I was wondering if you guys and gals think that we are blinded by Alan Rickman's oustanding perormance when we read the books?

I'm under the impression that Rickman brought something more human to the character than what we can feel in the books and I think our appreciation of the character comes more from Alan Rickman's Snape than JKR's Snape.

And what if we only had the book to judge Snape? Would we just feel like it wasn't that big a surprise that Snape killed Dd and would we still questionned ourselves that much about Snape or just realise he's been just plain bad all along and Dd just made a huge error thinking he could trust him?

An interesting point, and it sounds as though you've made a prime error in your readings. By the sounds of it, you've only read the books after the films?

Sure Rickman brings a decent performance of Snape, and whilst after seeing films 1, 2 and 3; after finishing reading book 4, I've continued to read the books as though the characters look like the actors.

However, you CAN read a different temperament to the characters than the movies portray. My views of the characters change the more I read the books and not due to the films. They were 1 thing when I first read the books, a second when you see the film, then again changing when you re-read them.

In fact, if I was to read PS/SS now, I'd probably read it with Harry Potter and co. having the characterisations I've built up from the HBP.

Don't forget that the differences here are that the charaters are developed for screenplay by the screen-writers and actors. To me, they remain different to the films.

So in summary, I don't think Alan Rickmans performance has blinded my view of Snape, more that he has become an aid to how I interperate Snape as a whole. After all, Alan's view of Snape is one thing, mine is another.

(Confused by the above!? )

I've read Year one after seeing the movie but read year two before seeig the 2nd movie. I read Azkaban after seeing the movie but I've read Goblet , Phoenix and Half Blood Prince now.

I'm more into movies than books but like to read the books to have MORE infos about the story or the back stories.

After reading Half Blood I've watched the 3 movies again and ended liking Chamber of secret much more than the few times I had seen it before.

I just can'T wait to see what's happening with Snape in book 7 because I can't believe he is a cold blooded killer on You-know-who's side.

I see Snape as an old single guy who was deeply admiring Lilly while he was a student at Hogwart and hated James Potter even more because he ended up with Lilly than because he was always teasing him.

Even though he is interested in Dark arts I think it is only because when down deep you're a good guy you still need to know about the other side. It is part of the art of war.

I came to HP through the films.

I always see Alan Rickman when I read about Snape, although I can imagine A. Rickman, the movie-Snape exercising his abdominal muscles, not book-Snape. So I have to be careful and try to imagine another Snape. That's quite hard. But the same goes to any of the characters even if more or less.

Hiya Porthos and welcome to the forums!

This is a really interesting question...mmm....I have commented on this in other Rickman threads, but yes, I hold my hand up and freely admit that I am blinded to Snape's true character by Alan's awesome portrayal of him.

I came to the books through the films too - SS actually (and finally relenting to the neverending, in-your-face commercialism... ) - and so Snape has never appeared in my minds eye as anyone other than Alan Rickman.

I think he certainly does bring a mysterious depth to the character and does make him seem extremely attractive, but if we were to go strictly from canon, then I must admit that the character has been romanticised to a huge extent.

Snape isn't a nice person and he's not exactly attractive with his long, greasy hair, hooked nose and yellow teeth. I kind of picture him more like Filch actually, based on canon. I had hoped that JKR wouldn't fall into the trap of making the ugly guy really a baddie because I had hoped that she was...well...not so much making a point as going against the stereotypes by making Snape out to be a hero in the end, proving that no matter how he may appear, he is more than the sum of his parts.

Sadly, based on canon thus far, it does seem as though Snape is the nasty little traitor Harry always thought he was. I sincerely hope he isn't or I might just have to have a book burning session but I think it's testiment to the wonderful talent of Alan Rickman in turning such an insidious character into such a brilliantly intriguing one that my DVD collection shall never meet the same fate.

To be honest, my picture of the Snape from the books is definitely influenced by the Alan Rickman Snape from the movies.

Like many others here, I started to read the books after seeing the first HP movie. Before the first movie I was already a big fan of Alan Rickman so I was stunned again by his wonderful appearance as Prof. Snape.
Because of Alan I don’t see Snape as a cruel, mean, ugly heartless traitor. If I hadn’t seen the movie I would picture Snape totally diferent. Now I picture him as an “attractive” (in his own way) isolated and mysterious.
It’s exactly like Dana said :

The question is great and it deserves a long post, but as I don't have much time, it will be shorter by now.

