Chamber of Secrets: Foreshadowing for Beginners
I had a high fever when I wrote yesterday’s entry and other major things I wanted to talk about completely slipped my overheated mind.
Question to the Potterheads: Do we see Lucius slip Tom Riddle’s diary into Ginny’s pail in the book? It’s one of those moments in the film where the only thing that could have drawn more attention to it would have been:
Harry: “Hey Mr. Malfoy, did you just drop that mysterious book into Ginny pail?”
Lucius: “What mysterious book?”
Harry: “That mysterious book, right there. The mysterious looking one that we’re all staring at.”
Lucius: “I have no idea what you are talking about.” (((cough)))
Harry: “Ah, jolly good then. Cheerio!”
I don’t remember the new book being so obvious in the book, but maybe I simply don’t remember. This is why I need to go back and read all the books (yeah, you heard me). Until then, can someone let me know how this worked in the text?
The other comment is more of an observation than a question. You have to give Richard Harris a lot of credit for taking on a franchise when his health was failing, but I felt his weakness was very evident in this film. I’m not sure this characterization would have carried the story in the later books, when Dumbledore needs to be someone Harry trusts with his safety. Maybe I’m wrong. The problem is, we can never really know.
Thoughts?
I know the whole “Dumbledore characterization” controversy can get pretty heated. People tend to favor this earlier version, but do you think this would have worked in the later films?
Wow, can’t believe you had a fever and still wrote a blog post! Just one nitpick – I think you mean “pail” rather than “pale.”
I’m in the minority of people I think – I don’t mind Michael Gambon as Dumbledore, though I do think he could use a bit more twinkle in his eye at times. I think Richard Harris’ Dumbledore was perfect for the first two movies as they are more oriented towards children, but yeah, not sure if it would have worked when Dumbledore is supposed to be a more formidable character later on. Again, we’ll never know.
Hahaha! I’m dedicated (and bed bound and bored).
Typo corrected. Lesson: Don’t type while sick
I think the whole characterization of Dumbledore in the books, is pointing to the concept that a very kindly old old man who seems at least a little disconnected from reality and possibly physically weak can have the strength and presence of mind to do some mighty magic. And the concept of Magic is that it can compensate for other physical limitations.
I am pretty sure that Lucius Malfoy did slip Ginny the diary in the book, albeit more subtly than in the movie. Although, I could be wrong. I haven’t read CoS for a long time.
I am in agreement with you about Dumbledore. I loved Richard Harris in the first two movies, but I felt at times he did show some weakness, which I didn’t really see in Dumbledore until book six. That may have been a part of Richard Harris’s failing health. It worked for the sort of wise, old grandfather that Dumbledore sort of was in the first couple books, but I think about OotP, and I honestly couldn’t see Richard Harris’s characterization of Dumbledore battling Voldemort in the Department of Mysteries. I am the first to admit that this may be because I saw Michael Gambon and not Richard Harris doing that, but I do think Michael Gambon’s characterization seemed to fit that more. Sadly, we will never know what may have happened. I think they’re both incredible. It isn’t fair to compare Michael Gambon to Richard Harris, even though that’s what we as people do. They both bring their own special light to the part. (Wow, I’m a theatre geek.)
P.S. I hope you feel better!
In the book Lucius takes a used schoolbook out of Ginny’s cauldron and makes a rude remark about how Arthur can’t afford to buy better, and goes on to criticize him for fraternizing with the Grangers. Arthur throws himself at Lucius, Hagrid breaks up the fight, and then Lucius gives the book back to Ginny. There is no mention made of the diary, but it is explicit in the book that Lucius took her textbook, handled it, and handed it back to her. This is when he slipped in the diary. (Obvious in retrospect, anyway!)
So the text wasn’t like:
“…and then Lucius stuffed a second book in Ginny pail. Harry looked at him suspiciously.”
