1

Why Study Film Act

Some Opening Reflections
Paul McDonald

Since the early days of cinema,

cination with capturing the hum
ema, this preoccupation is wi
between actor and character. G
actor throughout film history,
scholarship has not undertaken
the contribution of acting to f
central is the signification of th
cinema that it is debatable if f
tory understanding of the me
attention to screen performanc
The absence of acting ana
scholarship cannot be explaine
neglect. Rather, this situation h
oped an intellectual agenda wi
encouraged a disregard for actin
the pioneering film theorists
Perkins describes as the "twin
(17). With the image, "the deco
space was given precedence ove
Montage was valued for how m
filmic materiality of shot tran
Kuleshov shot two scenes, one
cell door and a second where th
ing a bowl of soup. Kuleshov
actor responding to these circum
"intra-shot montage" (193). Kuleshov remained rather unclear about
what he meant by this but seemed to suggest that the actor's action
contributed to the plays of rhythms internal to any shot. Potentially,
this insight may have provided a point for opening out onto a wider
consideration of the specific work of the actor on film, yet Kuleshov
continued to regard the significance of the actor as subservient to
the general rhythm of montage segments. For the pioneering formal
ists, it was film that produced meaning, not the actor.
Auteurist analysis also submerged the signification of the
actor under the authority of the director. While the auteur-struc
turalist variation on the debate raised some questions about reading
films as the statements of solitary expressive individualists, still the
director remained at the center of analysis. For Peter Wollen, the
auteur theory would find certain films "indecipherable because of
'noise' from the producer, the cameraman or even the actors" (104).
It was therefore understandable that when Wollen struck the
analogy between film authorship and musical performance, the
performance of the director would be of primary concern.
Following the post-structuralist challenge to authorship, act
ing and the actor were unlikely to emerge as a key area of analysis
as film studies sought to dismiss focus on the individual in the
making of film meaning. The structuralist turn in film theory
called into doubt claims for the individual creation of meaning.
While such claims could reasonably be questioned, individuals in
films still remained meaningful. Developing in this context, spec
tatorship studies saw the actor as a figure, an object to be looked at,
for a body of theory concerned with conceptualizing the abstract
category of the subject.
After the original 1979 publication of Richard Dyer's Stars,
studies of actors would appear regularly in film scholarship.
Although Dyer offered suggestions for the analysis of performance,
star studies developed in such ways that analysis became concerned

24
...................... . ..........................
!!IeSthe meanings derived from
tably into the new contexts
nges had no effect on what the
-or feeling. For Kuleshov, this
DYer performance, so that he
dUng exists in cinema.... the
'9aDt ... with good montage it
Iuleshov went on to concede
in creating meaning within the
hit effect in terms of creating
-remained rather unclear about
suggest that the actor's action
tternal to any shot. Potentially,
It for opening out onto a wider
:he actor on film, yet Kuleshov
of the actor as subservient to
Dts. For the pioneering formal
J& not the actor.
lied the signification of the
1ICtOr. While the auteur-struc
. .me questions about reading
n:ssive individualists, still the
talysis. For Peter Wollen, the
IS "indecipherable because of
!D3Il or even the actors" (104).
lit when Wollen struck the
d musical performance, the
of primary concern.
cballenge to authorship, act
age as a key area of analysis
::us on the individual in the
turalist turn in film theory
lvidual creation of meaning.
Je questioned, individuals in
:loping in this context, spec
Ire, an object to be looked at,
conceptualizing the abstract
on of Richard Dyer's Stars,
IIlarly in film scholarship.
the analysis of performance,
t analysis became concerned
with the meaning of the performe
ing of performance (that is, acting
focus on the individual on screen,
film acting did appear around th
"Screen Acting," "Beyond Comm
that time, work has appeared th
focus lfor example, Zucker; Lov
study of film performance can be
Since the decline of structu
of star studies, film scholarship
may be wondered therefore why f
be an undeveloped area of schol
this would seem to be the very c
any serious work of film analys
changed its conceptual framewo
understand the workings of the
over time. Examination of actin
task, through considering how th
and body contribute to a film's m
damental task that acting is foun
for the work of analysis.
In what stands as one of th
study of film acting, Roberta Pea
Biograph films identifies not only
in performance style but also ra
the problems and issues involv
Pearson points out, with the ges
ing the limited lexicon, digital
oppositions found in language, i
acting to work at the level of ind
would suggest there is an ine
embark on a semiotics of film ac
sive and exact analytic rigor.
Pearson's approach, instead of stu
tion of elements working togeth
calls the /I super sign," or the co
vides an important analytic foun
acknowledged, however, that a
construct, and this very impreci
study of film acting and frustrate
It is one thing to recognize t
scholarship, but it is still anoth
significant about film acting. This raises a range of basic questions.
What will count ilS significance in performance? How will we know
that significance when we see it? In taking the work of the actor to
be significant, on what terms are we judging that significance?