I was influenced by Alan some time ago but i've been imagining Snape differently lately. I can say that I have my own image of Snape in my head now, and it's more book Snape. It hasn't change the fact that I'm still searching for clues in books and there are many things which assure me that Snape isn't evil. For example, he was different than Riddle his age... and many more. I should have written a wiser post but I really don't have much time now *runs away*

I definitly agree with most of you, I saw the first movie before reading all the book and it really set an image of snape in my mind. It was hard to develop a new person, especially appearance wise when I began reading. I think there's a chapter that has a picture of Snape at the beginning of it, not sure exactly which one or which book, but that was a big shock, to see how different he looked then I had been imagining him.

As I've read I've begun developing more of a book Snape image though, something not so wonderfully gothic or ruggishly handsome, more like the greasy odd ball that Snape really is. I think the end of book 6 really showed me that too, reallly solidifed Snape's character . . . but perhaps movie 4 will disrupt it again.

You know, that is a really good question. *lol* I think I wrote something similar on some other thread, but I'll have another go.

First of all, I am one of those precious few who actually read book one till three before the first movie came out. Tada! And I must say, I wasn't really into Snape by then. It was only after my favourite character Sirius died, that I started to wonder about Snape's motivation and everything. I think the fifth book - Snape's Worst Memory - actually let me see "the man behind the mask".

And I seriously doubt it is influenced by Alan Rickman (least in my case). Yes, he is gorgeous in the first movie (in the third one he had gained quite some weight, didn't he?). And I also loved the actor who played Snape in "The Secret Chamberpot of Aserbaijan". *lol* Actually, he was a lot closer to the picture I had of Snape in the beginning.

But when I read the books, I don't see any actor. When I write my fanfic, I don't see the actors (and Snape is one of the three main characters in my fic).
When I picture Snape, I see a tall, mysterious, pale man with stringy hair, a fairly large nose and dark eyes. I try to forget about the yellow teeth, it's so yuck. I can handle greasy hair, but not yellow teeth... *giggle*
Alan Rickman is great in the movies - but I won't let anybody restrict my phantasy to an actor. Any of JKs characters are just so much more. So many gaps to fill with your own imagination... I have - and always will - simply neglected to picture a person I know from the movie.

And that doesn't just go for Harry Potter, but to every other movie, too. Just think about the Neverending Story by Michael Ende. It would be a shame to narrow your mind on the pictures they give us!

Let Phantasia live!

Flutterflie

Personaly. The actors/actresses have had a great affect on my reading of the book. And I feel they have changed my outlook on the charecters for the better. I mean, they are kinda of what rowling wanted them to look like. She wouldnt let someone play Harry or any other charecter if she didnt think they were what she imagined do you?

Just thought I'd give my feelings towards this subject.

and yes, move snape was a deffenite improvement of what I invisioned him to be.

I must say that Rickman does deliver a good performance and does indeed portray the mysterious, dark, malicious. caniving. devious, reasy, odd ball that the book describes. I think that his physical appearance in the movie is slightly more attractive than the book, but not by much. With Rickman we do see the oblong nose, greasy hair, emotionally angry and cloaked phenom that the book desribes and I enjoy it greatly. I do picture Snape a little different in the books and imagine what JK sees him as, but I find Rickman's portrayal better and that is why his performance does blind me from what JK has to say because his physical appearance and manneurisms are better than that of the books. SO after much thuoght, yes it definitly influences mer while I am reading.

I find my reading of Snape the character is not affected at all by Alan's excellent performance, and it actually rather enhances it. In Spinner's End I pictured Rickman as Snape and imagined his voice spitting dark words at Bellatrix

Tim Roth was orignally cast as Snape and I think he would have been a closer approximation to JK's original vision, being a bit younger and all but I'm very pleased with how Alan does it.

*sighs*
As you can tell from my username, I am indeed a Snape fan. I atually fell head over heels for the guy after reading PoA. Don't ask me why really, I just felt sorry for him after learning all that we did from the four Mauraders.

I did watch the movies and I liked Alan Rickman as Snape, Alan is yummy in his own right. However..as we have gone on through the books, I have tried to remove Alan from my mind and see what Jo wants us to see. Then I started writing fanics and I needed a new Severus Snape to see. Mainly, because I didn't want to be blinded by that yummy man. So I ventured out into the world of fanart. I found some fantastic pics of Snape, created by fans who have drawn him perfectly. Greasy, string hair and hooked nose and all. I enjoy this Severus Snape more. Maybe it's his darkness...dunno really how to explain it.

