Actors vs. Characters

Related terms:
See also:	Violating the Fourth Wall, Fans on Sets, RPF, Real World Crossovers, Photo Manip, Good Fans and Bad Fans
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Actors Confusing Themselves with Their Characters

Fans are not the only people who cross the line between real life and characters. Some actors do it as well.

This can become a topic of discourse with fanworks, especially those of an intimate or sexual nature.

One example: Paul Darrow identified very closely with his character, Kerr Avon. See much more at Darrow and Avon.

Fans Conflating the Actor with the Character

1978

I AM NOT SPOCK.

And how I wish people would take his word for it! He should know, after all. But so many fans seem to confuse the actor with the character; a process of adding apples and oranges.

I'm not talking about the movie, okay? I'm delighted that Leonard Nimoy will be playing Spock. But he is not now, never has been, and never will be, Spock.

The character Kirk is the captain of an imaginary starship. William Shatner is the actor who played the character. So what?

Well, so a couple of things. One is that meeting William Shatner will not be meeting Kirk. I've seen some fans go to an awful lot of trouble — only to be dreadfully disappointed by the popping of an illusion that really should have been thought through.

Second, the actors' (presumed) point of view is being brought, quite unjustifiably, into our work with the characters. A couple years ago a group of fans, then self-appointed watchdogs, threatened another group with a lawsuit by LN if one of the early K/Ss was printed. This idiocy seems to have been dropped, but we are still seeing Locs stating that the actors may be hurt, personally or professionally, by the stories we write about the characters. Or, to put it more accurately, "my stories" are okay. "Yours" will hurt."

But the actors themselves are the first to proclaim loudly that they are not the characters they play. Certain aspects of an actor go into a character. Other aspects of an actor are de-emphasized, on stage, in that particular part. And sometimes the actor must build only on imagination, creating something entirely outside his own personal experience.. There are always areas of contiguity. But the actor is not the character, and vice versa.

1981

I am glad to see Leia getting some decent treatment. She's been getting short shrift from a lot of fans — unjustifiably, I believe. The problem with Leia is not Leia, it's Carrie Fisher; seeing EMPIRE reinforced this belief — she's sullen, petulant, and obnoxious. It's not the character - if you just pay attention to what she's saying and doing, rather than the [portrayal], you can see that.

1984

In the later series [of The Professionals,] too, Martin Shaw's dissatisfaction with the role made Doyle less convincing as a hero.

1986

It is with more than little surprise that I came to realize the

man behind the pointy-ears was an entirely separate being from the character I have loved for the last 20 years. Surprise, shock, and a great deal of guilt.

How often has an identical twin said, "I am me, not my twin!"? We try to separate two individuals, only to return full circle to, "This is John and Joe, the Anderson twins." Two separate beings are again joined and one.

When an actor is the most successful at his craft, the audience witnesses not two separate beings, but one. Not an actor playing a role, but the character himself, or herself. The actor begins by immersing himself in his role only to find he IS the character to those watching.

The problem comes when the actor desires to be himself again, and his fans refuse to allow the separation of entities, refusing to allow the man who performs a craft to lay aside, like a ventriloquist's dummy, the character they witnessed come to life. But, in refusing to relinquish the character, are we, the fans, truly paying tribute to the genius behind the fiction?

Many actors and actresses have been "type-cast" because of a role they happened to play once, albeit, their performance of that character was outstanding and long remembered. But, is this tribute to their greatness?

Such a man is Leonard Nimoy, who happened to be chosen to portray an alien among humans in the now cancelled TV series STAR TREK. He has alternately described his character, Mr. Spock, as a blessing and a curse. The role of Mr. Spock, the half Vulcan/half Human, First Officer-Chief Science Officer of the United Starship ENTERPRISE, has, as Mr. Nimoy stated, "... made me wealthy." It has also made him famous beyond his wildest dreams. Mr. Nir.ioy answers as freely to "Hello, Mr. Spock" as he does to "Aren't you Leonard Nimoy?" I am guilty as any other.

When I first saw Mr. Nimoy in person at Space Trek IV, in St. Louis, my first thought was, "Gee, he looks funny without the ears."

Then, through the magic he possesses, my "Mr. Spock" became "Leonard Nimoy, the man". His humor, smile, laugh, wit, and caring flowed to each corner of the room, to engulf each person there. It no longer seemed to matter if the character and the man were one and the same, or that they were two separate people. The man, the basis for the character, shone his bright and multi -faceted light for all to see.

It is hard to lay aside your 'first love', but I found, sitting there enthralled, not the death of my 'first love', but another side to his - if you will excuse the pun - character taking shape, expanding. I found, I had come full circle back to the twin theory. They are one and the same, the back side of the same coin; yet, and still, entirely separate beings.

For me, Spock and Nimoy will ever and always be the same, yet separate. For it take, the one to make the other believable. There can be no life for the other without the magic the one possesses.

When asked by a fan what he would like to be most remembered for, Mr. Nimoy answered, (and I paraphrase here)... as a good husband, father, actor...

All I can say of them both, is: "LIVE LONG AND PROSPER, GENTLEMEN!"

1989

PLEASE, stop confusing the actor with the role. Paul Darrow is NOT Kerr Avon. Darrow is a talented British actor who played this role years ago, among many others in his career. I would be interested in reading his post-GP novel, as I have ready many versions... I am not interested in worshiping at his feet.

