*The following investigations arose as part of a Masters dissertation in Film Studies at Trinity College Dublin and has been copyrighted by the college. It is written by the Irish Actress Diane Jennings.*
Apologies. Some of the formatting has been messed up due to its html transition. As a result the footnotes, citing sources and quotations have ALL been lost and it would take extensive reworking to redo them. No plagiarism is intended. I think the cases in which other peoples work are cited are pretty evident and a bibliography does follow, but if you would like an original copy, one can be requested from the writer at di901@hotmail.com
The Male Body In Performance for Film:
Three Ways In Which The Male Body Is Utilized In Film.
2008
By
Diane Jennings
Contents
Acknowledgements
Introduction
The Body In Performance
A Brief History
Chapter I
Marlon Brando: Embodiment - The Psychological Body
The Body as a Tool for Performance.
Chapter II
Brad Pitt: The Hollywood Ideal - The Aesthetic Body
The Male Body as Sex symbol
Chapter III
Christian Bale: Metamorphosis - The Artistic Body
The Art of the Legitimate Body
Conclusion
Works Cited
Bibliography
Web recources
Filmography
--------------------------------------
Introduction
The Body Can Be Utilized By the Actor In Three Key Ways
The craft of acting is a complex art. An actor must be able to work in any environment under any circumstances. The nature of acting is primarily the ability to portray the character to whom the actor is seeking to represent. There are a number of approaches the actor can take to achieve this, but the core tools required to do so are always the same. For the actor, they are the fundamental focus of study, which must coincide with a realistic representation of character. They are; the voice, the face, and the body.
The focus of this investigation will be on the various ways in which the body can be utilized by the actor, to benefit their performance. The material for this thesis has been sourced from three areas: literature, film and the internet. Specifically, it will examine the function of the male body in Hollywood cinema. What follows, is a close examination of the body in performance, with three case studies that each offer up a different technique and are open to different interpretations.
The female body and the male body perform under different motivations. For example, the erotic nature of the female body is less commonly concealed. The male body appeals to the male viewer on a subconscious level. The performative functions differ also. Mainstream Hollywood film characteristically sees the female body acting as an aid
or a foil to that of the male. As a result, when the female actor is preparing for her role, she must quantify her performance in relation to the male. The patriarchal ideologies which drive Hollywood cinema dictate that the female body is eternally sexual, while the male body is more keenly observed as a medium for performance.
The male body in its relationship to cinema, is complex and multifaceted. It functions under several objectives, which are typically interrelated. These objectives focus on issues such as looking like the character, moving like the character, thinking like the character and so on. The objectives are the targets of the actor. It is the actor’s job to find ways of utilizing his body, in order to achieve his objectives. The core objective - that is, the objective which the actor deems to be most important to their interpretation of the role- will differ between individuals. This is due to the personal approach of the actor in question, and the demands placed upon them. The three actors examined hereafter, operate under three separate core objectives and, henceforth, utilize the body in three different ways. These three ways encompass the main categories under which the body can be utilized in performance. They are psychologically, aesthetically and artistically.
The focus of psychological analysis is Marlon Brando. This study will investigate Brando’s use of Constantin Stanislavski’s Method system, which he uses to embody his characters. Brando’s core objective is to psychologically ‘become’ the character, thereby discovering the motivations for every gesture and movement which his body makes.
The way in which an actor can use their body to serve an aesthetic objective will be examined in relation to Brad Pitt. Pitt exemplifies the dominant Hollywood aesthetic of the body beautiful. As an actor, Pitt’s central appeal comes from casting a visually aspirational and sexually appealing performer.
The actor, Christian Bale, uses his body as a means of physical transformation. In becoming the character, he uses his talent for metamorphosis to shape and sculpt himself into the other. By viewing his body as art, he is able to completely alter its physical appearance.
Each actor uses a separate system, which is supported by the method with which they approach their physical embodiment. Ultimately however, though their objectives differ, all three share the same goal: to ‘become’ the character. Through their individual methods, they each set out to achieve as true a representation as possible. Of course, as we will see, it is necessary for the actor to take each of these objectives into account when preparing for a role. For instance, while the actor may move like the character they are embodying, if they do not look as the character should, their embodiment will be futile.
The three actors under analysis do indeed undergo elements of the approaches of their counterparts, and while the primary objectives may differ between the actors, the quest for embodiment ultimately means that they are fundamentally interdependent. Without considering the character from all angles, true embodiment can only occur by chance. While instinct is undoubtedly crucial to the actor, it is their preparation which they must always refer back to.
So, why is all this important? By looking at these three actors as case studies of the systems and practices at work today, this thesis will provide evidence of the importance of the physical body to performance in film. Furthermore, by doing so it will serve to demonstrate that the art of acting is alive, and well supported within contemporary Hollywood.
By examining the methodologies and approaches which the actors take, and by analysing the systems in practice, we will be able to conclude that the body can be utilized to the benefit of the actors performance in the three key ways previously referred to; psychologically, aesthetically and artistically.
-----------------------
The Body In Performance
A Brief History
In order to understand the three key ways in which the body is utilized for modern film performance, we must briefly look at the origins and evolutions of how it was employed on screen through its earlier incarnations.
The importance of the body in drama has been highlighted throughout history, in many works. The infamous Brazilian director, Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed, and Games for Actors and Non Actors, are arguably among the most renowned books which focus on the Actor in practice. While he has no concentrated works on the body itself, he highlights throughout his books the fundamental role which the body plays in performance. He says, “The first word of the theatrical vocabulary is the human body.” He explains that theatre is an intensely physical practice which presents to the audience a series of images. The exchange which occurs between the actor and the audience (or in the case of film, the actor and the viewer) is explained in terms of a transaction. The actor conveys to the audience the finished product of his studies on the character through the image, which translates itself through the means of the body. “We have, before all else, a body - before we have a name, we inhabit a body!” Boal says that the image, which is translated through the medium of the body, is the most revealing method of expression as it is the most transparent. Unlike with words and expressions, the actions and aesthetics of the body cannot be so readily falsified. Boal explains that the human body in performance, acts as a tool for representing the feelings, ideas, and relationships which must be expressed to the spectator. This is because the body is the primary image presented to them.
The Russian director, Constantin Stanislavski - whose method system will be examined in greater detail in relation to the work of Marlon Brando - also focused on the magnitude of the body in performance. Long after the method system had become a renowned theatrical practice, Stanislavski realised the importance of a specifically focused study of the body and its functions, in relation to performance. He developed a new system, known as The Method of Physical Action. This technique highlights the significance of physicality and action independent from the psychological processes which motivate the performance. The system itself, though relatively straightforward in nature, had substantial repercussions. Central to its hypothesis is the concept that the only thing an actor can actually command full control over, is his body. He believed that while conveying emotions was at best the result of a thoroughly practiced technique, the body could be used instinctively. Effectively doing so, however, could only be the result of intensive training and experience, of course. It was at this point that Stanislavski came to the conclusion that doing, was more effective then studying. The methods of observing and practicing would be more effective to this new technique then reading literature on the subject would be. He believed that psychological realism and emotional truth, could only be achieved through a specific control of the physical body.
In terms of the body in film, the first film footage in recorded history, was shot by Louis Aimé Augustin Le Prince. Entitled Roundhay Garden Scene Le Prince used the prototype single-lens camera which he had designed in 1888. Shot in a garden at the Whitley estate in Leeds, Yorkshire, it features members of his family walking in a circle. The length and content of this two- second film do not allow for the group to be called actors in the strictest sense, given that they have neither a script, nor any time for character development. They are, however, the first cinematic players, as a result of the evident direction given to them by Le Prince. The archetype shows that the players must stay within the parameters set out by the frame of the lens. This restricts the space in which the players can physically present their interpretations of Augustin’s instruction. Wide, long, static shots were most commonly used in early film, highlighting the body as a whole, un-fractured by close ups. It was believed that this framing allowed the audience the greatest scope of action. The set up of scenes resembled a theatre stage, and so from the perspective of the performer, the camera essentially took the place of the audience. As a result, it was necessary for the performer to ‘cheat’ their body towards the camera lens, in order that the viewer could see their actions.
By the time of Edwin S. Porter’s first narrative film, The Great Train Robbery in 1903, the actors used were predictably from theatrical backgrounds. This was due to the fact that when casting for an actor for the new medium of film, theatre was the most logical place to look. As a result, the early days of cinematic performance drew direct parallels between theatre and film. The style of acting presented by the performers, corresponded to their theatrical training, and the traditional performance techniques which had been established in theatre. The body was a key tool in theatre, as it allowed the internal dialogue of the actors to be viewed externally from the perspective of the audience. For this reason, movements were broad and dramatic in early cinema.
