always have a direct comparison when actors are being replaced by others to play the character; we might be biased, but we have the chance to decide whom we thought to be better and whom we prefer to see playing that certain part, but when it comes to replacements during or shortly before shooting, this opportunity is taken from has, which, on one hand, might be a good thing, because it spares us many nerves and likely quite a few feelings about replacement, but on the other hand, when it comes to a situation similar to the two Bellatrix's, we - or, some of us - will likely spend lots of time, thinking and contemplating how the other actor or actress could have portrayed that certain character, and we will (likely) never find an answer.

Avi/Puff

[slumber.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of it is whether or not we already have an idea in our heads of how these characters would look like, and how they would act-- for me, I only had wild & crazy in mind for Bellatrix, and calm & composed & blonde for Narcissa, so when I saw the actresses they'd cast it was easier for their faces to fill in all the rest of what was missing in my head. The stronger the idea I had of a character, I think, the harder it is to convince me that this or that actor would have fit them.

I also think that once we see a character on-screen, to a certain extent we get attached to how they play their character, so it is understandably upsetting when suddenly they're played by someone else.

there are some times where the second actor gives entirely new ideas about the character and we find ourselves actually starting to be glad about the replacement

Thissssss. I'm a little bit surprised, actually, that Doctor Who hasn't made its way to the conversation yet. On one hand yes, the regeneration thing does make for a nice, built-in excuse about why eleven different actors have played him so far. On the other hand, one can't help but notice that every time someone new plays him, he changes quite a bit. There's room for playing with personality and quirks, I guess, and again you can account for Time Lord regeneration rules for that, but at the same time I can't help wondering-- if you put Eleven and One side by side, would you ever get to a point where you thought, "Yes, this is the same character."?

Evyclaw

[evening12]

I have to admit, there were more replacements than I actually noticed I was the same way. A lot of the replacements I noticed after the fact. I’d do on wiki and they would let me know that “actually Lavender had been cast before...”. I’m even less likely to notice if the character isn’t given a line or a “hey that’s so and so”. I don’t even think that Lavender was identified (aside from in the credits) as being Lavender in the films before HBP. So I really don’t care that she was replaced, I just don’t like the the new actress wasn’t also a Black actress. But in the case of Pansy who never had a big role, I don’t care really.

Martine//claw