Performance in the Cinema of Hal Hartley
Powered By Xquantum

Performance in the Cinema of Hal Hartley By Steven Rawle

Read
image Next
23. Naremore also stresses (ibid.) that “all acting has a biological dimension”.
24. Adrienne L. McLean, “Feeling and the Filmed Body: Judy Garland and the Kinesics of Suffering”, Film Quarterly 55, no. 3 (2002): 14, emphasis added.
25. Steven Shaviro, The Cinematic Body (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), 256.
26. Ibid., 267.
27. Thomas Austin, “Star Performances”, in Contemporary Hollywood Stardom, ed. Thomas Austin and Martin Barker (London: Arnold, 2003), 103.
28. Richard Dyer, Stars, 2nd ed. (London: BFI, 1998), 132–150; Richard de Cordova, Picture Personalities: The Emergence of the Star System in America (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990), 23–46; P. David Marshall, Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 86–89, 94–99.
29. McDonald, “Why Study Film Acting?” 39.
30. Cynthia Baron and Sharon Marie Carnicke, Reframing Screen Performance (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008), 59, 92, 232, 234. Baron and Carnicke identify this trend almost exclusively with Christian Metz and his work in Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema, trans. Michael Taylor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).
31. McDonald, “Why Study Film Acting?” 39.
32. Baron and Carnicke, Reframing Screen Performance, 17; italics in original.
33. Ibid., 232–233.
34. Andrew Klevan, Film Performance: From Achievement to Appreciation (London: Wallflower, 2005), 103.
35. Lesley Stern and George Kouvaros, Falling for You: Essays on Cinema and Performance (Sydney: Power, 1999), 3. See also Cynthia Baron and Diane Carson “Analyzing Performance and Meaning in Film”, Journal of Film and Video 58, no. 1 (2006): 3–6; this is the introduction to a special issue of the Journal of Film and Video on performance.
36. Klevan, Film Performance, 15–17; Stern and Kouvaros, Falling for You, 10–20.
37. Philip Drake, “Reconceptualizing Screen Performance”, Journal of Film and Video 58, no. 1 (2006): 86.
38. Ibid., 85.
39. Ibid., 86; italics in original. The paradoxical presence/absence of the actor has long been a blockage to the understanding of film performance. As long ago as 1936, Walter Benjamin contended that the film actor was “absent” on-screen and, “for the first time”, the actor functions without “aura”, an authenticity that he contended be replicated in mechanical reproduction; see Benjamin, Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt (London: Pimlico, 1999), 223. Baron and Carnicke go further than describing this as a “blockage”, when they contend that Benjamin’s essay “effectively discouraged future scholarship on screen acting” (Reframing Screen Performance, 3).