Inconsistency and Incoherence/GOF!Movie!DD/JKR's input to the script

[lupinlore]

I posted some of these thoughts over on HPfGU, but they apply very 
much to GoF as well, so I thought I'd put it here.

Some of us have talked about the problem of the "decision" scene in 
GoF and the light it throws on Dumbledore, particularly with regard 
to his actions and attitudes in the rest of the movie.  I think the 
problem is one of CONSISTENCY and COHERENCE. Now, these
are related things, but not identical things. Consistency is the
tendency of a character (or a real person, for that matter) to react
in similar ways to similar situations, or in the same way to the same
situation whenever it is presented. It is also a measure of how much
a character's behavior matches what we have been assured to be that
character's personality. Coherence is a basic question of whether or
not a character is believable, i.e. if that character "makes sense"
as a real person on some quasi-intuitive level. Both of these
issues come into play with Harry Potter characters, particularly the
adults, and particularly, probably, Dumbledore.

Now, like I say, consistency and coherence are not the same thing,
or, more exactly, an INCONSISTENT character is not the same as an
INCOHERENT character. The reason for this is that humans are, in
fact, somewhat inconsistent creatures. We react differently to
similar situations, because of any number of factors. We often behave
in ways that are at least slightly at variance with what appears to
be our general personality patterns. I guess a good test is the "real
person test." Would this behavior be believable, more or less, for a
real person?

But, being INCONSISTENT, even though it is not the same as being
INCOHERENT, is related to that state. That is, even though humans
aren't totally consistent in any way, they do tend to be largely
consistent, especially if they are reacting honestly. If a person is
wildly inconsistent in dealing with situations or in their
presentation, or in the way their behavior fits with their supposed
personality, the immediate assumption they get from most observers is
that they are being dishonest and/or manipulative. If we are asked
to accept very inconsistent behavior as being honest, then the
character moves into incoherence.

Here is where JKR and/or the Kloves get into trouble with a lot of 
the adults, and most particularly with Dumbledore.  We have a 
Dumbledore who acts in the decision scene at odds with how he 
professes in the rest of the film to feel about Harry, and at 
somewhat odds with the character as we've been led to view him.   
Now, that, I think is what has led to a lot of Manipulative!
Dumbledore speculation on this and other issues, since I think a very 
natural reaction to that kind of inconsistency is to preserve 
coherence of the character by assuming dishonesty and manipulative 
behavior.  Indeed, unlike the case with JKR's book, we are flat out 
invited to believe that by Kloves' screenplay.

The problem is very difficult.  We have a Dumbledore in  
the "decision" scene (and to an extent in his final conversation with 
Harry) who seems to deliberately decide to leave Harry in the 
tournament as bait.  That runs against the picture we've been given 
of Dumbledore.  It also runs against Dumbledore's seeming feelings 
for Harry.  Finally, it cuts across some of the other speeches 
Dumbledore gives in the movie - most especially the scene where he 
tries to browbeat Fudge into calling off the tournament.  Why?  If it 
has become too dangerous, and he IS able to withdraw Harry and 
Cedric, why does he not do so?  If he isn't able to withdraw Harry 
and Cedric because of a magical contract, why on earth doesn't he 
just say that in the "decision" scene?

Given that inconsistency, the natural reaction is to preserve the
coherence of his character by postulating that he is sometimes being
dishonest and manipulative. This is, I think, an instinctive
application of the "real person" standard. That is, if faced with
this behavior in a real person, almost all of us would immediately
assume we are dealing with manipulative and dishonest policies.  But 
who is he trying to manipulate?  Why is he trying to browbeat Fudge?  
Fudge isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but he can easily find out 
the actual standing of the situation from the experts at the 
Ministry.  If Dumbledore could withdraw Harry (i.e. if it is his 
decision and not a magical contract), Fudge could simply inform him 
of that fact.  Are we to infer that "magically binding contract" is 
actually "legally binding contract?"  Is Dumbledore trying to 
avoid "legal" or "political" problems with the ministry?  Are we 
being set up for the problems in OOTP by being given a scene where it 
is inferred that Dumbledore's power to defy the ministry's rulings is 
much more limited than Minerva supposes?  But if that is the case, 
why didn't DD just say THAT?  Why not say "You heard Barty Crouch's 
ruling, Minerva.  Distasteful as it is, I have no power to defy a 
ministry decision."  In fact, he DID say something of the sort but 
then proceeded to muddy the waters by implying that he COULD have 
defied the ministry the way Minerva wanted.  Is he trying to 
manipulate Minerva?  Is he, to give it a real conspiracy edge, aware 
that Harry is listening at the door to his conversation with Fudge 
and wants to manipulate Harry is some way?  Why?

To add further mud to the waters, we are of course dealing with 
Kloves' interpretation of the book, and we have no real idea how much 
input JKR has into the process.  My own sense has been up to now that 
she doesn't have all that much input, but we know she has told 
Rickman something about Snape while at the same time refusing to give 
away the final outcome to either Kloves or any of the directors.  
Which of course leaves them crippled in certain areas, especially in 
knowing how to deal with Snape (which is, I think, a large reason his 
part in the last two movies has been drained of some of its most 
powerful scenes -- not knowing where Snape will come out, and with 
JKR refusing to help, a director might well think it foolish to 
attempt staging either Snape's final scene from PoA or his final 
scene from GoF).

Perhaps, however, she DID have some major input into the script.  If 
so, this raises some interesting questions, and would explain part of 
the inconsistencies in GoF!Movie!Dumbledore.  We would basically have 
a screenplay with three sets of fingerprints -- Kloves, JKR, and 
Newell (and I'm assuming that Newell follows the standard director's 
policy of having heavy input into the screenwriting process, which I 
would bet good money is a safe assumption). Perhaps how DD comes out 
in a given scene is directly related to whose fingerprints that scene 
bears.  One interesting possibility is to remember that the final 
draft of the screenplay would have been worked out while JKR was 
making crucial decisions about HBP.  Many people, me included, have 
pointed out that parts of HBP seemed written for the express purpose 
of driving home DD's feelings for/about/concerning Harry.  I'm just 
speculating here, but I think it's possible JKR might have wanted to 
use the GoF movie to help make the same point, thus the parts of the 
screenplay where DD goes out of his way to act 
concerned/affectionate/fearful over Harry might be those parts most 
heavily coated with JKR's fingerprints.  

However, and here, at last, is the rub.  If we do have three authors 
at work, then maybe DD is pulled different ways by three different 
ideas about what is needed in the GoF movie.  However, under pressure 
of time constraints and partially incompatible demands, and faced 
with the fact that JKR, at least, does, bless her heart, have some 
problems with consistency, editing, and detail anyway, the poor 
character of DD gets pulled in very different directions, or to put 
it more starkly is serving different masters in different scenes.  If 
no man can serve two masters, no character can serve three.  And 
there, faced with such wild inconsistency, the character bids 
strongly to become incoherent.


Lupinlore