Actors - a response

Attempting to find internal motivation that arises from some inner depth that will conceive the character is a thing relegated to the stage. Cinema is a surface phenomenon. The flat images are projected to a screen. On stage, in the movies, Shakespearean, or method acting, is attempting to bring life to words. Words have to be recited. The direction is from the “interior” to “exterior.” Images capture the external. It is through the surface of things that an internal exploration needs to be made. The approach to cinema is in opposition to a theatrical approach. The actor that remains still can, in the hands of the filmmaker that sees her film, evoke a real character. It isn’t emotions that need to be evoked. It is life. The actor as an object comes to life in relation with the material objects of the film world.

The Actor

"An actor in cinematography might as well be in a foreign country. He does not speak its language." Robert Bresson, Notes on the Cinematographer -

What is the role of the actor in cinema?

Art of the Cinematographer

When Bresson published his book, Notes on the Cinematographer, he set in simple terms new cinematic codes that attempted to extricate cinema from its theatrical prison and create a new paradigm for cinematic writing that saw not a technology that used theatrical concepts to reproduce cinematic texts but a unique form that can create like no other artistic form. Indelibly, Hollywood and the present commercial state of cinema has so clouded such concepts that it seems almost a futile attempt to envision his possibilities. Yet, as a Quixotic venture, I am starting this blog to engage in such a discussion that will not only bring people of similar mind but those interested in pursuing a discussion that will bear fruitful conversations as well as aide us in understanding the possibilities of this medium. I look forward to read and engage with all who wish to contribute.