An added dramatic element was the absence of spoken dialogue in early cinema, prior to the 1920‘s. A series of compensatory techniques were employed to replace the lack of sound in order that the viewer would be able to understand what was going on. The motion of the body was key to this understanding. The actors had a difficult task in their role of conveying a character without spoken dialogue. Performing in silent movies was to prove to be an extremely complex task. The camera could only be used for a number of minutes at any one time, before its power would run out. As a result there was no room for mistakes. Actors were required to get their performance right the first time. If something went wrong, they were required to improvise to mask their mistake. Grand dramatic gestures were required to express unequivocally the action which was unfolding. The actors were also required to express outwardly what the character was feeling inwardly. In most instances the actors were restricted to relying on imitation rather then interpretation. There could be no ambiguity as to their intent in their actions. There was no room for audience analysis, or artistic interpretation. The old silent film actors differed from our actors of today in that they did not strive to paint a canvas of multifaceted emotions. They had one clear emotion and it was their job to ensure that the audience were able to identify this through their actions. In this way, early film performance could be quite restrictive in terms of artistry. The difference between the successful silent film actors who are remembered today and those who are not, is that the resilient stars were able to bring something unique to their character in spite of their apparent limitations. As a result of this, the body movements were not natural, but rather distinctive. It is this key difference which can make the performances seem campish to a contemporary audience who are more accustomed to the subtleties of performance seen in modern cinema.
To the contemporary audiences of today, silent film actors might be considered to be overacting. This factor has contributed to the more sustainable, widespread appeal of the silent comedy over the silent drama. In comedy, the body was used to major effect. Without dialogue, the comedians would throw themselves about and employ slapstick humour for laughs. The male body is typically associated with comedy, while the female body is usually connected to tragedy. This also goes a long way toward explaining why comedic male silent film actors, such as Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton, are most acknowledged by mainstream audiences today. Female silent film actors predominantly played straighter characters in comedies, or tragic characters in more serious films.
The overtly grand gestures of the body seen in silent film, were challenged by D.W. Griffith who favoured Naturalism, in the early twentieth century. Through a series of short films and an extensive rehearsal period, Griffith honed his craft and experimented with his use of actors on screen. His unconventional approach was in stark contrast to the typical set up of the actor, director film practices. Up to this point, rehearsal for film actors was deemed largely redundant. This was due a number of factors which included the fact that film was not shot in sequence. Film was also shot in comparatively short scenes compared with the uninterrupted flow of a stage show. As a result, it was believed that film did not allow for the actor to have done much character development in the same way that they could for theatre. Directors would simply get their actors on set and instruct them through the scenes as they were shot. Griffith set aside six weeks to prepare his actors for his most renowned film The Birth Of A Nation (1915). As a result, when it came to filming, Griffith was confident enough to employ a series of close -ups when filming. These close-ups allowed the actors a new, more subtle approach to performance. It was no longer all down to the body, to express the scenario. The intimacy which the closeness of the tight shot created, allowed the audience to interpret emotions by means of the face, as opposed to just the body. Suddenly, therefore, the actor did not have to use grand gestures so the audience at the back of the cinema could see. They could express themselves through their eyes. When edited alongside a long shot, the close-up had an added value compared with the stoic set-up of the cinematic frame to date. In this way, the film actor was finally able to establish himself as an artist in his own right. The film actor and the theatre actor were now no longer one and the same, as they could employ different techniques. This simple modification of frame changed the landscape of the film, and led on to the naturalistic style of cinema which exists today. It is for this reason, that Griffith became known as one of the first actor’s directors, and the father of film.
The Naturalistic performances favoured by the American audience, were challenged in Europe in the 1920’s by a contrasting art form known as Expressionism. This new movement baffled the American critics who, initially, did not know how to interpret it. The Expressionist movement originated in Dresden, Germany in 1905 with a group known as “The Bridge” (“Die Brucke“) . The goal of Expressionism was to create a new form of artistic representation through which the artist could convey their message. In essence, Expressionism was the opposite of Impressionism, the style which the American‘s in particular had become accustomed to. It saw a return to the dramatic physical body. Impressionism focused upon giving the outward impression of an object in its most natural state. Expressionism dealt with transmitting the true emotional state of the art work from its core, and disregarded the focus on making it appear how it traditionally should look. Expressionism did not look, nor was it meant to look, realistic. The style of expressionism, was spontaneous, dramatic and interpretive. As a result, it was a far cry from the naturalism favoured in more traditional art. The expressionistic style began its manifestation through art forms such as painting, sculpture, architecture and literature. By the time it had found its way into film in the 1920’s, in Robert Wiene’s The Cabinet Of Dr Caligari, expressionism had a distinct style all of its own. Expressionism’s inimitability lies in its distinctive stylisation.
The aesthetics of expressionism were key to its individuality. Sets, costumes and dramatic make-up were designed to exemplify the internal emotions of the characters set within them. As a result, the subtlety of the face was replaced with the dramatic movement of the body. The core of expressionism was its basis of a unique mise-en-scene. Its imagery fashioned a dark Gothicism unique to the genre. Stark shadows in amalgamation with chiaroscuro lighting, were aided by the black and white colour of the film. Hard angles and abstract set design, alongside heavy manipulation of perspective were aided by tilting the camera, which helped gain a more distorted angular shot. This helped create an atmosphere of macabre and horror, which had not been experienced by a cinematic audience in this way, up to this point. Drama was key, and the actors were called upon to reflect this through their performances. It was a completely new medium through which they were able to express themselves. Exaggerated visual narratives and bizarre characters allowed them to return to a more theatrical school of performance. Suddenly, they could use grand, exaggerated gestures, while also incorporating a more intimate performance for close-up. The body in performance was crucial to the actors interpretation. This was because the complexity of the characters in Expressionist film was such a huge leap from those of the Hollywood tradition.
Its content incorporated an intense exploration of the unconscious and its dreams and nightmares. It ascertained that the motivations of the character were determined, not so much by their physical actions, but rather by deep rooted subconscious activities. The body was not to be used less, however. In contrast, in order to convey outwardly the internal elements, the body would need to work overtime to convey the psychoanalytic processes. The actor was forced to look inside their own inner dialogues for inspiration. For this reason the actor would have an indelible bond with their performance, as its substance is sourced from somewhere inside of them. The Expressionist movement blurred the barriers separating film from art, and opened up avenues of performance art which had not been considered before.
With the introduction of sound came a return to dialogue, and incidentally, a return to the monologue. The body was now assisted by not only the face, but also the voice, in conveying performance to the viewer. Dialogue did not necessarily enhance the clarity of the plot, however. Frequently, it proved to be a distraction from the story as it allowed the character to mislead the viewer for means of the plot twist. The body was no longer required primarily for performance purposes, but now worked equally on an aesthetic level. Rather then always choosing an actor who played the role well, directors were beginning to be able to cast actors who simply looked right, or best. The dialogue would do the rest. The change in sound not only heralded a change in stylisation, but also a change in physicality and appearance. While there had always been a tendency toward specific aesthetics in Hollywood before, suddenly the pressure on actors to look a certain way intensified.
The talkies marked the beginning of Modern film performance. Therefore, it is from this point that the three core ways in which the body is utilized for the purposes of film performance, will be examined.
-------------------
Marlon Brando: Embodiment - The Psychological Body
The Body as a Tool for Performance.
“Although a play can be read on the page as a coherent script, its performance is pre-eminently an activity of bodies”
Marlon Brando is frequently acclaimed as the greatest actor of all time. Many of the most prolific actors in cinema today borrow from the approach Brando took to acting for film. These actors include: Daniel Day Lewis, Robert deNiro and Christian Bale. For the most part, Brando’s success is attributed to his huge talent for performance. Key to his masterful performances is his utilization of the body, as a tool for the embodiment of his characters. Brando employed specific techniques when analysing his roles. These techniques meant that rather than simply show up on set and act out the script he was presented with, Brando would ‘become’ the role. This meant understanding everything about that character, from the inner subconscious workings of their mind, to the motions and mannerisms which distinguished them as individuals. Each detail and gesture of his character was motivated by this process, rather then an accidental or pre-conceptualised impression .
