Harry Potter Movie Portrayals: Rating the Actors/Performances
I'd blame her acting coach for her portrayal throughout the series more than the actress herself, but I pretty much agree on the grading you give her. We see so little of the Ginny from the books that, apart from CoS, her presence doesn't really matter. In HBP, her romantic subplot is a major contributing factor to Ron's year-long funk, but we don't see that aside from a brief kiss she has in the film with... someone whose name I forget (Dean Thomas, maybe?).
Yeah, it was Dean Thomas.
Next up, Neville Longbottom. I'm torn between an A and a P for Matthew Lewis's performance. I didn't dislike it quite as much as Bonnie Wright's, but I did find it bland and forgettable, so much that I don't really have anything else to say about it.
Speaking of which, I can't think of any other Hogwarts students I wanted to comment on, other than to say I liked Robert Pattinson as Cedric Diggory and Katie Leung as Cho Chang. Neither of them had much to work with (especially Katie), but I'd give them both an E for doing the best they could with their parts.
Uploaded files:
Yeah, he's pretty low-key, isn't he? I'll probably give him an A for being somewhat similar to his character.
As for Cedric and Cho, they get an E, but Cho really got done dirty by the movie, and I mean REALLY dirty. Instead of being the friend of the girl who was worried about her mother's position in the Ministry, instead of breaking up with Harry for defending Hermione's horrible contract etiquette, she becomes the girl who rats Dumbledore's Army out. They turn her into a traitor just so that Harry has justification for breaking up with her.
100% agreed.
Shall we move on to Hogwarts professors/staff? 😃
Uploaded files:
Dumbledore
- Richard Harris is an O, he has the same calm demeanor that Dumbledore is known for, and I'm curious how he would have portrayed the character in later movies had he lived long enough.
- Michael Gambon varies depending on the scene; at worst, he's a P, but at best, an O.
- He tends to sound too aggressive at times, even when he's making regular school announcements. If he's hostile, he ought to be ice-cold, like how he is when he accuses Snape of not caring about James and Harry's safety.
- However, when he's actually calm, I think he could be at the same level as Harris. We only really get this when he's speaking casually with Harry.
- Overall, I'd say an E.
Funnily enough, when I write for Dumbledore, I blend both Harris and Gambon into the same person in my head.
I totally agree on both actors. Richard Harris was impeccable, and I also wish we could've gotten to see him portray Dumbledore in later films. I would've loved to have seen how he would've handled the increasing darkness/complexity, and I think he would've been superb in those "maddeningly cryptic" moments.
I like Michael Gambon as well, but dear god, I agree with you on the aggressive thing. I have a much deeper understanding of the books than I did the last time I watched the movies, and yeah… his anger is ice cold and contemptuous, not tempestuous/flaming hot. I realize that the actors have their own versions of the characters, but the way book Dumbledore displays his anger is such a defining trait, one of the things that makes him so intimidating/formidable. I wish we could've seen that on screen – I think it would've made much more of an impact.
I was going to do some of the other professors first, but fuck it, I can't wait. Next up? Severus Fucking Snape.
Uploaded files:
I mean... O for Obviously.
One thing I think was missing from the movies was Snape's more explosive side. Alan Rickman portrayed Snape in the most Alan Rickman way possible, and I absolutely love it.
However, and I have to say this because I love both the film and book versions of Snape, the movies did Snape dirty in one specific way that I've mentioned before: they water down his history with Lily and the Marauders hard. No werewolf prank, no hints at the mudblood incident, literally only one spoken conversation shared between him and Lily, and it isn't even from the books.
But goddamn, if Alan Rickman isn't smooth!
I LOVE Alan Rickman's Snape. I just want to make that abundantly clear before I get into the rest of this. Seriously, solid O for that performance.
Personally, I see Movie Snape and Book Snape as two different characters. I thoroughly enjoy Movie Snape, and he tugs at my heart strings in his own unique way, but he's not the one I write about, the one I endlessly analyze, the one I've been obsessed with for 11 years. That Snape is almost entirely based on the books… or more specifically, how I interpret them. I can't fault Alan Rickman for that, being as (far more than any other character), I've spent more than a decade crafting my own unique version of Snape that is equal parts canon and imagination.
