[HPFGU-Movie] Inconsistency and Incoherence/GOF!Movie!DD/JKR's input to the script

[Richard]

Just a few short comments on an interesting post...

At 19:35 27/11/2005 , lupinlore wrote:

>Given that inconsistency, the natural reaction is to preserve the
>coherence of his character by postulating that he is sometimes being
>dishonest and manipulative.

Except DD is not only a fictional character, he's a mythic one (or, at 
least, in a mythic/archetypal role). JKR earned more than a few guffaws 
when she said with some degree of naive pride that she was "subverting" the 
(fantasy) genre, so perhaps DD's mythic status is one of the conventions 
she's trying to subvert? :-)

>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?

I suspect that JKR's (inasmuch as it's a term taken from the book, rather 
than a Kloves invention) intent in using that term is to imply that it is 
much, much more than a "legal" contract: after all, legal contracts are 
just a matter of convention and agreement (by very definition!). My feeling 
has always been that the consequences of braking a "magical" pact are 
stronger and deeper than everyday laws, and not only with regard to the 
GoF, as we have concepts like "*unbreakable* vows", "*unforgivable* 
curses", "magic at its very deepest" (among others).

Dumbledore seems to be the one character who seems to grasp the 
implications of the "old, deep, magic" more than most, and his choices at 
the moment of the GOF's decision are partially determined by that. I 
do  agree that the script muddies the water a bit, but I suspect that the 
*intention* of the various authors of the scene was along those lines.

>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 <snip>.

You're forgetting another very important set of fingerprints: that of the 
actor. Michael Gambon, by his own admission, has not read the books, and 
expects the script to convey everything he needs to know (with, of course, 
a little input from the director - whose job, after all, is to *direct*!). 
:-) To my knowledge, neither Gambon nor Harris had any direct contact with JKR.

I think I also caught a production comment somewhere that another 
controversial moment, DD grabbing Harry's shoulders during that same scene, 
was Gambon's idea, and Newell let him run with it. from what I've seen, 
more electronic ink has been generated in the HP fandom because of that one 
act than any other aspect of the movie. :-)

The fact that the movie-going public has had two very, very different 
"kinds" of Dumbledore from two very different actors (not to mention three 
directors) has more to do with any conceived instability/inconsistency than 
anything else anyway, so my own view is not to worry about it, and 
certainly not to try to draw any conclusions of Book!Dumbledore's 
motivations from his movie counterpart - in particular because the movies 
can at best sketch the character (and the world he inhabits), compared to 
what the book can do.