Brando began his career as an actor, as a student of the “Method” system, which had been created by Constantin Stanislavski in 1918. The Method was a complex theory of character development, which generally is understood to be an exercise in living the part. Its lack of strict guidelines, however, means it is not an exact science despite its popularity as a practice. Perhaps this explains why there are so many interpretations and approaches to it as a system. Brando educated himself in the technique by studying under the close supervision of Stella Adler, the only American actor who had worked directly with Stanislavski himself. Adler’s instruction of the system was considered to be a more intensive version then some of her peers, who included Lee Strasberg. Adler’s interpretation involved immersing oneself in the role by “becoming” the character. This meant intensive preparation prior to performing the script for camera. The actor would live as the character for a certain period of time, whenever possible. Her technique clashed with her colleagues, many of whom believed that relating to the character as intimately as possible through means of personal experience was a truer interpretation of Stanislvavski‘s hypothesis. Adler explained to Brando, that by becoming the character, in the truest sense, and by living as that character, a performer could share a unique intimacy and understanding with them. They would ‘embody’ the character. Simon Shepard and Mick Wallis discuss the concept of embodiment in Drama/theatre/performance, “drama in the (sic) most elementary sense is a medium of bodies, its performances are embodied events.”
The intimacy which embodiment could bring could not be impersonated or acted, in the traditional sense of the word, according to the system. By ‘becoming the character‘, they would understand why that character does something or must move in a particular way. By living the part, they would open up avenues for inspiration and for feeling how the character feels. The actor and the character would exist in sync. Brando believed that only when the spiritual life of the two were at one, could the actor truly represent and embody them. This analysis would take time and absolute devotion according to Stanislavski.
It is necessary to have control of an unusually responsive, excellently
prepared, vocal and physical apparatus… (sic) that is why an actor
of our type is obliged to work so much more then others,
both on his inner equipment, which creates the life of the part,
and also on his outer physical apparatus which should reproduce
the results of the creative work of his emotions with precision.
Stanislavski explained that the external, outward appearance of the character and their presentation, was motivated by the internal subconscious and conscious mind of that character and vice versa. This was why it was so important to understand every aspect possible, because what should happen subconsciously and intuitively could only occur when the actor was in the mind and body of their character, as much as possible.
An incident which occurred in one of Adler’s classes, highlighted the extent to which Brando took the concept of embodiment. Adler asked the class to perform an improvisational exercise in which they were to embody a Hen. Obviously, as a human-being, Adler did not expect the students to actually grow wings and lay eggs. Also, given the improvisational aspect, the students could not employ clever props such as feathers or costuming either. She was challenging them to put themselves in the mindset of the hen.
To try and think how a hen would think and move as they might. At first, each of the students undertook the task satisfactorily, walking as hens might, and interacting with each other and their imagined surroundings. Next, Adler told them, they were to remain in character, but now there would be a bomb heading straight for the hens, which would blow them to pieces. Subsequently, the students acted out the scene once more, this time clucking in terror and flapping about their imaginary wings while running frantically around in circles. Only Brando stayed in the one spot and, obliviously, proceeded to lay an imaginary egg. When asked why he had not reacted to the new scenario, Brando replied that as a chicken, he did not know what a bomb was, nor have the conjecture to act upon it. Brando had fully embodied the character of the hen and was thinking as the hen would, not how he, an actor, acting as a hen, might.
Shepard and Wallis acknowledged the actors struggle with their mind and that of the character. They recognize that the actors natural instinct or training will have them playing the character to conform to a certain conceived expectation by the audience. They will also have to battle with other aspects distinct from reality, such as playing to an audience (or in the case of film, the camera) in order that the viewer does not miss anything.
The actor makes assumptions about the proper way of moving and
standing on the stage. These assumptions derive from both a
conscious sense of theatrical genre and from an unconscious
assimilation of what works.
This battle means that the actor has a tendency to rely on stereotype. They move how they would expect their character to move, but never ask why. The method actor, in embodying the character, must understand the reasons the character moves in a particular way. They have a back story and a motivation but they must also make it work on stage or in a film. It is of little use that the actor, who is portraying an emotion perfectly and doing an amazing job at being the character, if the camera cannot pick up on it. For instance, if their back is turned away, the camera cannot see their eyes. Stanislavski noted the importance of adapting embodiment to art:
Our aim is not only to create the life of a human spirit, but also to
express it in a beautiful and artistic form. An actor is under the obligation to live his part inwardly, and then to give his experience human embodiment.
Aesthetics and preparation are crucial to the method, but the actor must make these work in harmony with their ‘performance’. This means that the character must stay true, and the actor must be able to convey that character to the audience. This is when acting becomes an art. Without preparation, the actor will lose themselves in the performance of the character. They will not be embodying, but rather acting. The method actor must do these two things at once, and by thoroughly knowing the character, and by being prepared, this makes it easier to balance the two.
Brando always took his preparation for a role seriously at the beginning of his career. He would start the character as a blank canvas and mould and shape them through his experiences. Brando’s first screen role, was in 1950, in Fred Zinnemann’s commercial flop The Men. The film centres around the character Lieutenant Wilcheck, a war veteran who is recovering in the paraplegic ward of a hospital in his hometown, and who shares a ward with his peers. Up to this point, Brando had worked solely in theatre. At that time, in Hollywood, stage actors possessed a credibility which was unique from actors who had worked all their lives in film. Theatre actors were considered to be more ’serious’, as they typically would spend longer periods in contemplation of their role. This could partly be attributed to the lengthy rehearsal periods, which allowed even the laziest actor an opportunity for character development. Brando had already proved himself to be among the best of the stage actors. His most successful performance to date had been as Stanley Kowalski, in Tennessee Williams play A Streetcar Named Desire. He had made his name, as a sometimes difficult, but very dedicated actor. When casting for The Men, Zinnemann was primarily looking for this type of actor. The authenticity of a true experience was massively important to him. He and the film’s screenwriter, Carl Foreman, had spent a month in a veteran’s hospital, in order that they would understand what life was like there, as much as possible. When he found Brando, he was assured that the actor would be as committed to the project as he was. With the permission and assistance of the hospital, Brando checked himself into the paraplegic unit, and lived undercover as a patient for a month. By living as a patient, Brando was able to fully grasp the complexity of the situation. He learned that the hospital food was so bad, that often patients would just not eat it. Consequently, they would become frail and lethargic. Brando followed suit. As a result, of this lack of nutrition, Brando lost almost a stone in weight. This change in physique was not as drastic as with other roles which followed, but it was crucial to the authenticity of the character. Brando recognised the importance of aesthetics in conveying the ‘legitimate body’ (a concept we will examine in relation to Bale, later).
He also found himself lacking in energy, he became short tempered and withdrawn. Like his character, Brando began slipping into a depression. He was disinterested when his colleagues visited him, and only found solace in the profound relationships he had developed with the other patients on the ward. These other individuals were the only other people who could understand how he was feeling. Brando would spend hours listening to their stories and how they felt about their plights. He watched as their feelings changed on a daily basis, and noted their nuances and the ways in which they moved with the new found absence of their limbs. In turn, Brando himself was able to develop his own back story, and mimic the motions of his new associates. By the time it came to filming, Brando was fully equipped to play Wilcheck. He now had to modify the methodologies for embodiment which he had learned and had worked so well in theatre, into a physical performance for film. He never broke character on set even once. At his insistence, as a result of the close bonds he had developed with the other patients, they were cast to play most of the other patients seen in the film.
Following the film, Brando found it hard to readjust to his own life. His efforts were appreciated by the audience who noted the believability of the characters, but the film was not successful at the box office, most probably due to the lack of marketing and promotion behind it. It proved a crucial stepping stone for Brando, however, in proving that his techniques for embodying a character could be translated to the screen.
For Brando, preparation was key. By knowing his character inside, he was able to express visually, externally who that character was in the truest way that he could. Brando reprised his role as Stan on screen in the 1951 adaptation by Elia Kazan of A Streetcar Named Desire. Kazan was originally advised not to cast Brando, because he had developed a reputation as being difficult to work with. Kazan, however, refused to have anyone but Brando play the role. The film was the stepping stone for Brando to crack Hollywood. He received a nomination for Best Actor at the Academy Awards, thus securing his position in the film world as a strong and talented individual.
Eventually, by the time of Brando’s archetypal performance in Kazan’s 1954 film On the Waterfront, he had become better acquainted with the workings of the cinema. He was better able to utilize Stanislavski’s theatre performance methods to work for him on screen. His character, Terry Malloy, was heavily researched and developed in order that he embody the character to the highest degree possible.
Following the film’s release, Anthony DiVincenzo, a whistleblower, involved in the real life Waterfront case, sued Columbia Pictures. He claimed that Malloy’s story had been based upon his own. DiVincenzo had apparently becomes friends with screenwriter Budd Schulberg, and the pair had discussed his predicament at length. Later, upon viewing the film DiVincenzo said he was shocked to see the similarities with his own story. Columbia settled out of court with him. Brando, purportedly, had felt disappointed that he had not been informed that his character may have been based upon a real person. Brando had immersed himself in the boxing and gang lifestyles. His training regime was created to parallel his character, a washed-up boxer. It had to be carefully balanced to reflect the fact that he was not an athlete in his prime, but rather one on the way back down. In typical fashion, Brando absorbed himself in his preparation of the role. By the time of filming, Brando was completely engrossed in his embodiment of Malloy. His motions and actions worked in perfect harmony with the internal workings of the character. Brando had accomplished the intimacy which Stanislavski had determined that the actor must strive for. Two scenes in particular stand out when viewing the film.
