MovieChat Forums > Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) Discussion > Michael Gambon's Dumbledore...

Michael Gambon's Dumbledore...

posted 9 years ago by swills25
22 replies | jump to latest

This to me is the weakest part of the franchise and I think a huge part of why I enjoyed the first two movies so much more than the others.

In the books, and the first two movies, Dumbledore has an omniscient presence about him. Always two steps ahead of everyone else, it's as if he knew the whole time how the story would go and end. He was calm and collected. He seemed to just have an answer for everything and anticipated everything.

Michael Gambon's Dumbledore, to me, is the antithesis of this. He is incredibly aggressive, he lets his emotions get the best of him, he seems lost and confused in many parts. To me, Gambonn brought no warmth to the character at all. I thought Richard Harris was a spot on embodiment of the Dumbledore in the books. It's such a pity he died. I think Michael Gambon was poor casting all around though.

[–] Vampire_Von_Suckington 9 years ago

I'm a huge Gambon as Dumbledore fan, but his acting in Goblet, which he's the first to admit, was pretty over the top and not great. Other than that I think he was awesome as Dumbledore.

[–] cjlove2523 9 years ago

I think Gambon's Dumbledore definitely worked great in OOtP. Not so great in GoB

[–] Angelkrista 9 years ago

If I didn't know any better I'd have thought I wrote the OP.

Well said.

[–] Mentrilo 9 years ago

That's not an uncommon opinion.

To look at the other side of the argument, though...

I find it very difficult to see the Dumbledore of Philosopher's Stone/Chamber of Secrets as strong and threatening enough for the later adaptations. I can't imagine Richard Harris standing up to Ralph Feinnes, for instance.

Specifically with Goblet of Fire, I think it should be pointed out that Dumbledore didn't actually have omniscience. He tells us he only realised Moody wasn't really Moody when Moody took Harry from the field after the maze.

Throughout the book Dumbledore really is stifled. He knows something is up, but not what, or why.

The filmmakers decided to make one film from a very long book, and had to short-hand that frustration and struggle that Dumbledore is going through since they were limited on the time they gave to Dumbledore given everything else they had to fit in.

I don't doubt they could have done it better, but I think some consideration needs to be given to the restraints they were working under.

Look, I'm sorry I called you an inanimate object earlier. I was angry.

[–] SharkNomad 9 years ago

I thought some sort of mixture of Richard Harris' presence, serenity and wisdom with Gambon's off-the-wall, quirky and active performance would have been perfect. They both portrayed different aspects of the same book character.

[–] ShadowGenerations 9 years ago

He played the part perfectly in PoA imo.

If the world chooses to become my enemy, I will fight like I always have

[–] Daenerys-Stormborn 8 years ago

He played the part perfectly in PoA imo.

...and the others that followed. 

тrυe coυrage ιѕ noт aвoυт ĸnowιng wнen тo тaĸe a lιғe, вυт wнen тo ѕpare one.

[–] J-c-lewis123 9 years ago

Tbh could richard Harris have done any of the action scenes in later movies. Yeah I think he was better as a wise old man. But Gambian was better as a fighter to me, both were good to me but I think Gambon was better for the later films. Like when he stunned fake moody and fought voldermort. Also could you imagine richard Harris having to shoot the scene where he falls off the tower in HBP

[–] Stenian 9 years ago

I still don't get why Gambon didn't mimic Harris's performance.

He was always disjunctive to Richard Harris's Dumbledore. He should've taken that "calm" and slumberous approach that Harris gave us in the first two.

And no, it's not like he would "copy" Harry if he acted like him. After all, Dumbledore is supposed to "act" way, or at least that was how we first saw him. It seems like Gambon just acted from scratch, like as if Harris's Dumbledore didn't exist.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (59101971) 9 years ago

Yeah, I can see the rationale for not wanting to imitate Richard Harris, I suppose out of respect for him and to not have it feel cheap, but I think it was a mistake to go SO far the other way with it. I mean, the wardrobe, the beanie hat, the tied beard, the dirtier hair color, making him so eccentric in POA and then so aggressive in GOF...neither of those performances are like each other OR like Richard Harris. Taking away his distinctive glasses at the end of GOF and continuing that with the Yates movies to where he only wears them in like two scenes. And then randomly giving him white hair again in HBP and DH. They really made him into a completely different person and they kept re-inventing him with every movie, to the point where it's not just hard to connect the dots between Richard Harris and Michael Gambon, but it's even hard to connect between POA Gambon and DH Gambon.

_______________
If John Williams Scored Harry Potter 4-8: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6HqJLDCy3kZodnQ-NNewovSKPU4Q1dm4

[–] Martha_Samara_Saxon 8 years ago

I absolutely agree. I don't hate Gambon or anything but he was all wrong for the part of Dumbledore. His Dumbledore was nothing like that in the books which was as you say steps ahead of everyone else. Book Dumbledore also had this smug calmness about him. Rarely was he unaware of what was going on, yet Gambons Dumbledore was the opposite of this. Book Dumbledore would have never came running at Harry shouting and demanding/asking if Harry put his name in the goblet. Book Dumbledore would have acted a completely different way. It was honestly pointless to have Gambon's Dumbledore in it at all. It was like Dumbledore wasn't even there and this lesser character had took his place. Dumbledore is supposed to be a figure that you put your trust in, that you think is the kind old grandfather figure. It's supposed to shock you when you find out the truth about him at the end of the series. But with Gambon's Dumbledore it's like there's no surprise.

I'm not one of those people that are strictly loyal to the original actor and can't stand someone replacing them, but this was a little ridiculous. Gambon was playing a completely different character than Richard Harris. It's not like he's a bad actor. It's the way he played the character that gets me. Richard Harris WAS Dumbledore. He played the role perfectly. Gambon's character did not act like Dumbledore AT ALL, which kind of defeats the purpose of him being there.

I'm a Timelord.
Right, not pompous at all then.

[–] pete-293 8 years ago

Gambon played Dumbledore. Harris did not.

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

[–] lilwith 8 years ago

^Wrong.

[–] SharkNomad 8 years ago

Gambon had clearly not read the source material and was simply making up what he thought Dumbledore should be in every scene which was blatantly at odds with what Dumbledore was.

When he did get it right, he was fine. The duel with Voldemort, the manipulations in DH etc. He got it wrong at least as much as he got it right though, perhaps a bit more.

This may be controversial too but Ralph Fiennes was also hit and miss in this. He's generally a brilliant actor and sometimes he was the Ralph Fiennes we know and love, he had some brilliant moments. Other times, he comes across as a small child who has had his teddy taken away and needs to be told to go to bed. The scene in the Riddle House, his delivery was terrible.