tion as involving behaviour. At its simplest, this concept o f human behaviour signifies the transportation o f everyday existence into a theatrical realm. Whatever the form o f human exchange, it essentially concerns the notion o f a performer’s communicating with an audi ence. Therefore, at its most sophisticated, we have a form o f film and theatre acting which is an art dedicated to “the systematic ostenta tious depiction o f character, or to what seven teenth century England described as ‘per sonation’ ”.8 In the wake o f certain film theo rists like John Ellis, Naremore sees filmed performance as being structured by the socalled “photo effect”, which is a delicate ten sion between preservation and loss, presence and absence. The author’s treatment o f film acting incor porates the by-now-familiar triple articula tion which lists the three most important de termining factors in shaping stardom as: (a) the ‘real’ person o f the actor; (b) the persona which is constructed about stars through publicity and their association with certain types created by the system o f genres; and (c) their particular parts within individual films. In other words, the star is an amalgam o f actor, part and persona as mediated through genre. Naremore examines seven legendary stars and all point to the same phenomenon o f cultural and textual dynamics: their names circulate through publicity, everyday language and biography; each one o f them represents an ideolect: that is to say, a set o f performing attributes that is systematically underlined in movies and sometimes copied by impression ists like Rupert Pupkin (Robert De Niro) in The K in g o f Comedy. I f we see a film as centr ing on the issues, fame, celebrity and myth, then we need to ask ourselves the following questions:Where does the actor end and the character begin? How much does perform ance ‘writes’ the character? And, How much is performance an illusion created by our fasci nation with actors and celebrity? Some o f us may even believe that actors do write or con struct the movies in which they appear. To cite Joe Gillis (William Holden) in Sunset B oulevard (1950): “People don’t know that somebody actually writes the picture. They think actors make it up as they go along.”9 But even if they do make some contribution to the construc tion o f characters in a movie, asks Naremore, how do we recognize their work ifit is grounded in their own bodies? To echo the author’s ref erence to Yeats, how7 do wo separate the dancer from the dance? Finally, I wish to examine briefly how the author skilfully anatomizes Cary Grant’s per formance o f self-reflexive understatement in N orth by N orthw est { 1959). Naremore treats the movie as a complex text o f delicately orchestrated performative dynamics highlight ing Grant’s star persona as one o f Holly wood’s most glamorous and sophisticated lovers since the early Thirties, when he ap peared in several Mae West mo\ies. What we encounter in this particularly fecund reading o f Grant’s performance, in terms o f his par ticular good looks, brilliant light comedy timing skills and highly recognizable iconic
traits, is the central concept o f the star as spectacle. In the overall economy o f the movie, w7e are shown how Grant’s star image is based on his tremendous talent for verbal and physi cal agility. Grant w7as cinema’s enduring per sonification o f elegance, wit and sophistica tion. What we notice in Naremore’s account o f Grant’s precisely timed minimalist acting style is the author’s spectatorial delight in experiencing the playful self-reflexive dialectic between Grant’s supple body, dapper clothes and his celebrated persona o f a Hollywood matinee idol who aged gracefully and was always known for his relaxed assured screen performances. What motivates this particu larly fine negotiation o f Grant’s dexterous performance in N orth By Northwest is Nar emore’s sharp feel for Grant’s Kuleshovian style o f acting. Grant is more concerned with mechanics than with feeling. Everything for this actor depended on athletic skill, timing and the awesome capability o f mastering small, isolated reactions. Hitchcock understood this clearly. Grant’s performance is structured on the actor’s unsurpassed ability to comprehend classical film rhetoric. Naremore is especially good on delineating how Grant’s performa tive skills rely on his ability to run, walk, climb, and execute everyday actions in a graceful manner. Above all, the movie’s visual dy namic, cultural codes and rhythm have been
66
C
N E M A
P
A
P
E
R
S
7 5
shaped by Grant’s performance o f clearly defined and perfectly executed uncomplicated small actions. It is a performance typical of Grant, in that it celebrated a contagious zest for life. You just know that Grant had fun in making N orth By Northwest. It is as clear as the three faces chiselled in the side o f Mount Rushmore. The last words shall go to David Thomson: “It is only natural that his very best works - his most complex, amusing, but un settling pictures - are both studies in Holly wood fun, and in the particular delight there is (or was) in making films.”10 NOTES
1. Richard De Cordova, “Genre and Performance: An Overview”, in Barn7 Keith Grant (ed.), Film Genre Reader, Austin, The University of Texas Press, 1988, pp.129-139. 2. ibid., p.129. 3. James Naremore, Acting in the Cinema, Uni versity of California Press, Berkeley, 1988, hb, rrp $47.95. 4. Stephen Heath, Questions of Cinema, Bloom ington, Indiana University, 1981, p.183. 5. Naremore, op cit., p.2. 6. ibid., p.2. 7. Alfred Hitchcock, “Direction”, (1 937) quoted in Naremore, p.34. 8. Naremore, ibid., p.23. 9. ibid., p.157. 10. David Thomson, “Charms and the Man”, Film Comment, Feb. 1984, p.64.