The scene in which Terry and Edie (Eva Marie Saint) take a walk through the park has been hailed as a masterpiece of character embodiment. The scene opens with a ‘bum’ asking the pair for change. Terry’s initial stance is striking. With both hands clasped in front of him, he looks more like Edie’s security guard then her romantic interest. It is only as he shifts awkwardly from one foot to the other, that it is subtly made apparent that he is in any way bashful around her. Brando uses his voice masterfully in the scene also. When Edie asks him who he is with, he replies, “Me? I’m with me… Terry“. Brando’s character memorably mumbles his way through most of the film, which adds an element of uncertainty and childlike innocence to the character. This particularly comes across in his scenes with Edie. When the man recognises Edie and starts to tell her about her brother, and Terry’s involvement with his death, Terry moves in. He sees the invasion, as an opportunity to convey to her physically how he feels about her and how he wants to protect her. Words are not his strong point. He gets in between the man and her and forcefully pushes him back. Terry does not provoke or hit the man even though he has the capacity to do so, but rather he pushes him away. This shows restraint on his part. While this is occurring, Terry glances back and forth at Edie every now and again. As a romantic interest this emphasises two points: the first to see if she is all right, and the second to see if she is noticing and appreciating his actions. When the confrontation begins to hot up, Terry throws change on the ground for the man to pick up. He wants to get rid of the man as quickly as possible. When Terry is left alone with Edie, he attempts to strike up a conversation with her, but she begins to walk away. He follows her, but seizes an opportunity when she drops her glove.
This action has since become notorious as, famously, it was not written into the script, but rather occurred after Saint accidentally dropped the glove in a rehearsal. Brando remained fully immersed in his character and made the decision to pick up the glove, as this is what Terry would have done. Brando realised through this process that by keeping hold of the glove, he had something that Edie needed. It supplied a device for her to stay with him. Brando begins to fiddle with the glove and dusting imaginary dirt off it. Edie has put the other glove on and clearly wants it, but rather then give it to her, Terry sits on a swing pretending to fix it before he can re-offer it to her. It seems as if Terry appreciates having something to do with his hands other then clasp them in front of himself. The image of the boxer delicately playing with the glove, while sitting on a child’s swing makes him appear very exposed in his vulnerability. Next, Brando slips the glove on. This unexpected motion is most likely symbolic of the fact that he is trying to listen to her and see where she is coming from. He puts his hand in the glove, in the sense that he is metaphorically trying to step into her shoes. His head is tilted to one side and this shows that he is listening intently to what she has to say. He then takes a stick of gum out of his pocket as he gets up and begins to unwrap it with his still gloved hand. Brando’s hands are always working, and always reflecting the inner dialogue of Terry. He begins to discuss how he remembers Edie looking when he was younger. He is walking because for Terry, this is a deep conversation to be having with a girl and he feels self-conscious. He waves the gum about as he describes how she looked as he, Terry, does not know what to do now that his hands are no longer held together. He stops at a tree, as if to calm himself, and brings the gum to his mouth not once but twice. It is as though he is subconsciously trying to stop himself from saying what he is about to say to her. “You was really a mess.” He is trying to keep his hands and his mouth occupied at the same time. Edie pulls at the fingers of the glove and takes back her glove. Terry waves his arms for a moment, before quickly stuffing his hands into is pockets, and he begins shifting from foot to foot again. Just as she is about to leave him, Terry calls after her, stuttering “You don’t, you don’t remember me do you?” She tells him that she does and, for the first time, we see Terry smile. He feels reassured, and tries to offset his elatedness by being self-deprecating. He points out his crooked nose. The pair walk toward the fence which Terry leans against trying to look casual. Although they are face to face, Brando never maintains eye contact for very long. This was a decision he had made in the early stages of his character development, in order to reflect his characters age. Terry would feel shy about holding Edie’s eye contact, because he was so young. The way he is leaning on the fence is his way of trying to look casual, as Terry would be trying to look composed to Edie, but the hands in his pockets and constant looking away, show that he is anything but. Instead, Brando reflects the nervousness, excitedness and anticipation of Terry, in his motions. Terry’s internal dialogue is interdependent with his external actions.
The scene perfectly exemplifies the preparation which Brando took in preparing for the role. It illustrates Stanisavski’s hypothesis of planning the role and then allowing inspiration to transpire as a result of that plan. Stanislavski said “plan your role consciously first, then play it truthfully.” When Saint dropped her glove in rehearsal, the scene could have transpired very differently. If Brando had not been fully immersed in the embodiment of his character, he would have reacted as Marlon Brando, an actor playing the role of Terry. The scene did not go to plan and Brando would have called cut and restarted the scene so that they could redo it without the accidental glove-dropping. Because, however, he had prepared well and learned to put himself mentally in Terry’s mindset, his body reacted accordingly and he picked up the glove and began to play with it. The action is reflective of Brando’s absolute embodiment.
The second scene which stands out has in it, potentially, the most distinguished monologue in cinematic history. The film is commonly referenced for its “I coulda been a contender” speech. Originally the scene had been scripted, but Brando felt it didn’t fit with the flow of the film. He suggested to Kazan that he and his onscreen partner, Rod Steiger, try an improvisational exercise similar to the one he had undergone with Adler, many years previously. They set up the scenario, roughly outlining the key points they needed to convey and then acted out the scene without lines or direction. There was a key factor which could potentially have stifled this performance. The two actors were in a taxi. They had to remain seated, and largely stationary due to the logistical restraints that being inside a relatively small vehicle entailed. These actors did not allow this to restrict their performances. Rather, they embraced the forced intimacy which the car forced upon them, and reacted accordingly. They shift positions frequently, play with eye contact and use gesticulation with their hands to emphasize key points like, “You was my brother Charlie. You should have looked out for me a little bit“. Most significantly perhaps, they enhance their facial embodiment for the purposes of the multiple mid shots and close ups. In this scene, Brando manages to transfer some of the motions and ticks he has developed for his character into his face. The fragility of getting the balance of this transference right is of great magnitude. Too much emphasis on the face, and the performance would seem overacted. Too little, and the audience could potentially be underwhelmed. After the scene was performed the first time, reactions and different angles needed to be shot. Several times, the actors can be seen changing positions between frames. For example, Terry asks “I get all that dough for not doing nothing?” his hands are out of frame. In the next instance the camera switches positions, and Brando now has his hand at his head. These mistakes could potentially taint the film, but because of Brando’s complete embodiment in the character, they are largely inconsequential.
To the educated observer, who has a knowledge of acting techniques and practices, the scene is clearly improvised. For the vast majority of viewers, the acting comes across as extremely ‘off the cuff’ yet clearly studied. The preparation which Brando had taken for the role allowed him to improvise so effectively. That is why the scene is so renowned. If the whole film had been improvised, it may have lost some of the magic that makes it so special. The scene works within its context because Brando maintains his consistency of character which makes the film so distinctive, throughout.
In later years, after Brando’s powerful performances in The Godfather films, his enthusiasm for character preparation seemed to wane. During filming on Apocalypse Now, in 1979, the film’s director, Francis Ford Coppola, was rumoured to be disappointed with Brando’s lack of interest and commitment to the role. Brando frequently showed up on set late and under-prepared. He had been instructed to read the novel “Heart of Darkness” to prepare for the role, but Ford ended up having to read the book to him between takes. Brando’s weight also presented an issue. The character had been written as slight, and expecting the same level of devotion Brando had previously taken to roles, Ford expected him to diet accordingly. In stark contrast, however, Brando had gained a significant amount of weight, and Ford was forced to rewrite the character to make it work. Brando had become the antithesis of his former self. Ford ended up having to run around after Brando, and trying to hide his lack of commitment to the other actors, until the point when he just gave up. He handed over the filming of Brando’s scenes to his Assistant Director. Brando had always been difficult to work with, but had been unrelenting in his desire to embody his roles. Now Brando was challenging and did not have the same glow on screen. Brando’s reputation secured him a place in cinema in that he would never be short of jobs, but he never regained his commitment to embodiment again. Brando had shunned the spotlight throughout his career, claiming he did not want to be a celebrity. He began to talk down his own appreciation for, and love of acting, claiming he did it only for the money. Brando developed a reputation for an increasing eccentricity when working on films. While shooting his final film, Frank Oz’s 2001 The Score, Brando would walk around the set nude between takes, claiming it was too hot to wear clothes. He also refused to take any direction he did not like seemingly, on a whim, and stubbornly refused to compromise. He and Oz argued over his final scene in which Oz wanted him to smile. Brando was so adamant that he did not feel like smiling that it had to be added later in post-production. The fact that a computer was able to alter his performance independently, shocked Brando. The incident shook him to the core, and he became utterly disinterested in the art of acting as a consequence.