Diacritical Analysis of the Actor's Voice and Body

One way of progressing on the issue of significance is suggested by
John O. Thompson's application of the commutation test to film
acting. Thompson's method is to suggest that by hypothetically
substituting performers in roles, significant differences in the
meaning of the actor are made visible. Although this simple diacrit
ical exercise is undoubtedly useful, I have argued that Thompson's
application of the exercise is limited because his substitutions
operate only at the level of the whole actor (McDonald). What
Thompson does not consider is how the meaning of gestures and
vocal inflections may also result from a play of differences-and
therefore he studies the actor but not acting. In a self-critical turn,
Thompson (IlBeyond Commutation") acknowledges problems in
seeing meaning only through the effect of oppositions, for actors
work by creating "positivities"-what is rather than what is not
in performance. While this criticism would seem correct with
regard to the creative work of acting, the diacritical technique
remains a most useful tool and, if applied to a reading of the actor's
voice and body, it can be used as a starting point from which to
assess significance in a performance.
The commutation test can work through a variety of imagina
tive substitutions; however, remakes of films provide tangible
examples with which to work on a diacritical analysis of differ
ences produced entirely at the level of the actor's voice and body.
With remakes, differences are often produced by changes in mise

26
.......................... ..........................
is not alone in being neglected:
a:ed a similar fate. So merely to
'tXl sustained attention does not
~should do so now. If film acting
:t of film analysis, it must be
:::e and body can inform a larger
iIms in general. Analyzing film
ile and necessary exercise if the
:n to influence the meaning of
cting must be seen to count for
is therefore to uncover what is
Iises a range of basic questions.
IIionnance? How will we know
"taking the work of the actor to
! judging that significance?
x's Voice and Body
of significance is suggested by
1:he commutation test to film
uggest that by hypothetically
lignificant differences in the
L Although this simple diacrit
;have argued that Thompson's
ted because his substitutions
Ilole actor (McDonald). What
r the meaning of gestures and
lID a play of differences-and
t acting. In a self-critical tum,
.J acknowledges problems in
ect of oppositions, for actors
It is rather than what is not
III would seem correct with
ng, the diacritical technique
tied to a reading of the actor's
starting point from which to
through a variety of imagina
:s of films provide tangible
diacritical analysis of differ
'If the actor's voice and body.
!foduced by changes in mise-
en-scene and editing, all of wh
mances. Gus Van Sant's 1998
tional "noise/, claiming to be a
Alfred Hitchcock thriller (1960
Van Sant aimed to be as
cess as possible, producing
(Universall, on parts of the orig
six-week production schedu
sequence, and similarly ref
However, from the opening p
claim of shot-for-shot fidelity
diately appear in settings, editi
While these differences exist,
patterns, camera movement,
approximate the original. Whe
to create an exact imitation is
mances. Janet Leigh is replace
Vince Vaughn takes over from
Marion's sister Lila, original
Julianne Moore, and in the rol
Martin Balsam is replaced by W
On its release, Van Sant'
dismissal by reviewers, who ju
It is difficult to disagree with t
is not to measure the remake a
pare the two versions for how,
equal, differences in acting per
these divergences affect the m
For William Rothman, Va
"his obvious weirdness make
worth caring about would wi
with him" (30). In contrast, I fi
for precisely opposite reasons.
appearance contrast with Per
original. Against Perkins, V
Norman. Of course, it is entir
conform to conventions of reg
and Perkins's physicality fits p
described as, to borrow a term
ing"-in this case, the weird k
While Vaughn's body su
Perkins's frail frame becomes
acter who acts weird but from being presented with an actor per
forming weirdly. Vaughn laughs because Perkins laughed, whereas
Perkins laughed because someone like Norman probably would in
such a situation. This sense of derivation therefore supports Roth
man's contention that "Van Sant's actors seem to be going through
the motions, to be follOWing a bad script, to be reading lines that
do not even seem to have been written for them" (29). However,
evaluations aside, the overall impact of the change in actors may
be to create a significant change in meaning regarding the relation
ship of the killer to social normality. As Gavin Smith comments,
"Where Hitchcock's Norman is conclusively Other, Van Sant's is
one of us" (37).
Further significant differences emerge in the characterization
of Marion. When she arrives at the Bates Motel, Marion is shown
to cabin 1 by Norman. While the set is almost identical in the two
films, small differences in script and editing become apparent, as do
contrasts in how the actors use their voices and bodies. After
Norman leaves Marion's cabin, she is alone and begins to unpack
her bags before hiding the stolen money in a rolled-up newspaper.
When Heche rolls the money in the paper and places it on the bed
side table, her actions exactly follow Leigh's-it is rumored that
Van Sant used a portable DVD player on the set so the performers
and crew could copy the original.
Other acts of imitation appear throughout the remake of the
scene, but there are also just as many differences in the perfor
mance decisions made by the two actresses. After placing the suit
case on the bed, both Marions pullout a dress, which they handle
in different ways. Nothing appears significant about this difference.
However, before she hangs the dress, in both versions Marion
returns to her handbag to take out the money, and it is at this point
that the differences introduced suddenly appear significant.