So, I must say even though Alan does a great job in the movies, I prefer my mental image of Severus Snape more. Thanks to fantastic artists who drew him from the cannon descriptions.

I read all the books before i saw PS, about a year before the film came out. But i had just finished PS i think it was, when i found Alan would be playing Snape. I squealed, i loved Alan Rickman, and i knew that no one would be better, so when i read the other books i admit that i did picture Alan there.

So yeah, i agree that he has blinded my view of the unattractive slimy man, to good ol' hot Alan Rickman. But i don't mind really.

I have deinfately been affected by all of the actors in the movies. When I reread the books now I see them as they are in the movies.

The real problem is when I see Rickman I keep thinking of Hans from Die Hard!

I've already posted that I do beleive that Rickman's portrayal affects my reading, but i don't see how some aren't affected. JK writes an illustration and Rickman brings it to life. Yeah other perceptions do exist and may take precedent over hte movie, but Rickman's performance should of affected everyone's overall perception in a small way. RICKMAN is not that good looking to be considered to perty to play snape, he looked like snape in the book to me.

I feel I need to amend what I said before. I still stand by my visual imagie of Snape not being Alan Rickman, but a fantastic portrayal created by a gifted artist. Truly...a great pic of a seriously sexy man. (Nothing like Rickman either...)

However...I amend my statements by saying that, in my head, I place Alan Rickman's voice, to my Snape. And all you women know what I mean....right?

I saw SS, then read the first four books. I do see Alan Rickman, as I see Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint as the characters they play when I read the books. I don't think it has influenced me however. I can still see Snape as the evil character I imagine him to be. I continue to be on the fence of whether he will redeem himself or not.
The only character I see differently in my mind when I read is Sirius. I just think he was so miscast.( as I said in another thread).

I really like how that post turned out. It's exactly what I wanted it to be.


I have to agree that I just can't picture Michael Gambon as Dumbledore when I read. Richard Harris is Dd to me.
The only other person I can picture as Dumbledore is Ian McKEllen but since he was Gandalf it would have been weird to have him as Dd too.

I think that I may not have made myself clear so I am going to try to explain.

When reading, i see what JK wants me to see, I put all his charcteristics together and picture a man, not at all attractive or appealing, a rude, vicious, greasy, batlike emotionally detached wizard who needs to go to a spa for the day. week . I did see the movies first and my first reaction to reading hte book was "Well, Rickman isn't exactly what I thought Snape was, but he wasn't badly cast." The more I read the more i liked the book description, it made me dislike him even after reading his pitiful life in OoTp. However, the more I watched the movies the more I fell in love with Alan/Snapes character. So the books made me feel one way towards snape and Alan made me feel another.

Not blinded, no. I don't believe Alan Rickman made the character more human or likeable than he is in the books -- from the first, I thought it was brilliant casting and excellent acting, as close a likeness as can be achieved considering how impossible it is for an actor to look exactly like the reader's imagination of the author's descriptions. Usually filmed versions turn out to be a disappointment to me, but not in this case.

Blinded? No, no. I don't read anything in Rickman's performance that is contrary to the writer's words. True, he may be a bit more handsome, have a smaller nose, stand a bit straighter than might be expected, but you don't have to see the dripping of slime to imagine it, and Rickman's slow, disdainful drawl is dertainly slimy enough. He doesn't add or subtract from the book as far as I can see. That in itself is quite a feat, since the written certainties about Snape are ambiguous enough to keep people guessing about his alliances. Rickman's Snape is as full of guile, anger, resentment, ability, power, arrogance, pettiness, mockery, disdain and conceit as the book demands...

Who could have done a better job in that first scene of confrontation between Harry Potter and Snape, that first Potions lesson when Snape introduces his arts? Who could have articulated "Clearly, fame isn't everything" as scornfully as Rickman? This doesn't blind, it enhances.


As for "the new DD", I do agree that he was disappointing to me. But it's perhaps unfair to criticise Mike Gambon for not being able to match Richard Harris's irresistible voice. Gambon doesn't convince me. Perhaps he is not tall enough or too dumpy and scruffy to appear formidable, not likeable enough to appear accessible, maybe a little too much down-to-earth... I must say I far prefer Harris. Think about the scene in which he guides Harry away from the Mirror of Erised, or his confessing to the simple pleasures and surprises of Bertie Bott's Every Flavoured Beans. When I read the books, Dumbledore has Richard Harris's voice.

