Portraits - Additional: Actors Playing a Role

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 165031

---  "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
> > 
> > Owlery2003, you are taking my 'actor' analogy too 
> > literally. ... No, the'actor ' metaphor simply 
> > illustrates how a portrait can portray a character 
> > with great depth, but still not be as fully realized
> > as therepresented person.
> > 
> > ... <snip>
> 

> 
> Carol responds:
> But the portrait isn't *portraying* the person. He's
> an *imprint* of the person as the person was in life,
> just as a ghost is a (stronger) imprint of the person's
> now departed soul. 


bboyminn:

You know I simply don't agree with the emphasis you are
placing on the world 'imprint'. Why not fixate on 'Aura'
instead? 

That said, while I agree with much of what you said, you
still seem to be missing my central point. The 'Actor'
Metaphor serves one purpose and one purpose only, and
that is to illustrate how a Portraits can paradoxically
be both deep and not deep at the same time. How it can
so vividly portray the subject with stunning accuracy
and yet fall apart when questioned at depth and in 
detail. 

The Portrait recreates the character, but does so 
within limitations; JKR has made this clear. So how
can we model these limitation? How can we view them
in a way that paradoxically illustrates great depth
while at the same time clearly lacking in real 
depth. I choose to use an Actor Analogy because it
does clearly illustrates a portrayal of great depth 
and feeling that at the same time falls short on
details. 


> Carol:
>
> Nearly Headless Nick thinks, speaks, and acts exactly
> as he did in life, except that his activities and 
> interests are more limited ... NHN isn't acting; he's
> being himself to the degree that he can do so without 
> a physical body. ...
> 

bboyminn:

Nearly Headless Nick doesn't have to act because he 
really is HIM. He is not a representation of himself,
he really is Nearly Headless Nick. He is REALLY the
one and only person who ever lived, died, and returned
as a ghost of himself. That is quite different that
a man-made portrait.

> Carol:
>
> The portraits,..., are much the same. They aren't 
> acting (pretending to be someone else). Their thoughts
> and feelings are those of the person whose "imprint" 
> they are (Phineas Nigellus's grief for his
> great-great-grandson is not feigned even though in life
> he never knew that great-great-grandson), ...
> 

bboyminn:

No they aren't acting in the traditional sense, but they
are following a 'script', just as the Sorting Hat is 
following a script. The Sorting Hat has a job, and
performs amazingly well in that job; does so with great
wit and intelligence. But, for the most part it is 
limited, limited to the job of the Sorting Hat. 

The 'script' that a portrait follows is that 'imprint' 
of the subject, but it has limited ability to go 
beyond its script. 

You use Phineas and his grieving for Sirius as an 
example, yet how would an actor act under the same
circumstances? Just like Phineas I would say. Again,
the 'actor' only illustrates the paradoxical depth 
of the character. None the less, Phineas is following
his 'Phineas script' when he reacts to Sirius's death.
In a sense, when we (living people) react to the death
of a loved one, we are acting out a biological script. 
I hate to reduce grieving to that level, but there is
an element of truth in it.


> Carol:
>
> The portraits, ..., also speak and think for themselves
> in something beyond the "catch phrases" that JKR credits
> them with. In fact, that description is much more 
> applicable to Mrs. Black, Sir Cadogan, and possibly the
> Fat Lady than it is to Phineas Nigellus--or, we can hope,
> to Portrait!Dumbledore.
> 
> Carol, 

bboyminn:

I will agree if you change 'portraits' to 'Headmaster
Portraits'. Headmaster portraits are more realized than
general portraits because headmasters are so intimately
connected to Hogwarts that they leave a faint AURA of 
themselves behind, and that Aura gives added intelligence
and realization to the Head Portraits.

I'm sure Dumbledore will have wisdom because that wisdom
is in a sense part of his script; 'death is but the 
next great adventure', 'it is our choices who make us
who we are', etc.... That wizdom still has the ability
to come out, because in a sense it is superfical and
philosophical. Portraits can do that. But when it comes
to analyzing the details and reaching intelligent 
conclusions, I don't think portrait!Dumbledore will be
much help. Yet, his philosophical observation, even if
they don't seem so in the moment, I think can be of 
great help to Harry in the long run. In that sense, I
think portrait Dumbledore will be of great value.

I agree with most of what you said, except of the few
details I have nitpicked here.

Steve/bboyminn