28
hiding the money. Her loose swinging body indicates a sense of lib
erty involved with having the money, supplemented by a smile that,
in these circumstances, appears rather mischievous. Together the
combination of Heche/Crane's actions would all seem to suggest an
attitude of "Aha, I have the money, so where shall I hide it?"
These small differences are significant for they contribute to a
larger understanding of how Marion is characterized and to the
respective overall meanings of the two films. A similar difference
in acting occurs earlier, during the sequence in which Marion is
driving to Fairvale and imagines the voice of Tom Cassidy criticiz
ing her for planning to steal the money while, he claims, flirting
with him. Here again, Heche/Crane produces her mischievous
smile, making clear her sense of satisfaction in having duped the
lascivious male (figure 1.3). At the equivalent moment in the orig
inal, Leigh/Crane offers only the faintest hint of a smile, so faint
that it could easily be missed, and it is questionable whether it ever
even fully registers as a smile at all (figure 1.4).
Watching this same moment in Scottish artist Douglas
Gordon's 24 Hour Psycho (1993) (a gallery installation in which the
duration of Hitchcock's original 104-minute feature is stretched
over an entire 24-hour period), Leigh's smile becomes much more
obvious. Yet although slowing the temporal passage of the film
clarifies this detail, the smile seems transformed. What in the orig
inal is at best the briefest hint of a sly smile-a smile that Marion
hardly seems able to reveal to herself or the outside world
becomes a long, lingering, beaming expression of joy. This would
suggest that film duration introduces a paradox into acting analy
sis: while slowing or halting the film frame may be necessary to
precisely determine performance details, thereby resolving denota
tive issues (smile or no smile?), by modifying time, the connota
tions of any given performance moment may become radically

30
authority or excited by disrupting its power.
In this case, significance is judged in terms of how the minute
actions of the actor reveal a larger understanding of the character's
involvement with the circumstances of the narrative. If this prin
ciple .forms a basic criterion for. judging significance in film acting,
then 1t would suggest that the work of analyzing performance need
not require reading a performance for the totality of its actions but
only in key selected parts. Those parts are unlikely to involve the
analysis of even a whole scene, for it is frequently only in brief and
fleeting moments that the actor's voice or body may present some
thing of significance. Although only transitory, those moments are
nevertheless disproportionate in their impact. They are instances
that can only be detected in the minutest details of the actor's
vocal and physical actions. At these moments, the voice and body
produce micromeanings, the significance of which affects a film as
a whole.

