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

[kaitydid33087.livejournal.com]

Well...thinking about characters and their need to be replaced, kind of makes me think of Three's Company, and pretty much replacing Susan Summers, after she quit. It was just never the same, I think they tried, but they never captured that original gold that she had. And I'm glad that John Ritter never left, because honestly, he was irreplaceable as Jack. Sometimes, some shows just create characters that are so irreplaceable. And of course, people pass on, and it sucks and all. I guess sometimes they have no choice but to replace the actor. But I think my big problem, with Dumbles, was the actor choice.

Now don't get me wrong, I like Michael Gambon, and I respect him as an actor, but ugh...I HATE how he portrayed Dumbles. He was just way too angry. And part of this, is probably because I really hate what they did with PoA. It's my least favorite movie,right behind HBP, and it's my FAVORITE BOOK. They just changed too much, and well...this is a different tangent, that is somewhat related. But anyways, Michael Gambon was just way too angry for me. Dumbledore was never really all that angry of a character. Richard Harris played him just as I imagined Dumbledore in the books. Wise, old, and slightly crazy. I don't think that Michael Gambon ever got that down. I think that's what the biggest annoyance of the last 6 movies are, just too much of an angry Dumbledore. And it wasn't even til Kings Cross, did I like Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. That was one of the better scenes he had. I think he just changed too much from what Richard Harris had set up, and it was never the same again.

The thing is, if you're gonna replace actors, then you gotta make the performance just as good, if not better. And I don't think Michael Gambon ever did that.

Kaitypuff//321 words

[slumber.livejournal.com]

There was a lot going on from the transition between CoS and PoA, though-- the directorial change, the tone, the scene, etc. Cuaron had taken over the reigns and he did a LOT that was incredibly different from how Columbus had handled it. The movies switched hands a bit more, and while at the time it was really jarring, I like thinking it helped craft how the wizarding world must have felt to Harry as he went through all seven years of it.

Gambon, I agree, took a bit of time for me to get used to. He was definitely a lot more exuberant and sprightly, but Harry's view of Dumbledore changed as well, over time. While I agree that Harris was pretty great in the role, I don't think it's entirely bad that we had someone who seemed less all-knowing and not-as-wizened in Dumbledore to eventually play that shift in his character.

Evyclaw

[interchanges.livejournal.com]

First of all, I'm glad to see someone else who dislikes the PoA movie. So many people say it's their favorite and I'm just like no. It was just too much of a change- from the previous movie and from the book.

While I do partly blame Michael Gambon for playing Dumbledore much more... mean, for lack of a better word, I do also place the blame in the directors. Gambon didn't read the books- he didn't know the character in-and-out. The directors should have told him how to read the lines and act them. I think he did fine in the 3rd movie and he got better by the 6th and 7th movies, but he was just too harsh in 4 and 5 and I think the directors really should have told him to tone it down.

Chelsea/Ravenclaw