Hagrid and McGonagall are brilliantly cast as well. Robert Morley would have been an ideal Vernon Dursley. I imagine that Ron Weaseley should have been a bit taller, but who knows if he doesn't grow to be taller than Harry later, and the "eat slugs" curse and the scene with Aragog are unforgettable. The problem with imagining what the children in the books look like is that you tend to have a constant image when you are reading, even when you know that it should change as the child is growing up. The changing image in the film is more accurate than the reader's imagination, which remains vague about physical characteristics unless they are described in detail (which they are not, JKR concentrates on the emotional profile and the physical descriptions are limited to things like Harry's scar, Hermione's bushy hair and Ron's length).

I find that even if certain performances influence the imagination at subsequent readings of the books, they do not "blind" or distract in any way from the written characterizations. In reverse, the character image I formed while reading the book does not get in the way of watching the film: the differences are quite acceptable and do not spoil the experience. Thus, the two media combine into the best of both for me, but I suspect that the images of the film will fade over time whereas those of the books remain.

Hmm... I really don't think that Alan Rickman's performance has changed my perceptions of Snape at all, probably because I have come to view the books and the movies as separate entities. I look at the movies as completely unrelated to the books so as not to be disappointed that every little detail is not exactly the same, and I think this has helped me to keep my original images of the characters.

I agree witht he majority of you. Rickman makes a great Snape in my eyes. I mean, its not like he doesnt act like snape in the books. He is just as mean, sour, and distasteful as Snape is in the books

And as I said before, I think it'd be hard for anyone not to be affected by the way Rickman portrays Snape. I mean, I suppose if you've got a good imagination and what not, you could invision your own Snape quite different from Rickman's Snape.

But as for me, I was young when I first read PS/SS and doubt that I'll ever remember how I imagined any of the charecters that I formed from what I read.
A. Because, as I grow older my point of view on certain subjects change and my imagination grows..
B. The movies have deffinetly made an impact on me, appearance wise. I'm only talking about minor charecters though. Like Mcgonagal (I know she isnt that minor) and other teachers.

oh. and just as an after thought. The Lupin from the movies is one of the other charecters that I dont take any acount to how the actor looked. His appearance is all in my head. Sorry, off topic, but yeah, just thought I needed to say that heh.

one last thing. What does this have to do with book 7? Not to be rude or anything, I'm just curious.

cheese puff?

LMAO! Nothing whatsoever!! I didn't notice!! Ah well, just goes to show that the best of us are not infallible...

I'll move it into the general movies forum now....

OMG How did I miss this thread?


I read the books before the movies came out. The first four were out before the first movie, so I read them going into see the movie and by that point, I was fascinated with the character of Severus Snape (and also Sirius, but that's irrelevant). I had heard nothing at all about the movie, only reading the books because the kids that I work with wanted to see it. So I went in to the movie just about blind- I had no idea who was in it and hadn't even seen a single preview for it.

However I went in there wondering with utter bewilderment who could possibly play this character who I was so fascinated by.

And I was thrilled when I found out that it was Alan Rickman. Looking back on it, he wasn't all that different from my original portrayal, since I never 'hated' Snape and always saw some appeal in him.

Blinded? Not so much, because I liked the character before it was Alan Rickman. However at the same time, it is definatly the reason that my portrayal of Snape has CHANGED to BE Alan Rickman (while there are other characters which, in all fairness, I still prefer my interpretation of them over the actors)

I think everyone can have their own interpretation on how they view a character, and A.R's performance in the movies may well influence that. Personally I can see a lot of Alan Rickman's acting in the books, I think he as an actor has invested a lot of time and effort during the making of the films to try and show Snape as he is in the books. Plus he is the only actor who knows the fate of his character and so can add even more into it.

I personally don't feel it would affect it in a bad way, I rather like reading a chapter with Snape in and hearing Alan Rickman saying it, but that's just my POV.

Well ifrst of all i wanna tell you that i don't like the character of Professor Snape,byt when i saw the film and watched ALan Rickman's performance i like the Character of Snape.So he is a best actor and whenever i read all the other books Of Hp series in my mind there is always Alan.

I Love Alan Rickman! But anyway,...*coughs*, I think that Alan did a marvolous job as Professor Snape. I must admit that I watched the first movie before I got into the books. So I fell in love with Alan then I fell for the character of Snape. However, I am so glad that the job fell to Mr. Rickman and that he accepted it. Because at first the job was offered to Tim Roth and honestly I adore him as well (he's in my siggie and avie), but I do think, even if Alan hates people saying it, he was made for the part. I can't imagine any other actor portaying Professor Snape.