1992

I would never use the actors' names unless I'm discussing their performance. Calling the characters by the names of the actors could lead to confusion. Perhaps I feel that it's so important to clearly separate the characters from the actors because I write slash. Yet whether or not we are writing slash, we really should remember that neither Michael Praed nor Jason Connery are really Robin Hood. Robin Hood is a fictional character. Whatever we say in our discussions here, or whatever we write in our stories about either Robin or Robert, none of it has anything to do with the actual men who played these roles. We all know that intellectually, of course, but fans sometimes get swept away emotionally in the illusion of the actor's performance and forget the distinction between the characters and the actors. Apparently, some of the RoS actors also have difficulty making this separation, since they think slash fiction reflects on them. I am sorry, but slash has no more to do with them than any other idea that we might have about their characters.

1994

[Conflating] Paul Darrow as Avon... camping it up with Michael Keating as Vila at a panel at a B7 con in New Jersey.... slash is about fictional characters. That's it. It's not about real people, it's not a reflection on or of real people, it's not dependent upon real people for anything other than the making up of fiction and the reading thereof--that's why there's slash based on characters from novels as well as screen depictions. It exists as a form of fiction, a genre in and of itself, separate, discrete, and with no connection to the actors save unchanging images trapped on videotape of actors pretending to be someone completely separate from themselves.

1997

I also was very moved by [comments] about William Shatner’s and Leonard Nimoy’s acknowledgement or validation of K/S. I completely agree that it really doesn’t matter. I have always separated Kirk and Spock from the two men who portrayed them. I feel that their creations almost took on a life of their own. They, as the actors, can go their own way now, and Kirk and Spock can live on as the vibrant, strong characters that they are.

I’m not saying that they’re real — but doesn’t reality come in many different forms? I have often thought about all the energy that comes from our mental emanations of Kirk and Spock. Almost like when someone dies, but their memory is held by so many people, so strongly that it’s almost as if that person still exists.

In a way, that’s how I feel about Kirk and Spock. Fictional literary characters, yes — but who’s to say what form all that energy of all that thought has taken?

Okay, okay. Get that butterfly net away from me! I’m serious!

I have another theory which some may not like as we’re always so determined to separate actors and characters. When you' listen to interviews or talk to the David of the present he comes over as insecure, a little self centered, lost, as if he still hasn’t pinned down who he is. If that’s him as he always has been perhaps we’re only tapping into something he found easy to do - draw on his own insecure personality and build it into the Hutch character. All the more convincing because it was based on fact.

1998

Sometimes it is hard to remember that the actor is the character but the character is not the actor. I love the actors but only because they have created beings I wish to know more about Perhaps they do only live on the pages of a book but I can enter their world at any time just by reading that book.

When Meeting the Actor Ruins Admiration

Direct interaction with an object of admiration can ruin one's view:

1987

I wouldn't begrudge any S&S fan the visit the set and see JP and Mackie in person but you need to make a decision before you make the trip and that is: will it affect my appreciation of the show to find out that I'm not going to see Rick and AJ, but JP and Mackie instead? In other words, how will you feel if you suddenly find that you don't really like JP and Mackie but are only attracted to the characters they play? Talk about crossing your universes! It's so hard to get over and "AJ" as "Rick" as "different" people, which is what Mackie and JP are... a few weeks ago, I really started pondering this whole dilemma, and came to the startling conclusion that I am, indeed, a Rick and AJ fan, as opposed to a JP and Mackie fan, if only for the logical reasoning that I "know" Rick and AJ (God, after spending 5 1/2 years with them, we all know 'em now, right?!), while JP and Mackie are just a couple guys... Maybe I'm just more overly sensitive than the average fan—perhaps you could visit without having the least negative feeling. To me it was something like the feeling when you finally find out there isn't a Santa Claus. To me, Rick and AJ are two wonderful guys who live in a nice condo, and Mom has a nice house, and they spend their time trying to make the world a better place for the people they come into contact with--then you find out the houses are sound stages, and the guys are more interested in getting this episode "in the can" so they can go home and paint the garage... And JP doesn't really remember that he was supposed to have been born in 1949, only that his lines this week have him saying "I'm 34", or even if he does remember, he isn't going to press the issue because he's got three little kids and a mortgage and the show has been in the 50s and he wants to keep everything as smooth as possible on the set. Like I said last issue, it's all a tragic case of the real world crashing into our reel world. So, if you don't think this would affect your love of the show, and you can afford the time to try and visit, you have my encouragement and blessings, but if you like to keep believing in Santa Claus, stay home and watch the show, read some fan fiction, and lose yourself in the whole S&S universe, because, after all, that's where your heart really is, isn't it?...

1998

Like many others I tolerated [The David Soul Appreciation Society] for some months because it seemed the only possible way to show support for Mr. Soul, but then I decided to accept it no longer and left the DSAC.

For some reasons (and especially as a German reading the last message Mr. Soul wrote for the DSAC) I also no longer want to use my homepage for advertising his new CD nor my E-Mail address for any requests for it.

Also it no longer matters to me to invest *time* as a co-founder of the Topanga mailing list for DS-fans, because I have to believe in an artist, when I run a list for his fans. This means the mailing list ‘Topanga' for DS-fans is history and no longer exists.

I want to thank my friends in the last weeks for their support and understanding and beg you to respect this step... (Carol, you were a great Tpg-partner). I won’t let this touch the fun and friendships I still have in the S&H-fandom nor the love of those fictional figures. - Conny

Meta

• "Fan Perceptions of Siddig El Fadil"