By the time of his death in 2004, the landscape of acting for film had changed significantly since Brando’s youth. The psychological processes, which he had used to motivate his physicality, now had to adapt to green screen and other forms of computer generated imagery (CGI). In his later years, Brando had lost the desire to evolve his methodologies in the way he had done in his youth. The practices he had developed for embodiment were now being passed on to a younger generation of actors, who were developing new ways to rework his systems to coincide with the new technological developments.
Brando’s utilization of the body came from his core objective to become the character from the inside out. His means of embodiment involved a profound psychological exploration of the processes which motivate the characters every movement and gesture.
--------------------------------
Brad Pitt: The Hollywood Ideal - The Aesthetic Body
The Male Body as Sex symbol
The Hollywood film industry serves to fulfil several key objectives. The two main goals of producing a film are to create a product of artistic integrity and/or, to turn a profit. In terms of the business of film, the viewer is the consumer. The industry heads, are always looking for ways to sell to the consumer. A bigger audience equals bigger profits. Primarily, the consumer must be presented with a product that they want to buy. In other words the audience must want to see the film. This is a key reason as to why stars (well known actors), are typically used in big budget films, over unknown actors. While a fresh face might possess a greater talent or bring more to a particular character, the star has a ready made fan base. The loyal fan will be familiar with the known actors body of work, and be drawn to a new feature because they know what to expect from that performer. For example, if a film is starring Arnold Schwarznegger. The viewer will expect there to be action or light comedy in an “Arnie film”. They are unlikely to stumble upon a heavy emotional drama. Unless, of course, the actor in question is making a conscious move away from a certain type of role. There are indeed actors who are known for their varied character types but, generally, the viewer can rationally expect a certain type of film from a particular actor. By investing in a well known actor, the film investors can be more assured of an audience. The second consideration when viewing the actor of choice as a financial commodity, is as to whether they fit in with the image the film wants to sell. Brian Pronger acknowledges this concept of the actors body as a commercial asset
in his essay “The Cult of Buff and Lean”. Pronger says, “The current population of bigger and bigger muscularity serves the interest of heterosexual patriarchal masculinity”. He forms this argument on the basis that the male’s capacity to control the body, and thus hold back the inevitable ageing process, serves to enforce the idea that he has power over his image and therefore, in the greater environment. The article also looks at the value of sculpting the body in anthropology. The act is described as a form of expression. Thus when casting a sexually attractive star, the audience is led to believe that the film cares about its image, and identifies with the cultural ideal. In Hollywood, it is a recognized practice to cast a sexually appealing star. Doing so creates an added bonus. Sex sells. A handsome leading man will draw an audience and, therefore, decrease the financial risk.
The first male actor whose body was utilized in such a way, was Rudolph Valentino. Valentino’s career took off in the 1920‘s. Up to this point there had been male romantic interests, such as Douglas Fairbanks. These actors, however, represented a safe sexuality, deemed appropriate for women by male studio heads. The all American boy, was not a threat to anyone’s masculinity, as he was classically handsome and generally respectful with it. Valentino’s rise to the forefront of cinema as the “Latin Lover” changed all that. His breakout film The Sheik, presented him as a sexed up Arab. This image went entirely against the Hollywood mainstream ideals of a love interest. Valentino’s background in dance is often credited for his sexual appeal to women, as was the case in Gaylyn Studlar‘s essay “Valentino, Optic Intoxication, and Dance Madness“.
Valentino had worked as a taxi dancer before his career in film was launched. On screen, his body was on show frequently, and he seemed to be in firm control of how it was presented. It seems quite likely that similar to his successor Brando, the command he had over his physical body went a long way toward establishing his success. Unlike his male peers, Valentino looked like a man who had actually had sex. Women found themselves drawn to his dark sexuality, contradicting the strict conventions which had been enforced upon them. The male audience was both threatened and fascinated by the powerful new symbol. They feared him, while at the same time copying his look. Interest in his personal life added to the mystery. Questions about his sexuality, and his many wives, placed him firmly in the limelight, as one of the first celebrities. By casting Valentino, the filmmakers were appealing to his many fans, and adding an added sexual dynamic to their project.
As we have established, the aesthetic look was important to Brando in his embodiment of characters. For example for Brando’s role as Stanley in A Streetcar Named Desire, in which he appeared shirtless, Brando’s sculpted body was infinitely critical to the significance of the role, and its memorability today. It was important to get the aesthetic correct so that he would successfully embody the character of Stan, but it also proved to be a valuable commercial asset. Some of the films posters showed Brando shirtless, or flexing his bicep. This marketing proved successful in attracting audiences. The appearance of his hyper-masculine body, combined with the powerful performance were instrumental in forming the image of a sculpted body as a dominant media ideal. It also validated the concept of the body as a profitable commodity in Hollywood.
In the contemporary film industry, perhaps the most apparent male sex symbol is Brad Pitt. An actor, such as Pitt, is a strong choice when undertaking a major financial investment. He has proven himself to be financially dependable as a commodity. His good public image, strong work ethic and talent are major contributors to his success. It is fair to say, however, that Pitt’s aesthetic appeal goes a long way toward quantifying his success in Hollywood. Pitt uses his body to the benefit of his sexual appeal on screen. This appeal is a constant undertone in Pitt’s films. Of course, many of Pitt’s roles call for a buff actor to play them and, when necessary, he does step up his training. Generally, however, Pitt is consistently in good shape and is physically appealing to an audience. His visual lure appeals to both the male and the female viewer in different ways. The attraction of the typical female viewer is fairly straightforward. She is captivated by the image of Pitt on screen at a relatively superficial level. He is an attractive man, and she likes looking at him. The female viewer watches Pitt and enjoys the image of a handsome well built man in control of his physicality. Her erotic pleasure is wholly conscious. In terms of the enjoyment of the male spectator, the process is more complex. This is due to the subconscious processes which are at play in the appeal of the male sex symbol to the heterosexual male spectator. It is an intensely psychoanalytic process.
To better understand the process, it is necessary to refer to Steve Neale’s 1983 article “Masculinity as Spectacle”. This analysis has been instrumental in opening up the investigation into the psychoanalytic processes at play, regarding male sex symbol and the heterosexual male viewer. It focuses on Laura Mulvey’s article “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”. Neale applies Mulvey’s established hypotheses regarding the female as an object of the look, to that of the male. He attests that the key difference between the male body, versus the female body as spectacle, is the refusal to “make explicit an eroticism”. Thus, in the case of the heterosexual male spectator viewing the male body on screen, there is an implicit denial at a conscious level that what is seen is in any way sexualised. While at an unconscious level, the body is viewed as an object of sexual objectification. Fincher’s 1999 film Fight Club, starring Pitt, is a good example of this in practice. Robert Brookey and Robert Westerfelhaus’s article "hiding homoeroticism in plain view” focuses on the film, with a particular emphasis on the DVD extra’s. Brookey and Westerflaus point out that the film is framed when it opens with an image of a mans brain, and closes with an image of a penis. This observation clearly illustrates that the film has a strong focus on themes of masculine identity. By opening and closing with these images, Fincher is calling upon the viewer to ask themselves the age old question: is the male ego driven by the brain or the penis?
The film’s sado-masochistic theme provides the perfect device for the male on screen to become the object of the look of the male spectator. The spectator can therefore tell themselves that it is the fighting that they are watching and the characters in motion, as opposed to the near naked bodies as sexual objects. This violence is the main focus of Henry Giroux’s article “Private Satisfactions and Public Disorders”. Such violence is a recurring theme in male-genre films for the very reason that it masks the motivation of the look. The action hero, the cowboy and the superhero films all act in similar ways. The hero, the object of the homoerotic “wrong” look, is mutilated, and subsequently restored. Their position of power is challenged, and reinstated, thereby substantiating the look.