Proud member of SOSS!!

im also in SOSS so probably a bit biased, but i love alan rickman playing snape! he's absolutely perfect for the role, and now he's what i picture when i re-read the books.

i always liked snape in the books, seems like an interesting character, so i was really happy when i found alan was playing him in the movies

I am one of those who firmly believe that Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape has been chiefly responsible for the majority of "I love Snape" fan clubs out there. Rickman portrays Snape very well, too well in fact. Looking at him you can't but think positively of Snape and actually forget about his greasy git nature or bat-like countenance. What one sees is a mysterious, handsome, silent, intense person who grabs your attention and never lets it go.

Rickman has brought in a human angle to Snape's character. In Fact in movies, Snape looks like an angel compared to what he comes across in the books. In movies, he's nothing more than a strict teacher, who keeps a sharp eye on students for any sign of mischief and is ever ready to protect them in case of danger. There's no evidence of hatred one comes across in the books, in fact he doesn't seem to eye Harry with loathing but more of disdain and smugness.

I am not sure how much people are blinded by Rickman's performance, but I believe that those who have chosen to forget Snape's attitude and behavior towards Harry in the books are more or less headed in that direction. Snape may be good or evil; the question is immaterial, but as he comes across in the books, he's definitely a rotten-to-the-core person who is so immature that he cannot even let go of a childhood grudge against a dead man and gets his satisfaction by taking it out on his orphan son. Regardless of the motives, such a person should not expect to be treated fairly when then situation turns on him. The jury's still out on the motives behind his actions towards Harry, but I for one believe that they just reflect the man he is; someone still suffering from bitterness and refusing to let it go. It's as if he regards it as a crime for anyone to be happy.

Actually if you look at both Alan Rickman and JK's websites, they both state that JK did sit down and talk with Alan about Professor Snape's future. Alan is the only actor to truly know his characters fate. Check out this site and see what they have to say. As soon as I find the other site, I'll post that as well.

The only reason I started to watch Harry Potter was because of Alan Rickman. Watching the movies, I did assume that he was a bad guy of sorts. It wasn't until I started to read fan fiction and talk with different people did my opinion of him change.

I think Alan has an opportunity to show us something further than Harry's opinion of Professor Snape. As long as the stories take place from Harry's point of view, we're never going to see Professor Snape any other way but evil in the books.

I don't think I'm blinded by Alan's perfomance (and man is he good!) but I do know that he definitely adds demension to the character that the book doesn't allow.

Ooh! Ooh! Well said, Mayfair!

I, for one, get rather offended when people imply that my belief that Snape is innocent is because of Alan Rickman. True, I'm crazy about him (Alan), but like you said, that has nothing to do with it.

In fact, given the chance, I don't think I'd ever want to meet Snape. He's cold, distant, surly and would treat someone he meets for the first time with nothing but disdain. (I just sounded like JK Rowling to myself when I said I wouldn't want to meet him... hmm). That's not who Alan Rickman is at all, and I like the actor and the character for completely different reasons. And incidentally, I would give my left lung to meet Alan Rickman.

I still like him, though - Snape. Besides being the greatest literary creation since ... what ... Emma, Jane Eyre and Jay Gatsby, he's brave, mysterious, complicated and intelligent. His darkness is intriguing, even though I'm fine with the distance between us at the moment. He is my favourite character, but not because I'm dying to chat to him. Gits are gits. He's my favourite because he is so deliciously nasty, and it isn't some weird romance game - he's as fun reading as Lucy Steele or Madame Defarge is.

So, no - I'm not blinded by Alan Rickman when it comes to book-Snape - film Snape is something else, though. I'd hate being blinded by someone who I've only ever seen on a screen. I'm a fan, but I'm still capable of being rational... ok, being rational sometimes.

I've seen that interview, McKenzie - he's a darling, eh? I wish he'd go do something on stage again!