I liked Richard Harris for Dumbledore. I think he was very true to the Dumbledore in the books, and that Dumbledore did not really change, except to have weakened in ‘Prince.’ I think Richard Harris could have risen to the requirements of the later Dumbledore if he had been younger and in better health when the movies were done. True, we will never know how he would have performed in the later books, but I think Michael Gambon’s portrayal of him was too harsh and untrue to the books. Whether it was also a director’s decision or not, I don’t know. I am just saying this because Dumbledore has always been my most favorite character. I would like to have seen someone else do it: Maybe Michael Caine.
I prefer Gambon so long as I can mentally block out the existence of the Goblet of Fire movie.
Dumbledore may just be one of those characters that’s almost impossible to play. I can’t really think of any actor who could do justice to the Dumbledore in my head… except maybe Gregory Peck
Everyone is really knocking down this “Goblet of Fire” film. Can’t wait until I get up to that one. I bet it’s a winner
It’s a disappointment in a lot of ways, for me, anyway. (I’m no Robert Pattinson groupie anyway!)
You’re right that they make it much more obvious in the movie. Lucius slipping the diary in into Ginny’s cauldron isn’t explicitly mentioned in the book… I remember specifically looking for that point when I reread the book recently.
I enjoy picking up these bits of foreshadowing as I re-read the series, though it’s hard for me to see how I could have been expected to notice them on the first read through.
I would have liked to see Ian McKellen come in as Dumbledore, but that’s probably me typecasting.
Perfect! That’s exactly what I was going to say! Pity he was coming off that trilogy (whatever it was) playing a, erm, wizard, and probably wouldn’t have wanted to sign up for the long term. Pity Richard Harris himself (toward the end of his life) put the kibosh on that, and quite publicly. Here’s a quote from an interview with Ian McKellan on the topic:
It’s interesting you mention Richard Harris, because a story came out that you’d been offered the role of Dumbledore after he passed away.
McKellen: Before Richard Harris died, there was an enquiry: would I be interested in playing in Harry Potter? And I said, “Yes, certainly.” But I’ve not heard anything since.
So whether they were already sensing that Richard was ill, which I couldn’t have anticipated at that point, or whether it was for another part, which is what I assumed, I don’t know. But, no, I was never up for Dumbledore. And it would have been unseemly because Richard Harris had made it clear what he thought about my acting shortly before dying.
He said I was “a passionless actor”, and so were Derek Jacobi and Kenneth Branagh. I was very happy to be in such esteemed company! But as I say, Richard Harris was mainly a disappointed man because I had played Gandalf and he had to settle for Dumbletwit. Or Dumblebore, I should say.
http://www.totalfilm.com/features/ian-mckellen-interview
Ouch….. Pity. I think he would have been perfect, and would have been more capable than Harris at the physical aspects of the role, being (for one thing) 9 years younger, and (for another) not terminally ill. He also is quite capable of the twinkle and friendliness I see in Dumbledore. Haven’t seen that once from Gambon. Not *once.*
Ah, well. What might have been.
Wow, that interview was a bit harsh.
Yeah. Harris wanted his friend Peter O’Toole to take over for him, but O’Toole was the same age or even older. I have to think that, no matter what, McKellen wasn’t going to commit to playing a wizard for another 3-5 films, so in the end of it, it didn’t matter, but that *is* a fairly harsh interview (of McKellen), in response to a fairly harsh series of comments (by Harris on McKellen).
Pity.
Watching CoS right now; thanks ABC Family. Not the most subtle book drop.
Starting in the Order of the Phoenix I believe that Michael Gambon really became the Dumbledore character. That could just as easily be because the writing was getting better as well.
Richard Harris seems quite feeble in the first two films (which of course works well for the limited screen time the character is given).
I happen to be one of those terrible blasphemers that really likes Michael Gambon and always thought Harris was far too frail and kindly-looking to be the greatest wizard of all time. Somewhere between the two of them – Gambon’s hardiness and strength of character with Harris’ eccentricities (which frankly, could have just been written into Gambon’s role) would be perfect.
Also I think I just skimmed past someone knocking the film of Goblet of Fire? THEY ARE WRONG AND I AM NOT OPEN TO NEGOTIATION ON THIS. It’s really very good and by far the funniest of all the films – there’s some genuinely classic moments in it. Half-Blood Prince had better acting and suspense but GoF trumps it with great humour and characterisation.