The object of the look , in this instance, is Pitt. Both his performance and his aesthetic merits command that the viewer look at him. The heterosexual male viewer must not consciously acknowledge that they are looking for any type of erotic enjoyment. They must justify their motivation for the look. The spectator must find a valid reason, other then any homoerotic pleasure, for their intense focus on the individual male on screen. They cannot acknowledge that they might be looking at Pitt in the same way as the female viewer. This justification is achieved by means of an identification process. This identification is achieved in two ways. The first is through hero worship. The spectator ascertains which character is the most aspirational, and singles them out for close inspection. The male spectator then, through a process of narcissism, finds a means through which they can relate to and see themselves in that character. They identify with Pitt, because Pitt is acting or behaving in a way that they might themselves in that situation. He is looking how, they believe, they might look in his characters predicament. As a result of this process, the act of looking is justified in the mind of the heterosexual spectator, as it is not a homosexual look. Pitt is the ideal male with whom the male spectator can identify. He performs as an ideal male, both in his look and his mannerisms His broad audience appeal reaches both the male and female viewer. The female viewer appreciates him for his physical attributes, while the male viewer, through the series of narcissistic identification, relates to him. His idol status, alongside this universal appeal, feeds into the narcissistic desires of the male spectator. The character, Tyler Durden, whom Pitt is portraying, represents an ideal machismo and thus is an ideal cover for any homo-erotic thoughts. He rejects materialism and consumerism in favour of a nostalgic return to violence. This violence is presented as the antithesis of all of the negative feminisation imposed upon the male in a modern environment; for example, shopping, grooming, manners. By seeking a return to the raw, naked caveman-like male, Finch is surely not enticing any homoerotic thoughts in the male viewer. But if this is the case, then why cast Pitt? One of the biggest Hollywood sex symbols. The reason is twofold. Firstly, the character of Durden, as a heterosexual man’s man is so strong, that doubting the motivations of the filmmaker seems to jar with any logical straightforward rational of the film. Secondly, Pitt’s performance is such that he never concedes to his position as a sexually erotic male, at a deliberate level. Women do not worship at Durden’s feet, and he does not dress to impress. Tyler Durden is attractive but apparently not through effort.
The viewer is asked to identify with the film’s protagonist, or hero. Initially it seems that Edward Norton’s narrator “Jack” will be this character. With the introduction of Tyler Durden, however, the narrator pales in comparison. Durden’s character is handsome, funny and violent. Heroic character traits which are in the eyes of both the narrator and the viewer. At the close of the film, it is revealed that Durden is Norton’s character’s alter ego. The two, individually, could not be more different on a superficial level. Norton’s character looks lanky next to Pitt. His face is world weary, with big bags under his eyes from narcolepsy. His voice is slow, and his body moves even more slowly through the office. His body language is typically introverted. Shoulders hunched, arms crossed, head down. He is the picture of a man beaten down by the world, and Norton embodies the character perfectly. Jack’s choosing of Brad Pitt as his ideal self is reflective of the viewers identification with Pitt as a familiar “screen surrogate“. Most men want to look like Brad Pitt, and live the type of life that he does. Throughout the film, there are subtle acknowledgements of Pitt the actor: A video of Seven is seen in the video store being erased; A banner for the film Seven Years In Tibet is seen when Jack puts Marla on the bus; Durden discusses consumerism in a conversation almost identical to Pitts character, Jeffrey Goines, in Twelve Monkeys. These clues, among others, are not immediately evident upon first viewing the film, but rather add to the value of seeing the movie for a second time. Tyler Durden perfectly methodises masculinity in the socially constructed sense. He looks like a movie star, but doesn’t appear overly groomed. He holds his head high and speaks with confidence, churning out facts and knowledgeable insights. Durden walks with purpose, and fights as though in control of every muscle. His confidence invites the viewer to watch him.
Westerfelhaus and Brookey refer to a scene in which Durden and Jack scrutinize a poster of a Gucci male model. The model is standing topless in his pants on one side, and is bare bummed on the other. In both images, his head is clipped out of the picture. Jack says that he feels sorry for men who go to gyms aspiring to look how the media tells them to. He turns to Durden and asks, “Is that what a man looks like?”. Durden laughs, throws his head back confidently and replies, “Self improvement is masturbation. Now, self destruction?…” Durden trails off, as a man bumps into him, and the film cuts to a night at the fight club. The question of how a man should look, when posed to Pitt seems to be an ironic one. The character, Tyler Durden, is supposedly in good shape from all the fighting. Brad Pitt, however, is in good shape and does go to a gym, because it’s a key part of his job as an actor known for his image. Pitt upped his training to get in shape for Fight Club, and weighed approximately 150 pounds, with a body fat of around 5-6%. Pitt’s clear focus during this period was on honing his already toned body to the perfect shape for the role. The idea that Durden would have achieved this look without proper training and diet is inconceivable. This is what Fincher was pitching. So, when the male viewer hears from Durden that he finds the idea of a gym laughable, they are probably envious that he can supposedly achieve this physique without effort. As a result, their identification with Pitt grows as the hero worship side of the process increases. The viewer wants to be like Pitt and, because they already identify with him, they see themselves in the same light. One of the DVD extras called “How To Start A Fight” echoes the Gucci poster, with a topless picture of Pitt. This move is not an oversight by the DVD creator. It is a strategic move, which reflects the hypocrisy of the viewer. It seems to be taunting their conscious brain to acknowledge their subconscious thoughts. Here is Pitt throughout Fight Club, sculpted, groomed and branded, and this is exactly what this film claims to be rejecting. Pitt’s body, is the final twist in the already complex story.
The camera angles, close-ups and tilted up shots aid the obsession with Pitt’s body. One of the rules of Fight Club is no shirts, no shoes. This rule gives Fincher a device to portray Pitt with his shirt off frequently, and without an apparently homosexual motivation. In one scene, in which Durden is participating in a fight in the club, he roles around on the ground with an opponent. All around him, other members are screaming and shouting, encouraging the pair, and enjoying the fight. The frame lingers on the sweaty pressed-together male bodies as they look on at the apparently homo-social scene. “Fight club’s ritualistic fights foster male bonding and render acceptable intimate and prolonged physical contact between contestants.” Pitt holds the other actor down, and kneeling over him, appears to forcefully and controllably hit him repeatedly, as Jack looks on. The look in Pitt’s eyes at this moment communicate Durdens multifaceted feelings toward the situation. His eyes covey an anger and a vulnerability all at once. In Pitt’s eyes we can see the conflict he has with allowing his violent tendencies to entirely take over his body. He is in complete control of his body which shows that it is he who holds the power in the fight club, and over Jack. It is Jack who this scene is performed for. Durdens every move is for Jack’s benefit. The other part of Durden that Pitt must convey, shows that he believes strongly in organised anarchy. This is the reason for the strict code of rules which Fight Club must adhere to. In the same way, Pitt’s body echoes the fiercely controlled mayhem of the fight club. It is presented as a body which has been sculpted as an upshot of Durdens lifestyle, when in actuality, it is a carefully constructed image by Pitt specifically chosen by the filmmakers. That which appears to be the consequence of chance is highly conceptualised. In the following action, Pitt throws his head back in a look of exhaustion, his competitor concedes and Pitt stands up. The camera remains low and handheld, as it had been during the fight, and looks up at Pitt. He seems Godlike from this angle, and immortal after surviving the violent fight. The fact that the camera is not in a fixed position aids the apparent spontaneity of the scene. In other scenes, Durden remains in the background, while Jack is in the foreground. This image reinforces the notion that he is Godlike, and always watching over Jack.
Neale describes the act of looking at a performer, in the way the viewer watches Pitt according to this hypothesis, as “fetishistic“. This fetishistic look involves a recognition by the subject that they are being watched. Pitt, is aware that he is going to be looked at. This fetishistic look is in direct opposition to the voyeuristic look, as homoerotic. Durden knowingly splices images of his penis into the films in the movie theatre. This act places him in control of the look, rather then a victim of it. Similarly, Pitt is in control of the way he is being looked at. The image of himself as sex symbol, is carefully constructed. The viewer looks because they are invited to do so, by Pitt’s acknowledgement of the situation, and by the filmmakers carefully constructed presentation of his body. Neale says:
We see male bodies stylised and fragmented by close-ups, but our
look is not direct, it is heavily mediated by the looks of the
characters involved. And those looks are marked not by desire, but
rather by fear or hatred or aggression.
So it is that the viewer is invited to look at Pitt through the eyes of the narrator. The viewer looks because Norton’s character does. In one scene, Jack sits on the floor as
Durden washes himself in the bath tub. This scene, taken out of context, reads as an incredibly homoerotic one. However, within the framework of the film, the viewer is led to believe that this is part of the strange relationship between the two men. The viewer seemingly thinks; Jack watches Durden but its not gay, I am watching Pitt and that‘s ok too. This is the primary level to which they identify with Norton’s character, Jack. Subsequently, the viewer discovers that they have been looking at Pitt, as a facet of the narrators imagination. It then follows that they must come to terms with an unconscious psychological violation. The viewer has been looking at Pitt in a manner deemed acceptable by the fact that the relationship between Durden and Jack was a straightforward homo-social one. Abruptly, there is a realisation that Pitt is Jack’s ideal self, but is in fact a more sexualised image of Jack. The fact that the viewer has bought into his identification means that they buy into Pitt as a sexually erotic being.