I was also one of those people, who saw the movies before reading the books... This, i think, was a grave mistake, and I do regret it, but done is done, and there's nothing i can do about it.
Well, to the point. I must admit, when i first read the part where he doesn't see the difference between Hermione's teeth before Malfoy cast that spell on her, and after, i was laughing my head off! I was literally rolling on the floor with laughter! Maybe i'm mean, or i am 'manipulated' with Alan Rickman's performance, but i was.
When i see the movies, i always adore the character of Snape. Alan Rickman plays him with the exact amount of arrogance, hate, loathing of Harry and the trio, everything. I think he plays it almost to perfection. His arrogance is amazing, and i love it everytime he owns Harry or anyone else. I love his favoritism, his way of showing the WORLD who he hates, loathes if you must, and making Harry and his gang grin their teeth at him.
When I read the books, i get the same inpression, though maybe abit less humane. Snape is arrogant, but you get the impression, that he lives to destroy Harry, and that it is all he wants to do. He should be able to accept a dead mans apology? Or is that just me?
My thought on this subject, though i coudl have written more, it's just late where i live, and i do have school tomorrow!
thanks!

You know, I had mentioned that I saw the movies because of Alan Rickman, but the movie Snape and the book Snape are two totally different people.

In the books it does seem like Snape takes great pride in hating Harry and holding such a strong grudge against James.

However, Alan must see something different (or perhaps the director) because in the movies I see a very stern, very disciplined watcher. You may not like him, but you know he's out there watching out for you and he'll make you glad he's on your side.

Perhaps Professor Snape is a combination of the two.

My point exactly!!! Alan Rickman has done more to redeem Snape than I believe JKR could, if he turns out good in the final movie. Rickman comes across as a disciplinarian who watches students like a hawk, and who'll be there for students when they need him. The PoA scene comes to mind when he stepped in front of the three kids. Is that a preclude to what's coming, I don't know, but we are sure gonna find out. However, in the same movie his instances of a clear bias in favor of Slytherin becomes obvious, when instead of chiding Malfoy for making that horrendous howling sound in the classroom, he thanks him!!! But he pulls it off such that the scene actually looks quite good and you don't end up hating Snape.

Another instance that I recall is from the recent OotP trailer. When Harry in response to Snape's jibe on his perceived weakness shouts back "I am not weak", Rickman turns around and says "So prove it". There's no hatred or derision in his tone only smugness as if challenging Harry to give it his best shot. I never recall any instance of Snape acting towards Harry in such a way. You never see the loathing in Rickman's eyes or derision in his voice while he speaks, while in books Snape is nothing but contemptuous towards Harry. I do not hate Rickman's portrayal of Snape, in fact I like it a lot. But I admit that I detest Snape in books. He may be good, but that doesn't mean that I have to like him.

Lots of people here seem to like Snape as much as they despise James and Sirius. Well I would like to respond to that in an appropriate thread, but would definitely like to say a few things here But my only question is why is Snape THE ONLY PERSON EVER, to have something bad to say about James (and Sirius) and surprisingly many people agree. If Snape is allowed to "grow up" and reform, Will those very "Snape fans" ever consider that James Potter grew up to be a wonderful father and husband who laid down his life to protect those he loved unlike some others. I believe it's hard to expect people to come out of their very set beliefs. All things haven't changed my opinion of Snape as a slimy greaseball, so I can hardly expect others to change their opinions. But at least I am willing to reconsider mine and accept mine and reconsider alternatives.



Perhaps he may turn out to be exactly that in the final book but that doesn't mean that Harry is self-centered for disliking him. I wouldn't like somebody either who would pick on your dead father time father time knowing that you could not retaliate (at least not now)

Well, I think he was being a little sarcastic in his tone when he thanked him, but I can't deny his bias. It's there, yes, but then again, I can hardly blame him for that. When you consider that practically every other teacher, and student, hates Slytherin, and consequently could be considered as having a bias against them, Snape's behaviour isn't so bad. I actually think that Alan brings out an almost fatherly attitude in his defence of his house. I can't wait to see the job he does in watching over Malfoy in HBP.



I fear I'm going to step dreadfully off topic here, but as far as I'm aware there isn't really a thread to expand on this, and it seems that you and I would both like to, mayfair...if anyone else is interested too maybe we'll get one going but for the moment...

I don't hate Sirius at all!! I love him to pieces!! It jars against my sensibilities terribly to think about what he did to Snape in that memory, but somehow, I've forgiven him for it because I think he's paid his dues. Not only is the poor guy dead, but he's had thirteen years of practical torture. He's done his time. With James...I don't know, I just don't like him. He's a prat. Yes, he sacrificed himself for his wife and child, but then, Narcissa is prepared to do anything for her son too. Doesn't mean we have to like her. Horrible people sometimes do heroic things. It doesn't mean we have to like them, it just means that maybe we should have some level of respect for the inherent goodness that must be there somewhere. No character embodies that philiosophy more than Snape does.