Acting, Authenticity, and the Fracturing of

Narrative Containment
The study of film acting can gain from the authorship debate the
idea that analysis does not need to be caught up with questions of
intentionality-whether the actor did or did not consciously pro
duce those details. For the work of analysis, it does not matter how
the details got there, only that they are there and seem significant.
Whether those details can claim the status of a sign seems unlikely.
They can, however, be viewed as the product of an acting code. A
starting point for the study of film acting is therefore to analyze the
signification of the body and voice in those fragmentary moments
when the actions and gestures of the performer impart significant
meanings about the relationship of the character to the narrative
circumstances.

32
....................... . .....................
ascribes responsibility for these
letracting from the contribution
~judging the remake as simply
i,ginall Smith does not consider
ace transform the place of the
~e is the transgressive woman
Nrchal society, while Heche/
lie pleasure in her wrongdoing.
Irs conscious of her fate at the
latter is either unaware of that
"power.
ged in terms of how the minute
mderstanding of the character's
IS of the narrative. If this prin
~ significance in film acting,
analyzing performance need
:. the totality of its actions but
kts are unlikely to involve the
~is frequently only in brief and
E or body may present some
, transitory, those moments are
r.ir impact. They are instances
mutest details of the actor's
! moments, the voice and body
~ce of which affects a film as
factoring of
om the authorship debate the
Ie caught up with questions of
id or did not consciously pro
wysis, it does not matter how
Ire there and seem significant.
ltatus of a Sign seems unlikely.
: product of an acting code. A
ling is therefore to analyze the
I those fragmentary moments
: performer impart significant
the character to the narrative
It would be easy to mista
is only significant when it ca
voice of the actor into advanc
But acting may also become sig
against the preferred line of the
a performance analysis, Andy
tics in Victim (Basil Dearden,
film's tolerant but contained tr
moments when desire is unequ
At the center of this tens
the lawyer Melville Farr. Boga
gentlemanly poise found so fr
poise breaks down, however, i
ing which FarrIs wife, Laura (S
lover. When pressed by Syms
her, "I stopped seeing him be
stand, because I wanted him."
words cannot convey the stren
It is easy to see Medhurst's po
Bogarde's voice conveys a pass
in the film. He speaks with su
left side of his face and neck ca
his eyes widen the first time h
second time they narrow to c
sionate anger. In danger of so
Bogarde's performance makes
one of the subtle things that s
the actor/character's convictio
fured hair shakes as he speaks.
bination of effects gives the
Bogarde/Farr really means it [f
Such an overloading of m
and vocal actions defines wha
authenticity" in performance:
structed in media texts by the
control, lack of premeditatio
notions of the truth being beh
Is Born" 137). In terms of th
places Farr in the privacy of th
of his professional responsibil
forced to admit his hidden des
stances that make the scene
.......................
............................
1.5. Explosive emo
tionality: Bogarde
delivers Farr's
confession.
lreSSion, Bogarde's performance
ompelling emotional intensity.
mce of the moment comes in
tim's carefully tolerant project.
IeXUal desire finds, literally, its
en added significance because
haracter in the film display an
.from another brief lapse when
Mandrake, he retains the air of
IDty of his profession. The ten
I'S control and its expression of
Bogarde's performance as the
:Unt. In short, the actor's voice
f emotionality but also disrupt
reo
don
nificance of performance is in
&any theories of spectatorship
med under the determining
tt, identification with actors/
identification with the specta
.basis, as spectatorship theory
h the look and not the looked-
at. Robin Wood questions .the
mining identification, arguing
tion within a film is a delicate
be reduced simply to the mec
dealing with lithe whole spect
ings of sympathy through em
Although Wood does not consi
tion for investigating how iden
opens a space in which to con
sympathy and involvement.
Working with the examp
1946), Wood proposes a range
achieved in the film. Although
identification through a relati
allows one to consider how th
cant in constructing empatheti
to and challenge the power of
To use Wood's example,
Ingrid Bergman/Alicia Huberm
where she is greeted by a barr
foundation for the film's larger
hands of the men-Cary Gra
Sebastian, and Louis Calhem/
ning, she is placed under the i
she emerges from the courtroom
something of Alicia's respons
reporters, Bergman/Huberman
ered, until flashbulbs illumina
reporters. She raises her eyes a
direction from which the flash
mouth for a moment but does n