Neale speaks about a threat to the spectator:
These films are shot through with nostalgia, with an obsession
with images and definitions of masculinity and masculine codes
of behaviour, and with images of male narcissism and the threats
posed to it by women, society and the law.
The threat Neale refers to, which exists on screen to the Narrator, is present also in the subconscious threat to the spectator. Firstly, the spectator fears a discovery of his own homoerotic thoughts being discovered. As a direct result of this, he fears a psychological castration. This fear of castration, as discussed by Neale, coincides with the psychoanalytic nature of the subconscious look. The film acknowledges this threat early on. At the start of the film, the narrator is told that, to see what pain really is, he should attend a meeting for men recovering from prostate cancer. Upon his arrival, the narrator is greeted with a banner which reads “Remaining men together”. This sign alludes to the concept of homoeroticism. When the meeting begins, a man talks about losing his testicles. Subsequently, the narrator develops a relationship with this man who is later revealed to be called Robert Paulson, when he joins the fight club. This relationship, is unsettling to the male viewer initially, as it is almost an acceptance of the look as homoerotic.
Durdens nostalgic view of violence is reflective of the male societal belief that violence is instinctive. And where the narrator appears to fail, Durden gets the girl. Whether he wants her or not. These desirable attributes coincide with Neale’s idea of the “construction of an ideal ego”. As the film progresses the male spectator begins to identify more with the narrator character, at a subconscious level. This is due to the fact that just as the narrator watches Durden, so too does the viewer. In this respect, the identification begins to shift. When the viewer realises that the characters are the same person, their conflict is resolved, and they can identify entirely with the narrator.
The threat is equally reflected in the relationship between Durden and the Narrator. The concept of splitting the central character, the object of the look, into two, is not an unusual one. Commonly, the protagonist would serve two narrative functions. The first being the function of fulfilling a societal expectation and therefore, reinforcing a cultural norm. The second function, being a rejection of their own integration into this predetermined society. In Fight Club this conflicting opposition is initially played out by two separate characters. The battle between the Narrator and Durden, is certainly illustrative of the “battle of will and strength” which Mulvey refers to. As the Narrator becomes more enticed by Durdens view of the world, the lines between the two seemingly separate characters begin to blur. At the end of the film, it is revealed that Durden and the narrator are the same person. The opposing psychology of the individual is represented in two bodies. Pitt is the ideal candidate for Jack’s narcissistic identification. He is the ideal male sex symbol, and Jack’s desire to identify with Pitt, as a sort of ultimate body substitute, is echoed by the other male viewers. The scene in which Norton’s character beats himself up in his boss’s office, foreshadows the scenes toward the end of the film, when he must battle his own alter ego. This physical brawling is representative of the internal psychological conflict of the male viewer with his own subconscious instincts. It is also significant that it is Tyler, and not the Narrator, who seem to be sleeping with Marla. Neale explains that as soon as the male, exchanges looks with the female in film, his power and sustainability are under threat. When Norton places this threat in Durden’s hands, because he is not real, he is in no danger. The Narrator creates Durden to do all of the things he wants to do, but cannot, as a result of both his own feelings of inadequacy and societal pressures to follow a determined ideolology. This is the same ideology which tells the heterosexual male viewer that the look as homoerotic is wrong. The look must exist on screen, only subliminally.
The power of casting a male sex symbol in a film can reap huge financial rewards. The difference between the lucrative sex symbol and a good looking actor is huge. The attractive actor shows all his cards at once. The sex symbol understands the power of their body as a tool, and is in perfect control over its representation. The sex symbol possesses a dark sexuality, which the typical actor does not. Crucial to the actor as a product, is of course an aesthetically appealing image. The actor must maintain this image for the sake of their persona as sex symbol. This visual attraction is fundamental to their financial success.
Pitt’s utilization of the body stems from a core objective of aesthetic appeal, which is fundamental to his identification to the viewer. Through his narcissistic appeal, Pitt can draw the viewer into his performance.
-------------
Christian Bale: Metamorphosis - The Artistic Body
The Art of the Legitimate Body
The physical body is the first thing the viewer sees. It’s aesthetic impact leaves an indelible impression. As we have seen with Brando, embodiment can go a long way toward capturing the essence of a character. However, without an accurate aesthetic representation, the viewer cannot truly embrace the character as legitimate. A legitimate character, is a feasible character. It is a character which comes across as the genuine article. The audience is told that the character is something and is evidenced by it through the viability of their presentation. They are told the character is a gluttonous man, and they expect to see a fat actor on screen. They are told a character is an Olympic gymnast, and they expect to see a toned, fit actor. Embodiment is crucial to performance. It places the actor mentally in the right mindset to behave as their character would, but if they cannot follow through on logistical aesthetics, then the embodiment is futile. Embodiment cannot exist without the legitimate body and vice versa. So, for example, the viewer may appreciate Brando’s deep understanding of his character Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront, but had Brando not been in good physical shape, they would not have been convinced when he says “I could have been a contender.” Boxers need to be able to ‘pack a punch’. If the audience had peen presented with a lanky and aesthetically unconvincing actor playing the role, they would not have been convinced of his claim that he “coulda been a contender”.
Brando had spent months training his body to look like that of a prize fighter. Had he not taken the steps toward altering his physical appearance, the viewer would, justifiably, be entitled to doubt Malloy’s authenticity as a failed boxer. Both the aesthetic look and the performance are interdependent.
Erik Gunderson touches upon the concept of the legitimate body in his chapter on “Discovering The Body”. He explains that the body is constantly being seen and evaluated. He describes it as a symbol which is representative of a specific environment. He says:
Appearances must always correspond to some socially
sanctioned vision of reality. This body is not so much a
material substance, as a social one.
What Gunderson is highlighting is that the body is used to communicate a message about its inhabitant. First impressions tend to be non-verbal. This is, in part, due to the way in which a person presents themselves; how they dress, wear their hair and other non-permanent modes of representation but the body aesthetic holds perhaps the most revealing impression, as it is an indicator of their every day existence. Philip Auslander notes in his historical tracking of Boal’s hypotheses of the body in theatre, that “The body is shaped by the regimens imposed upon it”. The body tends to reveal a persons lifestyle, and various personal ideologies, because it works in accordance to their routine. He adds,
Ideology, is expressed at the most basic material level through
everyday habitual routines and regimens of the body and therefore
how nonhegemonic ideologies might be expressed through bodily
counter routines exploring physical alternatives to the oppressive
regimen.
According to evolution, the human body has changed over time to get rid of what is superfluous and, therefore, no longer needed, and what needs to be developed and used more. In the same way, an individual persons body will, more than likely, gear itself toward their way of life. So, a builder will tend to be of a bigger build because they need to carry heavy things and endure physical labour for long periods. Their diet will be rich in carbohydrates as they need energy reserves. People can also train their bodies to work in a particular way. Swimmers have big shoulders and slim legs because they must power through the water at speed. Their training will be geared toward obtaining this body shape to optimize their performance. This drastic altering of the body, is known as metamorphosis.
Boal said that the actor must overcome their own “muscular alienation” which has been shaped by their particular social ideology, if they are to fully immerse themselves in the embodiment of the other, (that being their character).
When casting for a particular role, a film’s producers will consider the look of an actor as well as their talent. At this point, in the casting process, the filmmakers must make one of two choices: They can either cast an actor who already looks as though they could play a specific role, or ; they can cast an actor and change their appearance. In most cases this change will be down to temporary changes, such as costuming, wigs, etc. but in some cases an actor will be required to transform their body. This is when metamorphosis occurs. This decision is not taken lightly, and is typically used when casting a big name star.
Aesthetic appearance is important to the actor. Getting into costume and make-up is a major factor in getting into the character’s mindset. Transforming the body is not merely aesthetic, however, it is a means of method acting where the actor embodies from the inside out. In doing so, the actor hopes to achieve what the German theatre practitioner Bertolt Brecht, describes as “Gestus”. This occurs when the actor truthfully encompasses the theoretical soul of the character they are portraying. It goes beyond attitude and gesticulations, but can only be achieved through careful study and understanding of the psychological motivations of the character. When the actor transforms wholly into the character, both spiritually and physically, gestus can be achieved. The aim of the actor, is to become one with the character.
