It's hard to shake that trait yet it shows. A leader of an IRA movement in Patriot Games, A Caeser in Galdiator and even being a prisoner in The Count of Monte Cristo, he's a teacher. Perhaps it's the glint in his eyes, his angular chiseled looks or even because of his acting history playing characters in a position of great power. Harris has such a presence, however that's all it is. On the flip side when he talks to Voldemort in OoTP with such a calm and almost witty manner during the duel, it is something very human in the face of a situation that requires something extraordinary. For example when talking about loyalty with Harry, simply about human choice we see the depth of his knowledge. It was times that he seemed most human and genuine that we seen great intelligence and power, yet during his times of incredible intelligence and presence that we see him as his most human. Who is Dumbledore exactly? A simple human who's just modest and humble and loves to teach a generation of children about, tolerance, love and respect? Or is he a powerful wizard who is fully of wit and genius and is respected by his friends and feared by his enemies? The problem I find with certain interpretations of Book!Dumbledore is that he is all those traits however the audience accepts these traits under an illusion of which hides what JKR is trying to tell us about Dumbledore. While the visual has been established, we need to know the motivation of the character. However here is where we enter the flaws. THANKS DISNEY! Heck Richard Harris seems to make a better Disney's Merlin than JKR's Dumbledore. It does make great sense on a sub-conscious level because now we have Dumbledore, a nice bespectacled wizard who's just powerlevel'd himself to level 99 being easily associated with another revered powerful wizard of Merlin. Yes, I do imagine that why there is such an easy acceptance of Harris as a caring old wizard as shown in the novels is because of the bespectacled interpretation of Merlin in Disney's Sword in the Stone. Even with them on, Grandpre could easily show that they do little to lighten up the mood of Dumbledore in the end of OoTP: Take them off and I imagine Harris would look just as serious as the ever famous Gandalf. While the half moon spectacles certainly do contribute to a softening of Dumbledore's look, both in book and in film, it doesn't necessarily exclude him from looking the part of a serious, almost angry wizard. There is a certain charm or even innocence that glasses give to people. However we still accept him, based upon something that I consider pretty peculiar. There's a certain seriousness in Harris' eyes despite his warm nature at the end of PS, you never quite get the feeling that he'd break into joyous singing as opposed to something a bit morose. Even the face is less welcoming in comparison to its picture counterpart. Still it's hardly accurate even if only they gotten the face correct. Not truly represented in the film mind you, but while only words can go so far as to describing what Dumbledore looked like, however this particular picture focuses all those potential interpretations into this final image. What can be said that while it has some hallmarks of what a wise and old wizard should look like, it breaks some rules being sort of less high fantasy and more colourful Victorian in garb. Whether JKR accepted this as the definitive Dumbledore at the time it was produced or later vetoed this idea, I don't know. All interpretations of Dumbledore are basically ingrained in my head by either Harris, Gambon or Jim Dale's interpretation.įrom the image of Dumbledore on the back of The Philosopher's Stone? Granted, Thomas Taylor's artwork perhaps isn't considered canon by most. Every single book I've read I had listened to the audio book version first, with the exception of Philosopher's Stone of which I have the movie to thank for that. I should warn you because of my extreme efficiency (or perhaps ultimate laziness) I've never read a book without some sort of cross media contamination. The renaissance man (or woman) might choose a combination of the both considering that while both have their faults (which are more highlighted by directorial choices rather than actor performance) their strengths of portraying Dumbledore do indeed reflect certain characteristics of our beloved headmaster of Hogwarts. Whether they are film fans or accuracianiados I still imagine that those who are for either side are not mutually exclusive in their preference for the films. Between the two is that a lot of people prefer Harris and a lot of people prefer Gambon. Obviously there is high debate between who is the better Dumbledore Harris or Gambon. I'll leave my judgment for later because really, what's the point of explaining a point when I show it in the beginning?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |