I was just watching Candyman, a horror film from back in the day and I have fully admitted to myself that I love the combination of the character Helen with the actress Virginia Madsen. It is the true combination that I am talking about. I don't love the character Helen alone and I don't love the actress Virginia Madsen alone but the combination of the two drives me crazy.

Is there a name for the combination of the character and the actor/actress?

One other example of perfection in combination (although not quite as sexy) is Jeremy Brett with Sherlock Holmes. Jeremy Brett alone I have little interest in and Sherlock Holmes as a character is interesting and all, but doesn't come close to being what it is in combination with the actor Jeremy Brett, which is to sell it short, purely transcendent.

It would not be something like "portrayal" or "depiction" because this treats the character as a variable (i.e. one of any number of possible characters for the actor to play) with the specific actor/actress of interest functioning with that variable to provide the portrayal or depiction. I am looking more for the true synthesis wherein neither the character nor actor/actress is primary or secondary but in pure harmonious combination.

Any ideas?

You mean like how Ceasar Romero is the Joker and not just some person who played the joker? If there is a word for that, I'm not sure what it is.

Another exceptional example! Ceasar Romero IS the Joker!

Yeah, I wonder it anyone has thought up a word for it.

I beg to Differ. Mark Hamel IS the Joker.


Any way, I believe the term your looking for is "Actor."

I mean, with out rolls to play, you really can't call your self an actor. Hence the term.

You're looking for a verb, or something which connotes action, I think. The process of being:
'Performance' is probably the closest you're going to get.
There are no words which describe the 'perfect' performance you want, though.
That's what we have adjectives for.

Actually I want a noun. "Actor" is a noun, "character" is a noun. So the perfect or harmonious synthesis or combination of the two should also be a noun.

Again, the word "performance" is too actor-centric. It is as though the actor pulled out the character rather than the character pulled out the active expression. I want a word that is perfectly balanced between the two.

I appreciate the feedback.

EDIT: OK I took a second look at "performance" and you could say that the performance could be the performance of the character on the actor even though that is not the common usage. The problem with performance, other than that it isn't a noun, is that it still has one being primary (actor or character) conveying the other secondarily (character or actor). Even if we spoke of a 'simultaneous' performance by the actor and character of the respective other, it still requires in each instance one as primary and the other secondary, even if it is simultaneously taking turns. The word I am looking for is such a perfect combination, that the actor and character are indecipherable. You wouldn't be able to compliment the one's performance of the other because they would be the same single entity.

We could say the the proper noun here is "role." When you roll play, one becomes the character, but at the same time parts of the original "mundane" person invariably show through. This can be typified in such "Roles" and Captain Picard/Patrick Stewart, Hercules/Keven Sorbo, Duncan MacLeod/Adrian Paul, Daniel Jackson/Michael Shanks, and (to use another Star Trek example) Captian Kirk/ William Shatner. Quite simply, beyond the realm of "type casting," these characters eventually blended Actor and Portrayal in to somthing not only more than the sum of the parts, but became an extension of one another. In Leonard Nemoy's Semi-autobiographical books "I Am Not Spock" and the follow up "I Am Spock", Nemoy explores these issues. Perhaps you should read them if you want to find an answer.

@Staffy

Yes that is a good word. I'm really glad that you brought that word up, "role" because on the one hand it gets closer to what I am talking about (I agree with everything you said in the most recent post) but on the other hand that brings out a whole bunch of interesting questions.

When I think of "role" playing, I think of RPGs for example (or survival horror games, or many game types really. Halo is a good example where there is the Master Chief, and the way you play the Master Chief that really makes your experience) where I do think of a blend of the character and the "actor" (in this case, the action is being done via video game control) but there are two questions that come to mind.

Is every actor and character together a role because if so, I am then looking for a word where the actor and character blend so much (like Picard/Stewart) that they transcend other actor/character combinations that could technically be called roles because not every actor/character combination, whether they be properly called roles or not, reach the level of expression to which I am referring.

The second is that a "role" in its pure or true form tends to be experienced in first person, by someone playing the role, and not quite in third person, by someone watching the role being played, which then brings up the question as to whether or not, say in a mulitplayer RPG, can one do both by interaction with those in the party. If that is the case then I guess I would have to be taking on a role while watching a movie where the character is something akin to the way the movie is presented and the actor is akin to the way that I watch the movie (i.e. my modal mindset).

I'll have to think about it. 'Role' is on the right track but it still isn't there for what I am looking for so far.

Thanks for your response.

After reading that part, the word "Avatar" sprang to mind. Perhaps this is the term you seek?

I tend to think of an avatar as being locked within the world and manipulated by the actor outside the world. The original mystical definition suggests that the avatar is a descendant from a higher realm into a lower realm and this seems consistent with the essential relationship that there is a transcendence of worlds in the form of a single lower realm entity. But the avatar seems to lack a true character relative to the lower realm which it occupies. In other words it more of a costume or a vessel or an ark or even a relic that carries the single true character into its world (i.e. from the higher realm into the lesser realm) to be expressed in that realm. It is not the same as taking a character that truly exists of its own accord in a realm (say a fictional character that exists in a fictional realm) and a character that exists of its own accord in another realm (say the actor from the real world) and fuses those two in harmonic balance to be viewed from a third person (modal) perspective (i.e. the mind of the audience viewer).

This is real good feedback. Thanks.

Identity?

I think that words like "identity" and "avatar" and even "role" are all too general, too broad because even if they apply, they can be used to describe many other things that do not fit the combo criteria of what I am asking so there is no way to distinguish combo from other non-combos that can still be called and "identity" for example.

This topic is helping me figure out that what I looking for is either one of two things:

Specifically the combination of the actor and the character in a way where the two are perfectly blended (and only perfectly blended). If you can use a word to properly describe when the actor and character are not perfectly blended (like portrayal or performance or identity or role), then I that is not the word I am looking for. In other words when Keannu Reeves delivered his horrid performance or portrayal of Renfield in Bram Stoker's Dracula, he did in fact deliver a portrayal or performance, played a role and had an identity (all of which were conveyed horridly with respect to acting) so these words do not distinguish the portrayal, perfomance, role, or identity, which was so perfect that a complete harmonious combination occurred like Pikard/Stewart, Sherlock Holmes/Jeremy Brett or Madsen/Helen.

I am looking for a specific word exclusively reserved for this level of perfect combination.

Also in a more general sense, the word while needing to be a perfect harmonious combination does not need to be of an actor with a character specifically. It could be any perfect harmonious combination of any object in one realm, domain, or world (maybe here the word identity would be useful) with an object or identity from another realm, that is observed (most likely) from an identity (or modal perspective) in a third realm.

Our specific (and easy intuitive) example again was a fictional character in perfect combo with a real actor as perceived by a mode in the human mind.

It could also be something like a perfect combination of an angel with a human as viewed by a fictional character (in the fictional character's actual first person perspective (which many rational people will insist does not actually exist, though I do not necessarily agree with their assessment).

So yeah it is all about transcendence of realms (or modal domains) to combine in perfect harmony.

Thanks again for the feedback.

EDIT: OK the example of Jesus comes to mind. There are a lot of considerations that come to mind though with respective to keeping track who is real and who is imaginary (or fictional) as far as realm transcence is concerned because someone who actually saw Jesus hanging on the cross in the past is a "fictional character" to us now but someone who sees Jesus through faith now is a "real actor" to us now.

I have to think about it but the word "demigod" might be a good original basis for the word that I am looking for to describe Pikard/Holmes, Brett/Stewart/ Madsen/Helen, etc.

But the word "testify" "testimonial" or "testiment" might also be useful in keeping track of perspectives relative to domains.

Thanks again.

EDIT EDIT: I guess one way to designate (for now) is that I testify that Virginia Madsen and the character Helen form "Candyman" is a Demigoddess.

That way you don't have to agree if you don't see it that way (so you wouldn't have to testify as such) and that way I can also testify that Keannu Reeves with Renfield from Bram Stoker's Dracula is not a demigod.

Yes, this is becoming very useful. Thanks again to everyone. I really feel like I am on the right track.

^ You sound like a mad doctor, ready to put his evil philosophical literary plans in motion...


Why not this?

"Harmony" can describe two (relatively) similar things (i.e. from the same domain).

Two notes can sound off together in harmony. Two basketball players can play together in harmony.

So harmony is not limited to a (modal realm, domain, or world) transcendent combination.

As a matter of fact two characters can work in harmony and two actors can perform in harmony but both are in their relative domains (fiction for the characters/ the real world for the actors).

The word I am searching for requires a transcendence of domains.

Demi-god is good because the origin is a god (from the spirit realm) and a human (from the real world).

And in my original example the character Helen from Candyman is from a realm of fiction and the actress Virginia Madsen is from the real world.