Having said that, I do think there could have been (or could be in the future) a film version of Snape that is closer to my interpretation, enough for me to see them as one and the same. That version just isn't Alan Rickman's, though I'll reiterate that he was a brilliant actor who did the part justice.
Here are a few of the key differences (i.e. why I can't see Movie Snape and Book Snape as the same person). I realize that at least a couple of these will sound shallow, but again, it's hard to ignore certain factors when you have a really strong visual in your head. Also, they're not just physical, which I'll get to in my specific points.
- Age. Alan Rickman was in his 50s when he starred in the movies. While I don't hold that against him, and I understand why Marauder's era characters were aged up, there's a big difference between a man in his 50s and a man who was barely past 30 when the series begins. To me, Snape's relative youth is important… it emphasizes how exceptional he is, having accomplished so much in such a short time. It also deepens the more tragic elements of his life, because the fact is, he was still a very young man (especially by magical standards) when he died. From my perspective, aging him up diminishes both of those things, especially the latter. It creates more of a separation, as if the greatest tragedy of his life (Lily's death) happened decades ago. Of course, we know this isn't the case based on Harry's age, but the optics still make it seem that way.
- Body Type. I hate to even comment on this, because in 99% of cases, it shouldn't matter. With Snape though, it is a factor because it's a reflection of his history and personality. We know he was undernourished as a child, which often has an impact on how much weight a person can gain well into adulthood. In the books, his thinness foreshadows and ultimately serves as a reminder of his neglectful childhood. It also dovetails nicely into something else we know about him, which is that he shows little interest in self-care or his physical appearance. Snape as he is described in the books (miserable, self-loathing, 100% driven by his mission) just doesn't seem like someone who would eat that much. I'd assume that when he eats at all, it has more to do with necessity rather than pleasure.
Do I think Alan Rickman should've starved himself? Absolutely not. I'm just saying he looks really well fed, which contradicts how I visualize the character and what that says about his history/priorities/lifestyle.
- Too composed. While I also love how smooth/nonchalant Alan Rickman can be, there's none of the volatility we see in the books. I see Book Snape as someone who's barely holding his shit together more often than not, which I don't get at all from Movie Snape. There are times when he shows more emotion, but for the most part, that sharp, bitter edge we see in the books just isn't there. For lack of a better word, he's just not vicious enough, especially when dealing with Harry. I understand why they would've wanted to water that down for the movies, but yeah… definitely one of the reasons I see them as two different characters.
Of course (as you pointed out), it isn't just about Alan Rickman. They cut a lot of material that would have made a huge difference in his character development, scenes that would've given him the opportunity to show more of an emotional range. He did do incredibly well with the scenes that were meant to show his vulnerable side (especially The Prince's Tale). It's just a shame we didn't get to see more of that, especially scenes with him and Lily and the Marauders.
On that last point… I suspect that had a lot to do with them wanting to frame James and Sirius as heroes. It would've been much more difficult to portray them that way if they'd included more of the book material.
Oh, and finally… Alec Hopkins as teenage Severus Snape also gets an O from me, as does Benedict Clarke (a.k.a. baby Snape). They both did a wonderful job with what they were given… I wish we'd gotten to see more of them.
Uploaded files:
Next up, Maggie Smith as Professor Mcgonagall.
I know she differs from the book's physical description, but screw it. It's Maggie Fucking Smith. Definite O from me in terms of characterization… the only (slight) criticism I have is that I wish she'd had a Scottish accent.
Uploaded files:
Maggie Smith is fantastic in the role, and I agree with you in terms of her appearance. I do have one problem with her, but it's not related to her accent (although it's weird you don't hear the Scottish, cuz I do).
The problem I have is that they flatten her character to only show her good/pleasant side, like her anger with Neville in PoA for writing down the common room password and losing the note.
But aside from that, she gets an O.