He's not a nice guy, no - but that doesn't mean he isn't capable of doing heroic things...like standing in front of the kids as an automatic reaction in PoA. Whether that was the director's influence, or whether is was Alan's own input, I can only guess. I know that Alan does like to enhance his characters - Hans Gruber was totally Alan, from the suit to the fake-American accent. Die Hard wouldn't have been the same without him.

He is a monumentally talented man and I can't think of anyone else who could possibly have done Snape justice as he has. Has he coloured my perception of Snape? Probably. But I prefer to see it as Alan bringing out the side of Snape that is hidden in hints and subtext beyond what, perhaps, JKR wants us to see.



That is a very, very interesting question and one I would love to explore in a more appropriate thread For the moment, suffice it to say that perhaps James and Sirius didn't bully anyone else the way they bullied Snape?

I think this is key to Snape's character analysis. Given a very biased view of who Snape is through the eyes of life-long enemies just doesn't seem quite right. We like Sirius (for the most part) because we get to see him interact, we get to see his emotional response to Harry and even to Snape (which still isn't pretty, even though he seemed regretful (mildly) of the way he treated him in school). If I were to base my opinion of Sirius on the way he treated Snape, and only on that, then I probably wouldn't like him. As it is, we see Snape's interactions (until Spinner's End, where I believe he has to put on an act of disdain for those interested parties) with Harry and with the people Harry care about. We rarely get a glimpse of Snape outside of this view; so our view is bound to be a little skewed by it.

I kind of think along these lines with James, as well. We see a very idealized version of him through Harry's eyes and we see a highly critical interpretation of him through Snape's eyes. Even Lupin and Sirius, understandably, focus on the positives, and perhaps even the hyperbole of James' greatness. It took Harry's anger to make them admit that James wasn't perfect; but we sometimes fail to see that Snape wasn't innocent in that arena either. I don't know; I am less likely to form much of an actual opinion on James because we do not see any of his actual interactions with anyone.

Rickman's performance as Snape, on the whole, adds another layer to the character. Perhaps I now read the books with his voice and movement in mind; but on the whole-the character is Snape and the actor is Rickman. Like Laurette said, the two remain seperate. Book Snape and Movie Snape. There are definate differences. I think it became that way for me with the movies as a whole. The book telling of Harry Potter and the film telling of Harry Potter. Of course, the book is the accurate medium, so I trust in it and in it's portrayal as the accurate Snape. But Rickman is delicious to watch, isn't he?

Louise, what about the Marauders thread in the GH? We might get away with it thanks to David's last list item:


Anyways, about Alan's chat with Jo about Snape's character. (I don't know who I'm jealous of there...)


That's true. Thinking about the other teachers, we haven't really seen them hate him. My memory of the books is a little shaky at the moment, but I know I was always struck by the other teachers' and adults' neutral view of him. It jarred against Harry's dislike, and it's something I remember noticing a very long time ago, long before HBP. Perhaps even before I was old enough to appreciate his character as much as I do now.

(To my utter amazement I have just realised that I started reading Harry Potter when I was 13. Being a good third below the average age of the discussion will probably make this sound silly, but I was tiny then! My favourite reading spot was in a tree! )

Moving on, perhaps that is why Alan's Snape isn't so downright cruel - because the movies aren't told through Harry's eyes. We see what's really happening, and not a coloured version. That's a very interesting difference between the two media, and I agree that the answer could lie there.

Bringing Alan into it, I'm hesitant to give his performance too much weight in terms of judging the character, but if you keep in mind that he has spoken to Jo, perhaps it could indicate that Snape is sunstantially less unreasonable than Harry perceives him. Or, Alan's Snape could be a way of bringing across something in the stead of the constant reassurances we have in the books of Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore. (Which of course becomes very important later on!)

In translating the books to screen, that could well be a part that gets lost, and Alan could be compensating for that by making the audience believe in him by way of a more sympathetic performance.

Absolutley correct. :3 Just like with any book from a characters perspective there are certain characteristic prejudices.

In this situation- perhaps it's deep rooted resentment influenced by James' behavior upon Snape when they were adolecents that makes Harry feel so hostile toward Severus and vice versa. But that's to be expected since it is Harry's perspective.

I agree that the movies put Snape into a new view. It also puts the entire circumstance into a bigger picture sort of perspective, that makes Snape not only a multidimensional character but also more realistic one. With the movies there is less of Harry's point of view than the book and therefore less of his personal bias and a more neutral (although that's subjective) observance.

