The Actor’s Nature in Mise-en-scène : Chekhovian Kinesthesia and Cinematic Performance

Abstract

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-scene?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: