AR has read the books, well, at least DH!

[dumbledore11214]

> Carol responds:
> Thanks very much. Now the only question is why Michael Gambon said that AR hadn't read the books! BTW, someone (Alla?) asked on OT why some of us think it matters whether actors read the books. IMO, it matters because that way they understand the character as originally written, both the author's depiction and the reader's expectations and interpret his character based on that rather than merely on the script and direction. I'm quite sure that Rickman, for example, based Snape's sweeping walk, his gestures, and, especially, his tone of voice and facial expressions, on Book!Snape (as well as the snippet of information that JKR gave him regarding Snape's motivation). It seems to me, though I still haven't seen the film (not for lack of trying!), that the actress who plays Narcissa (name escapes me) could have benefited from reading the books--as could Gambon in GoF. (DD shaking and yelling at Harry! Honestly!)
> 
> Carol, planning to see the film today if at goes well, even if it means going out in the horrible hot heat (deliberate redundancy)
>

Alla:

I disagree, but again  disagree with the disclaimer - I do not think that it is bad for the actors to read the books which screenplay is based on. I however do not think it is anything of particular use either and of course I do not work in filmmaking industry, so I am basing my knowledge only on what I read.

So say actor reads the book and as you said understand author's intentions, readers' expectations, etc and then he reads the screenplay and being a smart guy he is sees right away that these things come with direct contradiction with screenwriter's intention and producer's intention?

Which ones do you think he would follow and should follow if he wants to keep his job?

You wrote that Alan Rickman based Snape's walk and some other mannerisms of his based on the book Snape. I disagree. I mean, I agree that it is book Snape's mannerisms of course, but I think that screenwriter chose to adapt them in the play as they are in the book and that is why Rickman portrayed Snape that way, because it is in the play.

Do you think that if Kloves and directors did not want them there that is what Snape would have done?

Like when he smacks Ron and Harry in the study hall for example (in PoA?). I do not think book!Snape ever did anything of such, but screenwriter wanted him to do so and so he wrote it.

Do not get me wrong, I think screenwriter has an obligation to read and reread the book and make sure that adaptation expresses at least the spirit of the story and the characters, and some time (well most of the time) when I watch the adaptations of the classics I want to reach out and shake the screenwriter and tell them - no, really, you can't write better than Jane Austen, no you cannot write better than Tolstoy, you cannot, cannot no matter how hard you try write better than Dostoevsky and NO, you cannot improve Beowulf, it is already ten times better than anything you can produce.

But I do not think actors can do anything if they want to interpret the character in contradiction to what director wants, it is simply not their job.

Oh sure, we can search and find that once in a million years director can listen to some star whom she wants in the movie real badly, but seriously, this does not happen almost ever from what I understand.

Director can easily find somebody else to play the part.

As to Narcissa, I know she did not work for many, but just as Dumbledore she actually worked for me really well, not her look, but her behavior. I also think the changing of the scene has something to do with book 7. They know that Narcissa was not faking anything, was not playing any part and thus her many tears, I don't know could have looked a bit ridiculous, to me anyway.

Hers "He is just a boy" to me was more heart wrenching than many tears she could have shed.

JMO,

Alla