Now, as for wether or not Alan Rickman has blinded me in regards to Snape? Yes. He's- to me- the perfect Snape. (Give or take a little in the appearance department.) I found Snape being a character I could identify with in many of my own ways. But I only could see these ways once Alan portrayed Severus on the big screen. And I assume since Snape is such a very important character and Alan has spoken with Jo the way Severus is played on the screen is appropriate and also intended. I'm sure Jo didn't just say, "Wing it." I'm sure it was well thought out. Besides being able to act out Snape there was probably more freedom of expressions or tones of voices that couldn't be expressed precisely in the book but could on camera.

When I read the book now, I automatically imagine Snape as Rickman but of course with obvious little attributes only found in the book. But that's ok.

Alan, unlike many of the other characters, (except McGonagall and the original actor of Dumbledorle- and for that matter even Hagrid) has completley become his character. I'm sure without Rickman my Snape wouldn't be quite so distinguished. And I like that. It's a good thing he's nailed Severus so square on the head. Otherwise I might not enjoy the movies quite as much.

Way to go Alan. xD

I think Rickman's Snape is more likable than JKR's book version. Maybe because I like his voice. The book version isn't very nice and never misses a chance to prove it. I can see him killing Prof. Dumbledore and being a traitor but not the movie Snape. He appears strict but not that unlikeable.

Thank you Capricorn for bringing this up. You may be onto something there when you say that the books being narrated in third person from Harry's point of view would have played a role in categorizing instances and characters the way Harry perceives them and that they may not necessarily be the same. If Snapes' portrayal in the books may be conceived as coloured because of being viewed through Harry's perception, I would just like to ask that is it fair on the part of all the Snape apologists to brand James Potter as a big-headed prat who never grew up and was chiefly responsible for Snape turning out the way he is today. I mean the it was Snapes' memory that Harry saw in the pensieve and if Harry's perception can makes things coloured, would you even consider that Snapes' memory could have been clouded and influenced by the way HE PERCEIVED James? Like the question I put up previously, why is it that Snape is the ONLY ONE EVER to have something bad to say about James? On the basis of one man's opinion and a possibly clouded memory, many have chosen to form a biased view of a dead man? I guess I'll take this up in the Marauders thread in the great hall as well. It's time someone stood up for James Potter against Snape.

On the basis of one memory, James Potter was condemned to be prat, but hey Snape has been treating Harry and the rest of the school save for his own lot with derision, contempt and despise and all that people can come up with if that he's just playing his part? This is precisely the reason why I feel that Alan Rickman's portrayal has played a major role in building up Snape fan-base. I know a lot of hearts will be broken if at all Snape turns out to be guilty in the final book, but at the same time there will be many who'll be relieved if the greaseball gets his life snuffed preferably at the hands of Harry.

Louise regarding your assertion, the rest of the school may not like Slytherins, but have you seen their heads of houses treat Slytherins with anything but fairness? McGonagall has never displayed any favoritism to her house save for helping Harry get on to the team in the first year and getting him a broomstick. I have never seen Flitwick, Sprout or Pomphery display any neglect in teaching or healing the Slytherins. If those teachers cannot be but fair, why can't Snape. If the argument is that he's watching his flock and has to be "in character", then perhaps any lot that requires such characterization itself is rotten and deserves all contempt.

Just because Rickman played Snape the way he does, does not automatically redeem Snape. Gambon has messed up Dumbledore in movie 4, so should one start perceiving Dumbledore the way he does, outlandish and hyper?

Lets see what the final book brings along with it

The fact that we are seeing Professor Snape from Harry's eyes in the books is precisely what I was speaking of earlier. The movies give us a perception on how he would be normally.



I think a memory and perception are two different things. Two people can have the same memory as each other and perceive it differently. That doesn't alter the memory; it just alters the persons feelings for it.

I honestly don't see how Professor Snape could have altered it that much to make James look like a git. James seemed to be doing a wonderful job of that on his own. I'm not anti James or anything, but lets face it; he was very cruel when he was a student and cocky and arrogant. I mean, he was a rich kid, only child to older people. I'm sure he was well doted on. Severus just happened to be the person he didn't like and had no problem retaliating against.

No wonder he didn't like Harry. He was afraid the apple didn't fall too far from the tree.

I am still going to stick to my theory that Alan knows more than meets the eye and is portraying him in preperation for the future movies.