Of All The Nerve!

[Kegan]

I was in a chat room and the discussion was on great actors/actresses and someone commented that it was beneath Richard Harris' to take a role in the Harry Potter movies. I commented that he was making his granddaughter (not to mention me) happy and the others in the chat agreed it was a poor role for him. It made me so angry!

[Kamdra]

Maggie Smith is an outstanding actress and it isn't beneath her to be Minerva McGonagall. I think she does a great job and they should use her more.

[Kerin]

We might not always know why an actor chooses to do a movie. I'm sure sometimes they might miss their heydays or maybe its for financial reasons. My husband and his friends love the John Goodman movies that I find so gross but I was shocked to find Peter O'toole in King Ralph. That movie was awful and I hope he just needed the money because I found it horrible and a waste of his talent or at least his time.

[Kacie]

I've never found a good John Goodman movie so there isn't anything to say there. As for Peter O'toole, he's done some other not so great ones but I excuse that as there aren't a lot of great roles out there either. I think Richard Harris was Dumbledore so I don't have a problem seeing him in the role. I am trying to adjust to the new one but its hard going.

[Alesia]

Kegan's right. I saw and interview with Richard Harris when the first movie came out. He took the role because his Granddaughter told him if he didn't play Dumbledore she would never speak to him again. And that was that.

As far as roles being beneath actors, I challenge you to find any actor (including the Sir Lawrence himself) who hasn't taken a role that was a bit of sticker in a movie that could be considered beneath them. (And I am NOT saying that about the HP movies).

I personally think it is great when the giants of the industry (like Maggie Smith and Richard Harris) do movies that are less the monumental in cinematic significance. I think it helps the less then stellar actors, who spend more time being celebrities then actors, learn their craft.

Heck even Casablanca wasn't expected to be any great movie when it was made. Not every movie is Shakespeare and goodness knows there are some BAD Shakespeare movies out there with great casts.

[Taylor]

I do have a john goodman movie for you- Monsters Inc. I love him in it, of course he was a monster, but- he was - wonderful in it.

and Allen Ricman in Galixie quest was priceless.

even david Thwillis (lupin) had a - um- revealing movie where he um. gets, um... Nekid! (OHMYEYESIMBLIND!!!)
(humming Little weenie in the wind)

cough cough,

decorum has resumed.

Taylor

[Kimberly]

I have to admit its disappointing to see a great actor in a not so great role and I had to see King Ralph just because it was mentioned and since I don't think John Goodman is an outstanding actor, I actually didn't have a problem with his role. He did about what I expected. I was a bit more disappointed with Mr. O'toole, and Mr. Hurt but I don't know what prompted them to agree to act in the movie.

[Taylor]

well, if they are SAG members they have to have a speaking roll every so often, which is why the lady in pink on the street in the Star Trek whale one kept messing up the shot by speaking she was supposed to remain silent!

More is learned from a bad movie than a good movie. Sometimes it is the editors fault, they can take a lovely bit and whack it apart.

Taylor

[mugglemin]

I suppose there are some movies that stretch the actors, and some that are just easy. Richard Harris didn't exactly have much to do in the first two HPs, so you could argue that it was a waste of his talent. Still, I for one am glad he did it.

I read in a Maggie Smith interview that she usually does what she gets offered - which I take to mean not EVERYTHING she's offered, but most of it. She said that she has to take what she can get because a. she's a woman and b. she's an older woman and the parts just aren't there. Take Sister Act 1 and 2 for example - hardly representative of her talents! And POA!!! I mean, she was hardly in it! What was it she called the HP series? "A kind of pension". It keeps her working, which is apparently all that matters.

[jaya]

I watched an interview with Maggie Smith and Judi Dench and the inverviewer made reference to this wonderful 'art' film 'Ladies in Lavender'. It is a fabulous movie but not one that is ever going to have mass appeal or reach a broad audience. But then he commented on both of the women's roles in blockbuster series (Maggie in HP and Judi in the Bond series) I'm sure money plays into it (As with Maggie and her 'Harry Potter pension plan') But look at the recognition that being in these series has brought these two women. An entirely new audience now knows who they are. My ten year old godson wandered through the room the other day while his mom and I were watching a Maggie movie and he stopped, stared... 'oh... that's Professor McGonagall...' (He can also spot Martin Landau from Mission Impossible now... I'm so proud...) I don't think that anyone would dispute that Ian McKellan is a brilliant actor. Was Gandalf beneath him? Is the old adage 'there are no small roles, just small actors' not ring true? Richard Harris may not have wanted the role in the beginning but he did an excellent job with it. No actor is always in hit movies.

As for King Ralph... It didn't appeal to me much either but everyone laughs at different things. My highly educated very cultured late husband found the most idiotic movies hysterical. I think it's a man thing....

Sorry to stick my nose in... (Oh... I honestly can't name that many other films that Richard Harris was in... the younger generation recognition applies to him as well...)

Jaya ;D

[mugglemin]

I personally don't think it comes down to roles that are "beneath" actors, but is more an issue of roles that do not allow them much scope, are not particularly challenging for them and do not give them the opportunity to prove HOW they are great. Maggie Smith was a very famous actress before Harry Potter. Most people in the UK knew who she was, and many people in the US did too. That she is now more widely recognised is possibly to her advantage, but does not suggest that Harry Potter was a career decision, nor a piece of work of which she is particularly proud.

The difference between Ian McKellen's Gandalf and Richard Harris's Dumbledore is the size of the part. Gandalf WAS a challenging role, a role big enough to earn McKellen an oscar nomination. Tolkein's language provided a great opportunity for the classically trained actor to show what he is capable of. Gandalf is also a major character in all three parts of LOTR and goes through varying emotions and experiences. Richard Harris, on the other hand, really only needed to be the kindly and wise headmaster in the first two HP films. Dumbledore will prove a greater challenge as the series progresses, but up to now the part has been so small and Dumbledore's role so brief, that there's been no scope for great acting.

Now you may throw the example of Judi Dench's five minute performance of Elizabeth I in Shakespere in Love at me and prove that I am talking out of my arse...