FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1974982416> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1974982416 endingPage "211" @default.
• W1974982416 startingPage "201" @default.
• W1974982416 abstract "The Actor’s Nature in Mise-en-scène:Chekhovian Kinesthesia and Cinematic Performance Ian Dixon (bio) What is the nature of cinema? What is it about what has been called the “actor’s nature” that makes such a vital contribution to the art of film? And what opportunities, otherwise discouraged, does the actor’s nature offer for filmic expression, for the enrichment of its mise-en-scène?1 In this talk, I will not so much give answers to such questions as suggest ideas and approaches, which are at times speculative and creative and at other times experiential and inter-disciplinary. I will cross-pollinate theories from acting gurus, screenwriting experts, filmmakers, and cinema theorists alike. I will also consider the nature of the actor propelled into the territory of the writer-director through the discoveries of theatre and film. Overall, my project challenges a great deal about divisive academic disciplinarity, instead concentrating on connectivity. To work toward that end, I shall concentrate on two truly gifted actors who have already bridged this gap from interpretive to primary artist, from actor to writer to director. For a principal source, I turn to Russian theatre practitioner, Michael Chekhov (1891–1955); to a lesser extent, I turn for illustration to a man whom Raymond Carney calls the “spiritual father of American independent filmmaking” himself, John Cassavetes (1929–1989) (On Cassavetes 527). Before going much further, allow me to frame a series of questions for our consideration today: 1. What is the actor’s nature? 2. How does the actor’s nature express itself? 3. What opportunities does the expression of the actor’s nature offer the director? 4. What imperatives underlie the commercial screenplay? 5. How is Chekhov’s approach to writing based on the actor’s nature? 6. What five points best constitute Chekhov’s acting theory? 7. How is the screenwriter and director affected by the actor’s nature? 8. What conclusions may we draw? [End Page 201] 1. What is the actor’s nature? To begin, how do we define the nature of this beast known as cinema, which is already prismatic and draws from interdisciplinary art-forms—this cinema, which is so mechanised and manipulated it could hardly be said to have a nature all? Does it come down to the nature of individual artists in a structuralist, auteurist, or even solipsistic argument? Or is there a methodology for assessing the core of the filmmaking experience in the qualitative terms of action research? Perhaps we might discover it by musing on what it could be. Let us say we start with the actor’s nature as a fundamental creative link in the chain of filmmaking. To the industry outsider, it might seem that actors are respected members of filmmaking teams. However, the practical reality is that actors are not necessarily trusted by directors or even writers, and directors don’t necessarily know what to do with actors, often unwittingly damaging the actor’s process. Yet, if actors were not only trusted but viewed as vital tools within the mise-en-scène, the result could enhance not only the on-screen performances of actors but the quality of films overall. For a definition of nature, I reach, somewhat laterally, to the profound illuminations of Chekhov’s actual theatre. Chekhov believes that genuine actors possess a nature that allows them to inhabit the internal process of performance regardless of their ability to articulate it. According to Morris Carnovsky of the Group Theatre, Chekhov knew the actor’s nature better than any other theorist, including his teacher and mentor, Constantin Stanislavsky (Byckling). Chekhov suggests that brilliant actors draw on their “soul” in performance. By contrast, the ungifted actor “has no ‘how’ in his soul” (Lessons 140), meaning that ungifted actors are unable to perform truthfully and that their articulations about the craft are, therefore, useless. For Chekhov, himself a brilliant actor—you might remember him from such films as Hitchcock’s Spellbound (1945) or Ben Hecht’s Spectre of the Rose (1946)—gifted performers achieve access to a “higher-level I.” This concept is an amalgam of actor and character that, when achieved, causes a flood of insight..." @default.
• W1974982416 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1974982416 creator A5060938200 @default.
• W1974982416 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W1974982416 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W1974982416 title "The Actor’s Nature in Mise-en-scène: Chekhovian Kinesthesia and Cinematic Performance" @default.
• W1974982416 cites W2798076827 @default.
• W1974982416 cites W2798740684 @default.
• W1974982416 cites W2802642309 @default.
• W1974982416 cites W49480811 @default.
• W1974982416 cites W562522175 @default.
• W1974982416 cites W573704529 @default.
• W1974982416 cites W589425664 @default.
• W1974982416 cites W601596693 @default.
• W1974982416 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/cea.2013.0030" @default.
• W1974982416 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W1974982416 type Work @default.
• W1974982416 sameAs 1974982416 @default.
• W1974982416 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1974982416 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1974982416 hasAuthorship W1974982416A5060938200 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConcept C153349607 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConcept C519580073 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConcept C68389820 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConcept C8795937 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConceptScore W1974982416C107038049 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConceptScore W1974982416C142362112 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConceptScore W1974982416C144024400 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConceptScore W1974982416C153349607 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConceptScore W1974982416C29595303 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConceptScore W1974982416C36289849 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConceptScore W1974982416C519580073 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConceptScore W1974982416C68389820 @default.
• W1974982416 hasConceptScore W1974982416C8795937 @default.
• W1974982416 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1974982416 hasLocation W19749824161 @default.
• W1974982416 hasOpenAccess W1974982416 @default.
• W1974982416 hasPrimaryLocation W19749824161 @default.
• W1974982416 hasRelatedWork W1508514209 @default.
• W1974982416 hasRelatedWork W1518488286 @default.
• W1974982416 hasRelatedWork W2045290722 @default.
• W1974982416 hasRelatedWork W2296583388 @default.
• W1974982416 hasRelatedWork W237587127 @default.
• W1974982416 hasRelatedWork W2765594478 @default.
• W1974982416 hasRelatedWork W2767483380 @default.
• W1974982416 hasRelatedWork W3095215287 @default.
• W1974982416 hasRelatedWork W3176708672 @default.
• W1974982416 hasRelatedWork W4361275158 @default.
• W1974982416 hasVolume "75" @default.
• W1974982416 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1974982416 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1974982416 magId "1974982416" @default.
• W1974982416 workType "article" @default.