Movie Characters Revisited: Gandalf

[Mithalwen]

For me Ian McKellen was never Gandalf. He never disappeared into the part. I think actually the stage background can be a disadvantage - the smallest gesture is magnified so large on a cinema screen that what works on the stage seems overdone . I found a lot of his performance rather mannered and obvious. I still think the way he says "Fly, you fools!" is odd but I may be too used to and too fond of Hordern's Gandalf in the Radio version. May be the script was written Fly! You Fools!... ho hum

Physically he didn't quite match my idea of Gandalf... particularly the potato nose. Always imagined Gandalf as beakier. When I see repeats of Wycliffe I always get the feeling that Gandalf spent his retirement solving crime in Cornwall but I suppose that is a personal thing. And yes I had strong images from having read the books but other actors who didn't correspond to the mental images won me over.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Morthoron:
Sir Ian did just fine as Gandalf, whether Grey or White; however, he was at the mercy of the script, which will be a recurring theme for me throughout these sordid discussions.

Yes, but. No actor could rise much above the quality of the script they're obliged to enact, even those with some talent like Viggo and Cate. Now McKellen has a lot of talent, and rendered G the Grey in a way that enhanced the wtritten part and in some ways corrected for its bad patches.

However, I don't find that to be the case with his G the White. Whereas in Tolkien Gandalf Returned is a bit more aloof or distant given his enhanced knowledge and latent but unchallengeable power, Sir Ian's GII is not aloof so much as simply passive, less engaged in general unless he's being an old worry-wort.

He has a nice moment giving Pippin the transplanted "white shores" passage, but he still comes across rather like a wise old schoolmaster-officer bucking up his cadet in the face of the final and fatal Afghan/Zulu/Ashanti charge- surely NOT a situation book-GII would ever have been in even had Tolkien envisioned Trolls bashing at the inner gates of Minas Tirith. Book G the W had nothing to fear in all of Middle-earth except - maybe - Sauron himself; it's for that reason really that T never puts him in a combat situation.* Had Ian understood Gandalf 2.0, he would or should have given us quiet but unshakable confidence.

*Does the Witch-King abandon the Great Gate because of cock-crow and the unexpected dawn? In small part, perhaps- but mostly because he senses, for all his bravado, that he doesn't dare try his strength against that old man. "You cannot enter here," says Gandalf, in almost the same words as "You cannot pass" on the bridge of Khazad-dum. But this time he is mightier, and his foe is no Balrog.

[d4rk3lf]

For me, Ian acting of Gandalf completely ruined the film.
I am not talking about his look (he looks just like Gandalf), but psychologically this is just not the Gandalf from the book. Not even close.

To make it clear, I'll try to find some Gandalf characteristics in the book, and I hope most of you will agreed with me.
He is:
1) Charismatic and have great authority
2) Full of (hidden) energy
3) Very rhetoric
4) Wise and intelligent.
5) He is not revealing his plans to almost anybody, which makes him pretty mystic.

Now, let's take a look at the Gandalf from the movie:
Is he charismatic? I don't think so. He don't have the authority to make people listen to him, even when they don't like what they hear. Hi just looks week with his tired eyes, I would dare and say: his expressions is boring.
It's more like a funny old man that hits hobbit roof with his head, and "ouch" funny. Is that Gandalf ther gray? I think not.
Where do we see a fameus Gandalf rhetoric power in the movies? He just had (completely unnecessary) arguing with Elrond, and even there he is just a tired worried old man.
Where do we see his ability to act quickly and wise during the movie? To make everybody obey his quick demands.

I was not convinced during the fight with Balrog, and even much more disappointed with the fight with the Nazgul.
If somebody don't believe me, read the book where Gandalf meets Nazgul, and then watch that same fragment in the movie.
If you say that's the same characters, then I admit something is wrong with me, and my interpretation.

P.S. Lack of charisma is also what ruined Aragorn character aswell, imho.
From the other side, Saruman was great, and had just the right charisma for the Istari kind.

[Glorthelion]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

For me, Ian acting of Gandalf completely ruined the film.

It's more like a funny old man that hits hobbit roof with his head, and "ouch" funny. Is that Gandalf ther gray? I think not.

He never meant to bump his head. It was an accident but he continued with it anyway.

[d4rk3lf]

Yeah, but doesn't this ruin the whole "Gandalf the wise" wizard thing?
For me, that little gesture ruined pretty much of the Gandalf character.

Then again, it won't be that bad if Ian didn't continue ruining the original Gandalf.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Originally Posted by Morthoron:
Sir Ian did just fine as Gandalf, whether Grey or White; however, he was at the mercy of the script, which will be a recurring theme for me throughout these sordid discussions.

Yes, but. No actor could rise much above the quality of the script they're obliged to enact, even those with some talent like Viggo and Cate. Now McKellen has a lot of talent, and rendered G the Grey in a way that enhanced the wtritten part and in some ways corrected for its bad patches.

However, I don't find that to be the case with his G the White. Whereas in Tolkien Gandalf Returned is a bit more aloof or distant given his enhanced knowledge and latent but unchallengeable power, Sir Ian's GII is not aloof so much as simply passive, less engaged in general unless he's being an old worry-wort.

He has a nice moment giving Pippin the transplanted "white shores" passage, but he still comes across rather like a wise old schoolmaster-officer bucking up his cadet in the face of the final and fatal Afghan/Zulu/Ashanti charge- surely NOT a situation book-GII would ever have been in even had Tolkien envisioned Trolls bashing at the inner gates of Minas Tirith. Book G the W had nothing to fear in all of Middle-earth except - maybe - Sauron himself; it's for that reason really that T never puts him in a combat situation.* Had Ian understood Gandalf 2.0, he would or should have given us quiet but unshakable confidence.

*Does the Witch-King abandon the Great Gate because of cock-crow and the unexpected dawn? In small part, perhaps- but mostly because he senses, for all his bravado, that he doesn't dare try his strength against that old man. "You cannot enter here," says Gandalf, in almost the same words as "You cannot pass" on the bridge of Khazad-dum. But this time he is mightier, and his foe is no Balrog.

I agree with much of what you say here regarding G the W, WCH, but again, much of that was scripted. For instance, one cannot evince bravado when it is scripted that the WiKi splinters G the W's staff, knocks his character clean off his horse and he grovels before the WiKi on the ground (and only the cock crow saves him). That is directorial intervention, not acting.

In the movie council scene before the army of Gondor leaves for the Morannon ("The Last Debate" chapter from the book), Gandalf's wisdom and cunning lines are given to Aragorn, and Gimli makes his jests in brogue. Peter Jackson removed Gandalf as the prime mover of the actions of the West (as Tolkien intended) and instead handed the impetus to Aragorn.

[Belegorn]

I was pretty content with the portrayal of Gandalf. I think this always leaves room open for future films of books since none hardly ever stay true to the story. I did not like the battle with the Balrog. It seemed very much on a lesser scale than the actual battle from the books and Gandalf just pounding the Balrog with his sword in the movie was not cool.