Yes, I do beleive that "portrayal" Is in fact the word you are looking for. It's an adjective so It is descriptive of a process, person place or thing, and that can also apply to a description of "state" I think you are looking for a term that describes a state in which two ententes, one fictional, the other real, combine to form a whole. For instance, if i was to take the guts out of a Wii and graft them into the case of an NES (Damn. Some one has got to do that!), one could argue that the Wii is portraying an NES. Yet, it can also have a narrow focus. (ex. "Bella Lugosi's portrayal of Dracula is arguably better than Gary Oldman's portrayal of Dracula.")

The thing is, I am not looking for the "state" in which the character and actor combine, I am looking for the name of the substance that exists after they have fused. In other words, a state is too time restricted, it isn't necessarily timeless and it suggests that the entity can revert back into an earlier state.

I am saying that the origin (i.e. the fusion of character and actor) may exist before our eyes, but the word that I am looking for is (essentially) unconcerned with the origin of the entity for the sake of the entity itself (although it might be of interest to us to understand where it comes from, but the entity will exists at an eventual point of its own accord). Rather it is recognizing the existence of the entity of its own accord in the same way that I don't say Staffy is a state of his mom and dad (although this may be true at some level). I say that Staffy is Staffy, period (although he comes from a mom and dad). That is the kind of word I am looking for. The closest I have found is demi-god but maybe it should be something like demi-character or demi-role to take the deity out of it. Even then though, there seems to be some issues.

The word should be a noun because from a dimensional analysis point of view, its dimensional essence is made up of other nouns (even if we are inconcerned with them at a later point), a character and an actor. You said that "portrayal" was an adjective, but even if it is treated as a noun, it is not of the same substance as what I am looking for.

A portrayal can be treated as a noun in a sense, but it is a noun that describes entities, it is not a noun that is an entity. Even if I were to accept it as substantially useful, it still is too broad. We would have to find a word that specifically desginates, for example, Lugosi's Dracula that could not be used to describe Oldman's Dracula. The word portrayal however, can be used to describe both so it would not suffice.

One thought comes to mind is the demi-portrayal, but this still suggests that the essence of of the entity is the what the character and actor bring out of each other but as I said in the last post, I think an important aspect is how the third person mind also processes it, as in testimony. I have more to say but my girlfriend needs her computer. I think you may get my drift. Thanks again.

I believe the word you're looking for is "carntor".

Because clearly there isn't aleady a word to describe what you're looking for, so we need to make up our own.

Well people do create words for all kinds of things that I would actually expect it to be out there already in the language of lore.

Another word that comes to mind but falls short is Harmonixer. Like Yuri in the Shadow Hearts games, a Harmonixer is a shapeshifter who starts in one form and shape shifts into another form. The Harmonixer actually becomes the other form yet somehow is still simultaneously the original form. But a Harmonixer sort of has the ability to become more than one form and one really is only referring to the original form as the Harmonixer not the form it shapeshifts into.

I can't really see Stewart successfully shifting into any other form than Picard or Brett into any other form than Holmes or Lugosi into any other form than Dracula or Madsen into any other form than Helen even though all these actors have played other roles. The harmonixing shapeshifting was not successful regarding other roles.

One example that does come to mind where an actor has successful shapeshifted as a harmonixer into more than one form is (at a lesser level) is Craig T Nelson who I thought WAS Hayden Fox in the TV show Coach and who could never BE any other character (even if he played them as an actor). But then I testify that he WAS Chief Jack Mannion in the TV show The District. So here is a rare example to me where the actor WAS the character more than once.

Nevertheless, this still misses the point to an extent as I am looking for the harmonic combination between the character and actor where neither is primary. It is interesting to note that we do have an example where the character is primary on multiple occasions. The Joker "WAS" Cesar Romero and yet somehow the Joker was Jack Nicholson and yet still the Joker was Heath Ledger and also the Joker was Mark Hamill

Obivously all of these things are thoughts out loud. I am not attempting to confuse the matter but clarify it to the significant point and I think it is useful with respect to meaning, especially in the realms of the imagination to attempt to address this entity. I would really be surprised if there wasn't a word or at least a concept for it already.

EDIT: One important thing to note whether it supports or goes against the examples that I have brought up is the idea that character exists independent of the actor originally. This is the case with Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, Helen from Candyman (originally in a Clive Barker book), and the Joker, whereas it is my understanding that we never saw Pikard until we saw Stewart or Fox or Mannion until we saw Craig T Nelson. The character brings enough to the table to be more than an avatar or a portrayal so in these senses there are similarities to the other examples but when the character didn't originate elsewhere independently there really is relatively less of a combination or a fusion of two originally separate entities and more of an actor-centric expression that creates the character to an extent. I think.