Civil Disobedience -- Dobby interpretations

[caliburncy]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "btk6y" <btk6y at v...> wrote:
[Re: Buying a ticket for another movie and then going into Scooby Doo 
instead]
> I understand that this is not exactly following the 
> rules, per se, but I don't believe this is "stealing" (especially 
> since it costs me the same either way) but rather a form of civil 
> disobedience in response to an act of utter stupidity.  History is 
> replete with instances of people "disobeying" rules in order to 
> protest an injustice.  Is not releasing the trailer on the internet 
> really an injustice?  Of course not, and it's really not that big a 
> deal in the grand scheme of things- but neither is my buying a
> ticket for a different movie so WB doesn't get the sale.

I have no opinion whatsoever on the ethics of your idea, since ethics 
are a rather personally-determined arena.  And in any case, I do not 
consider it my place to judge others.

However, I must protest your description of this activity as a form 
of civil disobedience.  Civil disobedience, as defined by Henry David 
Thoreau (the originator of the term) and as practiced by individuals 
such as Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., is about more 
than simply breaking an unjust law.  It also requires that one 
willingly accept the consequences of breaking that law.

So the only way your action would be civil disobedience is if after 
buying the ticket and going to see Scooby Doo, you went and visited 
the hotel's manager, confessed what you had done, and told him or her 
that you were willing to accept whatever consequences he had in 
mind.  For that matter, you would also need to accept any 
consequences that the two movie studios involved wished to impose 
upon you (although I suspect they are two busy to be bothered).  And 
if there is actually some law in existence that covered this sort of 
action, then you would need to deal with the local authorities as 
well.

If you are not willing to accept each of these consequences, then 
that is fine, but then you cannot call it civil disobedience.  To do 
so is to abuse the legacy of many people who have gone before you, 
fighting for causes of immense importance to them, *within the 
boundaries of the system they lived in*.  This last bit is 
important.  Civil disobedience is *not* an opposition to the system, 
truly, because you are accepting the consequences of breaking that 
law, and those consequences are a part of the system too.

So do whatever you want, but *please* leave Thoreau's concept of 
civil disobedience, and Ghandi's practice of 'satyagraha' out of it.  
These people (along with their forebearers and followers) and their 
philosophies are very important to myself and many others.

***

Now then, I suppose I should write something on-topic, eh?  For the 
record, while I will not bother registering my opinion on Movie!
Dobby's appearance (since my opinion is irrelevant to the below), I 
would like to say that I'm not sure I can agree with the statements 
that Movie!Dobby is extremely similar to Mary GrandPre's illustration 
of him.

For those of you outside the U.S., you may find this GrandPre 
illustration at the Lexicon:

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/house_elves.html

The first picture is Dobby.  (The second is Winky.)

Now, let's compare this to Movie!Dobby (images from the official HP 
site and from The SpellBinder):

http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/daily_prophet/img/COS_p1.jpg
http://www.thespellbinder.com/images/cos/CoSHiRes1.jpg

Amanda has already layed out a comparison of the book's description 
to Movie!Dobby, but no one has layed out the (in my opinion) stark 
differences between these two artistic interpretations (Movie vs. 
GrandPre), despite the repeated claim that they are extremely similar.

It's true that they *do* bear some traits in common, but among the 
differences are:

* Movie!Dobby's face is much more gaunt (and he looks in general more 
emaciated).  GrandPre!Dobby is thinner, but this looks like a more 
natural weight, not an emaciated one.  He also has a rounder face, 
with a pointed chin.  In fact, the shape of each face is altogether 
unique.

* Movie!Dobby's nose is much, much shorter than GrandPre!Dobby.  And 
in a fight between the two, regarding which is more accurate to the 
text description of his nose, GrandPre's longer nose wins.

* Movie!Dobby's ears are shorter and wider, and they also droop 
down.  GrandPre!Dobby's are much more pointed upward.

* GrandPre!Dobby has little tufts of fur around the sides of the face.


There are other differences (such as the fact that GrandPre!Dobby has 
curled shoes, whereas Movie!Dobby is barefoot), but these nitpicks 
are not the point--individually, speaking.  The point is that the 
cumulative total of each of these variances leads to, in my mind, a 
*very* different overall effect for Dobby.

GrandPre's version of Dobby is general more happy-looking, seemingly 
less oppressed.  His bearing is more upright; he has the carriage of 
a well-trained butler.  He is almost effeminate in features (thereby 
to blur the line between genders where house elves are concerned).

The movie version of Dobby looks much more worn and ill-treated.  He 
stoops more, as if in fear--and even when standing upright he is more 
stiff, less comfortably pleasant.  His features are more decidedly 
masculine.

Now, I am not going to comment on which of these interpretations 
is "superior".  To be honest, I have issues with both, when compared 
to the text.  But that is not the point.  The point is that I, 
personally, do not really see the marked similarities between these 
interpretations as so many other people have.

And my point in saying that is . . . uh . . . well, I guess I don't 
have a point in saying that.  Just registering an opinion.

-Luke