Casting mis-steps

[Carol]

zanooda wrote:
> 
> I could never understand what exactly the word "miscast" means :-). Does it mean that an actor for some reason *can't* play a certain character the way this character is supposed to be? In this case I wouldn't call Gambon's casting a mis-step, like you suggest. 
> 
> Right, he was horrible in GoF, but quite all right in OotP. Doesn't it show that he *can* play Dumbledore, just didn't know at first how to do it right :-)? I don't know whose fault this was, the director's or the actor's, but Gambon obviously didn't know how DD is supposed to behave.In OotP he doesn't scream and shake people anymore, and it seems from the trailers that he may be not bad at all in HBP.
> 
> Now Fleur actress, for example, *can't* play Fleur however talented she may be, because she is rather plain, and, even though Movie!Fleur is not part-Veela, still, boys' reaction to her suggests that she is extremely attractive, when the actress is not. But again, maybe I don't understand the word "miscast" correctly, LOL. Besides, isn't it all very subjective? I'm sure there are people who like Gambon as DD  very much :-).
>
Carol responds:
"Miscast" just means that an actor is cast in an unsuitable role. Imagine Madonna playing McGonagall, for example. Age and appearance have to be appropriate (though makeup and CGI can help to some extent), and, of course, the actor's abilities must also be taken into account. To some degree, it's a subjective judgment. I think that Frank Dillane is miscast as the teenage Tom Riddle--not nearly handsome enough. 

Regarding Michael Gambon, he was, of course, at a disadvantage stepping into a role that another, much older (and beloved) actor, had handled very differently. It's also hard for a man in his sixties to play a very old man of close to 115, however well preserved. I realize that sixty-plus seems ancient to most children and teenagers, but Gambon's Dumbledore comes across as being about the same age as Dame Maggie Smith's McGonagall, not absolutely ancient like Richard Harris, who was only ten years older but with his frail health seemed more like thirty years older. Gambon is certainly better suited to the action scenes (I loved his escape with Fawkes from Umbridge and Fudge).

The costuming department is also partly to blame. He never changes clothes, whereas Book!Dumbledore always dresses flamboyantly. (I always think of Merlin when JKR describes his clothing, except for the blue buckled boots in SS/PS. Don't know where those came from!) The real DD (sorry, I mean Book!DD) would never wear that stupid little hat or a rubber band around his beard like some sort of hippie from the Sixties.

Worse, and this part is Gambon's own fault, he has never, as far as I know, read the books. He says that he always plays himself, which is just wrong for anyone attempting Dumbledore. He was actually not too bad in PoA once I got used to him, but you're right that he badly blow the scene in GoF where Harry's name has come out of the hat and he yells at him and shakes him. Dumbledore would never do that to any student. We see him in OoP (the book) reprimanding Umbridge for similar treatment of Marietta. If he'd read the books, he'd know not to do that--and would argue with the director if he insisted on it. (I think maybe that scene was Mike Newell's fault since he also had Fred and George engage in a fist fight instead of pointing at each other and laughing when they step over the age line and grow beards (which, BTW, should have been longer).

Anyway, I don't think that Michael Gambon is miscast. He has the energy and twinkle (and occasional sternness or anger) that readers of the books associate with Dumbledore. If we just look at his face, ignoring his age and the stupid beard tie, he actually seems at times like Dumbledore. But he really needs to read the books--all of them--to understand the character and to think of himself *as* Dumbledore rather than as himself *playing* Dumbledore, if that makes any sense. And I really, really hope that someone has explained the real situation between him and Snape--and that Dumbledore is a secretive, manipulative old codger as well as a charming, eccentric, and talented one. (He does, at least, understand that DD is exceedingly clever and powerful. Richard Harris came across as charming, eccentric, and wise but too far past his prime to be powerful.)

IOW, in my view, Gambon has the potential to be a very good if not an excellent Dumbledore despite the wardrobe problems, but he certainly didn't achieve that potential in GoF and only touched on it in PoA and OoP. If he'd just read the books and try to be JKR's Dumbledore rather than his own script-based version of the character, he'd do fine.

Carol, agreeing that Fleur is miscast (but Robert Pattinson as Cedric was perfect)