tightly, glances at the first repo
the second reporter, glances at
is on the end of the look but Be
the character's discomfort with
The significance of these
form of identification Wood pro
ened or victimized. Alicia may
but Bergman's performance im
as the victim of the gaze, pr
throughout the entire film's ex
Wood is correct to see the "na
 ......................
..............................
1.6. Identification
with the
victimized:
Bergman/
Huberman reacts to
the look.
I is Bergman's performance that
lit connection at this moment.
ity Wood describes as "identifi
ities of "healthiness," "natural
II'S image (311-14).
work at establishing how the
as "degrees of sympathy":
!aiDt of view, we identify with
Ie are able {are encouraged) to
r.e with them" 1306). Bergman/
"ood describes as the "female
hat reinforces patterns of male
os ... with the woman's expe
nics and motivation of which
.,.
in the scene in which Alicia
~ poisoned by Rains/Sebastian
tin/Madame Sebastian. Wood
!J an example of the construc
mc devices. Indeed, the scene
Ore-up of the poisoned coffee
d the use of subjective view
1 the position of Alicia. Then
tempts to stand after realizing
what is happening and the di
consciousness.
All these devices make t
witnessing of events in the roo
with Alicia's subjective perce
changes the distribution of kn
Alicia. The moviegoer already
so, as Wood suggests, the "firs
process whereby she catches u
involves us more and more i
Alicia comes to share the mov
come to identify with her resp
therefore be seen to progress
Wood describes as "the sharing
tual identification" produced w
and moviegoer are equivale
resulting from empathy with t
Wood reads this process
the scene is shot and edited. A
can also consider the contribu
of crossover from the objectiv
emotional identification colli
her fate. Shot scale, music, and
impact of the moment. A med
a medium shot of Konstantin
back to Bergman before a sim
toward Rains. The Kuleshov
structing meaning at this poin
looks at, and so we infer what
explain the cognitive effect of
Alicia realizing what is happ
makes the cognitive collide
exchange of shots, Bergman's
after the look at Rains/Sebasti
chair, closes her eyes, rolls h
mouth slightly trembles or qu
last only a second or two but i
combination of the scene's in
tions are achieved. The chara
the audience, thanks to Bergm
and depth of suffering Alicia is
....................... .........................
1.7. Knowledge and
emotion: Bergman{
Huberman feels
the danger.
combining of knowledge with
mov effect were as effective as
ise would suggest, then there
ifer anything at this point. She
:amera and editing would have
magined, the scene would have
liHerent emotional effect. It is
.at Alicia is arriving at knowl
:n to witness her horror at that
performance.
om this example about acting
IV. Frequently, point of view is
.. of narrative information is
angement of shots and editing.
looking, a connection encour
r:ver, Richard Maltby draws an
oint, lithe camera's position in
istance from its subject," and
edge in relation to the fiction"
~era in cinema will become
offered the moviegoer, and so
1:quently be intertwined. But
.s open enough to suggest that
: just an effect of the camera's
I script will all influence what
the moviegoer comes to know
The intonations and inflection
details of his or her facial exp
influence what we can know
particular time. We see Bergma
she realizes what we already k
back to the moviegoer an und
experiencing at that moment.
Some Conclusions
What is significant about seein
tion of point of view is how
through the cognitive effect
through the affective realm
Through Bergman/Huberman
moment of knowledge but also
realization. Analyses of point
the cognitive to the exclusion
identification is achieved not
cognitive point of view but a
tional point of view. Acting ha
both categories. By reading per
character knows and what a ch
ing develops further, it may ill
of how performances constru
deeper conceptual influence on
ies by encouraging attention t
assessing the impact of the mo
Discussing the effect of B
sion scene of Victim, Medhurs
"helpless subjectivism," sayin
cisely how or why Bogarde's d
some adequate account of film
sionistic" 131). As suggested
never become a precise sem
should not be mistaken for lac
be regarded as preventing insig
what is at issue is how to i
understanding of the contribu
struction of meaning in cine
actor's voice and body that the
of how identification works in narrative cinema. Central here is the
importance of acting's emotional impact. As suggested earlier, the
study of performance will make a valuable intervention in film
scholarship if it can encourage a greater and more intensive engage
ment with the affective impact of movies. Acting analysis will
become integral to the study of film if, through attention to the
micromeanings of the voice and body, it becomes possible to find in
the very smallest of details the most significant of moments.

