I would have agreed with you, Chernabog, a few movies ago. Now that I've read the series, I think Gambon is really closer to the character in the book- not the early Grandfatherly Dumbledore, but the younger, more energetic and volatile one. I don't see his portrayal as Gandalf-like, but rather more like the book described: Sort of bohemian, intense, secretive, concerned but not above being duplicitous if necessary- more human, really. The freak-out in the GoF seemed out of place for Harris's Dumbledore, but not for the Dumbledore I now have in my mind's eye.

I feel much the same as you, Wendy. Though I could have done with a bit more warmth at the end of OotP. Harris may have played that scene better. Granted, I think the scene in the movie was missing some essential dialogue. Not that I loved the movie any less; I really, really dug it. And I loved Gambon's performance except for that last scene, when I think it was really, really important for Dumbledore to show both is remorse and his affection.

With the entire character-arc of Dumbledore now revealed, I think he's closer to Gambon than Harris ... but, on the page, remains distinctively his own ... and not, imo, fully and properly captured by either actor.


I just think Gambon's portrayal is closer ... and that's simply my personal preference. (though I'm undoubtedly going to picture him with a shopping cart in future outtings.)

I didn't like Gambon's performance in the PoA. He came across a bit too dotty and eccentric for me. The outburst in GoF was way out of character, too. I think he's just not as personable as Harris.

That's just it- Dumbledore was dotty and eccentric. He was wise, but not omnipotent, and he had some very human failings. Again, I prefer the Harris model, but in truth Gambon's is more true to the book.

Eccentric, sure. I don't see Dumbledore as remotely dotty in the books. He has a good grasp on what is going on around him in the books. Maybe he's just not as visible in the movies, so you don't get the feel for him that comes through in the writing.

I think most of the problem with "who's the better Dumbledore?" is simply the fact that we have two very different actors to compare. Had one person played the role for all 7 films, I don't think there would be nearly as much questioning of how the character is being portrayed.

Which is why I kinda think it was a little short sighted of the powers that be to cast Harris in the first place. He was already so old and, worse yet, not aging terribly well. Did they really expect him to live through a full decade or so it would take to film the entire franchise?

That being said though, I think part of the appeal and the reason so many prefer Harris' portrayal actual has more to do with the actors' natural presence than the acting. Harris could stand there on screen, not saying a word yet giving off a very regal, watchable, likable it factor. Gambon is a fine actor, but doesn't have the same regal presence that made Harris so instantly appealing.

+1 all that ^.

Perhaps like y'all who have read Deathly Hallows I will feel differently afterwards but.... ummm.... is there really any more character arc to Dumbledore AFTER he dies?

And I don't think Dumbledore was "energetic and volatile" in the first two books anyway. I just have zero emotional attachment to Gambon, yet I did have emotional attachment to the Dumbledore of the books and Harris' portrayal. I think Xharryb is dead-on in his analysis.