Performance in the Cinema of Hal Hartley
Powered By Xquantum

Performance in the Cinema of Hal Hartley By Steven Rawle

Read
image Next

This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.

15. Jeff Rigsby, “No Such Thing”, Flak Magazine, 2002, http://www.flakmag.com/film/nosuchthing.html.
16. David Litton, “No Such Thing”, Movie Eye, 2002, http://www.movieeye.com/reviews/get_movie_review/614.html.
17. Thierry Jousse, “Love and Punishment”, trans. Sébastien Walliez, Cahiers du Cinéma, no. 474 (1993): 74–75.
18. See Geoff Andrew, Stranger than Paradise: Maverick Film-makers in Recent American Cinema (London: Prion, 1998), 279–312.; Emanuel Levy, Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film (New York: New York University Press, 1999), 191–197; Greg Merritt, Celluloid Mavericks (New York: Thunder’s Mouth, 2000), 324, 361, 421; Hartley is also discussed throughout in his production and distribution context in John Pierson, Spike, Mike, Slackers & Dykes: A Guided Tour Across a Decade of Independent American Cinema (London: Faber & Faber, 1995), and in Geoff King, Independent American Cinema (London: IB Tauris, 2005).
19. From his first college short films until 1999, all of Hartley’s films were shot by Michael Spiller. Since Spiller has moved into direction himself in television, Hartley has worked with several cinematographers, including Jim Denault on The Book of Life, and Sarah Cawley on The Girl from Monday and Fay Grim. The shift in style has partly been motivated by a change to working digitally, but the contribution of Spiller to the development of a distinctive Hartley visual style is immeasurable, given their long-term collaboration, and the unity of style in the films they produced together.
20. John O. Thompson, “Screen Acting and the Commutation Test”, Screen 19, no. 2 (1978): 55. Thompson’s commutation test, a process of substituting one actor for another in text, has been criticised for actually overshadowing the material practices of screen performance “because his substitutions operate only at the level of the whole actor”; See Paul McDonald, “Why Study Film Acting? Some Opening Reflections”, in More than a Method: Trends and Traditions in Contemporary Film Performance, ed. Cynthia Baron, Diane Carson, and Frank P. Tomasulo (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2004), 26. McDonald’s reworking of the commutation test attempts to effectively put the acting back into the analysis, whereas Thompson’s work had assumed the actor as a stable set of meanings, rather than a material string of gestural and aural signs.
21. Alan Lovell and Peter Krämer, eds., Screen Acting (London: Routledge, 1999), 5.
22. James Naremore, Acting in the Cinema (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994), 20.