NOTE
My thanks to Tamar Jeffers for offering valuable insights that helped
develop this chapter.

WORKS CITED
Dyer, Richard. "A Stax Is Born and the Construction of Authenticity."
Stardom: Industry of Desire. Ed. Christine Gledhill. London:
Routledge, 1991. 132--40.
- - . Stars. Rev. ed. London: British Film Institute, 1998.
King, Barry. "Articulating Stardom." Screen 19 (1985): 27-50.
Kuleshov, Lev. "The Principles of Montage" (1935). Kuleshov on Film. Ed.
Ron Levaco. Berkeley: U of California P, 1974. 183-95.
Lovell, Alan, and Peter Kramer, eds. Screen Acting. London: Routledge,
1999.59-74.
Maltby, Richard, Hollywood Cinema. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
McDonald, Paul. "Film Acting." The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Ed.
John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998.30-35.
Medhurst, Andy. "Victim: Text as Context. II Screen 25 (1984): 22--35.
Metz, Christian. Psychoanalysis and Cinema. Basingstoke: MacMillan,
1982.
Naremore, James. Acting in the Cinema. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988.

40
....................
Why Study Film Acting?

Impressions will cease to appear
inform a larger and substantial
ighlight just a few examples of
at through close attention to the
analyses undertaken here have
Dlining the situations of charac
IWl1ics or ideological conditions
m the attempt to draw the read-
a more complex understanding
Ittive cinema. Central here is the
PJpact. As suggested earlier, the
I valuable intervention in film
:ater and more intensive engage
If movies. Acting analysis will
1m if, through attention to the
1,-, it becomes possible to find in
It significant of moments.
Pearson, Roberta E. Eloquent Gestures: The Transformation of
Performance Style in the Griffith Biograph Films. Berkeley: U of
California P, 1992.
Perkins, Victor. Film as Film. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.
Rothman, William. "Some Thoughts on Hitchcock's Authorship." Alfred
Hitchcock: Centenary Essays. Ed. Richard Allen and S. Ishii Gonzales.
London: British Film Institute, 1999.29-42.
Smith, Adam. "So Good They Made It Twice!" Empire 116 (1999): 83.
Smith, Gavin. "Playing with Horrific Farce." Sight and Sound 9 (1999):
36-37.
Thompson, John O. "Beyond Commutation-A Reconsideration of Screen
Acting." Screen 26 (1985): 64--76.
- - . "Screen Acting and the Commutation Test." Screen 19 (1978):
55-69.
Wollen, Peter. Signs and Meanings in the Cinema. London: Seeker and
Warburg/British Film Institute, 1987.
Wood, Robin. Hitchcock's Films Revisited. London: Faber and Faber, 1989.
Zucker, Carole, ed. Making Visible the Invisible. Metuchen: Scarecrow,
1990.

ering valuable insights that helped

:Ie Construction of Authenticity."

Ed.. Christine Gledhill. London:

r.ilm Institute, 1998.

men 19 {19851: 27-50.

age" (19351. Kuleshov on Film. Ed.

na ~ 1974. 183-95.

aeen Acting. London: Routledge,

txford: Blackwell, 1995.

>x/ord Guide to Film Studies. Ed.
D. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998.30-35.
ext." Screen 25 (1984J: 22-35.
::::inema. Basingstoke: MacMillan,

Berkeley: U of California P, 1988.

41