Consequentially, the ability to transform one’s image through means of conscious manipulation, is given massive credibility in Hollywood. It is perceived that it demonstrates an actor’s commitment if they can achieve gestus. Indeed, undergoing such a metamorphosis requires massive dedication. The actor will have to change their diet and in some cases, undertake a training regime parallel to their character. It is considered the obligation of the actor who has undertaken a role to ensure that their physical body corresponds to the character they are playing. As an outcome, an actor who achieves this by going to extremes is typically applauded as a serious actor. In some cases, the transformation of the actor is the main focus of a marketing campaign. Usually, even if the film is a flop, the actor will still receive critical success for their transformation. Some actors who have famously altered their body drastically for a role include: Robert DeNiro for his role as the boxer Jake La Motta in Martin Scorcese’s 1980 film Raging Bull; Will Smith, for his portrayal of the legendary boxer Muhammed Ali in Michael Mann’s Ali (2001) , and Charlize Theron for her portrayal of Aileen Wuornos in Patty Jenkins 2004 film Monster. The body, when viewed as a canvas, is a tool for physical transformation, and an actor who can be chameleon-like in their capacity to change it is seen as one who takes their craft seriously.
As far back as 1923, the Russian writer, director, and theorist, Sergei Radlov recognised the importance of an actors ability to transform. In his essay On the Pure Elements of the Actor’s Art, he briefly talks about the responsibility of the actor to their physical representation:
We had considered the art of transformation as the chief and
most sacred responsibility of the actor. To stop resembling himself
(that is, to conceal, to dissemble, to depersonalise the material of
his art), to express something other, strange, not like himself
-seemed his principal aim.
Undergoing a metamorphosis can be a turning point in an actor’s career.
One actor who has made his way in Hollywood, predominantly through the art of physical transformation, is Christian Bale. Bale has drastically altered his body shape to play various characters on several occasions. Bale had achieved some minor success in Hollywood as a child actor, before he was hand picked by Steven Spielberg to star in his 1987 film Empire of the Sun. Spielberg saw in Bale a raw talent and most significantly, a desire to ‘become’ the character. Bale was only twelve years old when he was asked to depict the role of Jamie Graham, a young English boy who finds himself confined to a Chinese camp during the Japanese invasion of Shanghai. Bale’s character went from living a life of luxurious privilege, to having to fight for his survival. In the camp, Jamie is supposed to suffer starvation, due to the shortage of food available. Spielberg knew that make-up and costuming could aid this transformation, but a crew member suggested to Bale that dropping a few pounds would only enhance his performance. Bale did so, but not to any drastic degree. As a child actor, he was monitored carefully to ensure that no child labour acts were breached, and that his energy levels were up. The implications of such a transformation stuck with him throughout his career, and body metamorphosis became his trademark.
Bale took his character preparation very seriously. For the 1992 Kenny Ortwaga’s Disney Musical, Newsies, he trained for three months in dance, and also in martial arts, so that he would be able to perform alongside the professional dancers without looking inexperienced. Bale spent hours working on his accents and mannerisms for his film projects, in order that he be able to embody the characters he plays accurately. Most important for Bale, was that no two characters are alike. He marks this difference out in two distinct ways, through his voice and use of accent, and through clear and recognisable physical differences.
Bale’s breakout role came in 2000, in Mary Harron’s adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis’s 1964 cult novel American Psycho. Harron was so adamant that Bale was the only actor who could truly dedicate himself to the character that she resigned several times when the producers tried to persuade her to use a more popular actor. When Bale signed on for the project, Harron was not disappointed. He devoted himself to ’becoming’ Patrick Bateman, the perfectionist executive who’s psychopathic tendencies see him lead a double life as a sex-crazed murderer by night. Bale did as much as he could to understand the internal mind of Bateman through studying the daily lives of executives. He visited Wall Street and observed the competitive nature of the men who worked there. He came to understand the nature of the men, who are constantly aspiring for more. Bale realised that everything from job titles, to the best secretaries, was a competition. Bale also read the case studies of various psychopathic killers in order to try and gauge the rationale behind their actions. Ellis’s novel, he later confessed, became his bible. He read and reread it, looking for ways to understand Bateman’s motivations. It was important to Bale, that he find a way to justify the despicable actions his character would take. Bale’s most valuable preparation for the character, came through the transformation of his body
into that of Patrick Bateman. He said in an interview which appear on the films DVD, “The character is so vain and obsessed with his looks. While the psychology of the character was something that I could perform, you can't fake the physicality.” By transforming physically into Bateman, Bale was able to understand things about the character; he never would have otherwise. Patrick Bateman is portrayed as a vain man, and a perfectionist in the novel. If Bale had not reflected this crucial aspect in his appearance, he would not have been faithful to Ellis’s vision.
Bateman says, “I believe in taking care of myself. In a balanced diet and a rigorous exercise routine. ” Bateman symbolizes a new breed of man known as the metrosexual. A metrosexual is a man who goes to great lengths to look after his physical appearance. Bateman takes this to extremes, as we see in the films opening scene. He wears an eye mask while doing a thousand stomach crunches and stretching. His fixation with using specific products on a daily basis is presented as an obsessive compulsion. Bateman justifies his preoccupation with his appearance by explaining that he is a human void of a soul, or any humanistic emotions. He says he is an “entity” and “something illusory”. At the end of the first scene, his closing statement is fundamental to understanding why the aesthetic is so important to him. He says, “I simply am not there.”
This character would present a challenge to any actor. The job of the actor, is to understand the psychology of the character. Bateman claims that he has no empathy or feelings, and the actor must portray this understanding of self. His image is all that Bateman has to present to the world. It must sufficiently distract from anyone questioning his inner self, because, as he sees it, he has none. His superficiality is adequate enough to bury his emotions. Without his incredibly toned body, people might try to look deeper into him, something which he is terrified of.
Bale developed a training regime, diet and tanning schedule, which he followed religiously. In doing so, he discovered that in striving for the perfect body as Bateman did, he became extremely image obsessed. Bale trained for three hours a day every day for two months. His diet was strict, with no margin for cheating. Bale found that on the days he did not attend the gym, he experienced what is known in the body building world as ’gym guilt’. This feeling occurs most commonly when an individual becomes abnormally obsessed with their training regime. He also began to develop feelings of superiority over those who did not look after their bodies. Through his metamorphosis physically into Bateman, Bale could also get inside his head.
At no point in the film, does Bateman ever express his frustrations, worries or discuss feelings any deeper then the immediate ones. This fits in with his own theory that he is void of human emotion. He presents no theories, and seems to be perfectly calm right up to the point of slaughtering his victims. Still, it was important that Bale understand Batemans internalization of his emotions, and this is why achieving his look was so necessary.
Becoming Bateman, through his physical transformation was a journey of psychological discovery for Bale. He was finding that as a result of his quest for a physical perfection that he as an individual knew did not logically exist, he was becoming frustrated in himself and, in turn, at the world. He became detached, a mindset he used to the advantage of the character on set. Bale did not associate with cast and crew outside of the work at hand. He developed a reputation for being difficult to work with, as Brando had, but the results were outstanding. The film shocked audiences, and was deemed too disturbing for a mainstream audience at test screenings. The films critics were proven wrong, however, after the movie picked up a cult following. Bale was applauded for his brave portrayal and perfect body, which received widespread coverage in the media. He was not content to rest on his laurels, however, and did not want to be typecast as a sex symbol. Unlike Pitt, Bale’s sculpted body was not primarily to appeal aesthetically to the viewer. Bale had buffed up because he wanted to accurately portray the character of Patrick Bateman. He had achieved his toned body in order to relate to the character, and meet the expectations of his physicality as outlined in the novel. Bale had not achieved the look because he wanted to fit in with the dominant Hollywood ideal. He returned to a more typical diet and training regime for his film roles in the immediate aftermath of American Psycho, and focussed on more psychological character development.
As Bale’s success has grown, so too has interest in his private life. Recent events have focussed upon some conflicts within his personal relationships. It is difficult to say resolutely, if the mental effects of putting his body through such major physical transformations are beginning to surface. An article published in the New York Times, by an unnamed physiognomy specialist, focuses upon the lasting psychological effects of metamorphosis on the theatre performer.
The article states
Assuming a difficult role night after night for a protracted
period is bound to produce on the player a more or less
visible effect either in appearance or manner when off stage.
The same can be said of a film actor, particularly one who takes a methodistic approach to such physical transformation. An actor like Bale transforms their body into that of the character, for an extended period of time. Body transformation cannot be switched off at will, in the way that psychological transformation can. As a result, it is only natural that the effects of the metamorphosis will have an impact on the individuals private life. Repeatedly undergoing this process in the way that Bale has, certainly proves his dedication to the portrayal of the legitimate body. The human body is not a finite tool, however, and despite its capacity for change, the impact these transformations have had in the long term, remain to be seen.
‘Becoming’ Patrick Bateman, was not to be Bale’s last, or even his most extreme transformation. In 2001, Bale, was approached to play the role of Trevor Reznik in The Machinist, by its director Brad Anderson. Anderson warned Bale that the project was far from mainstream, and that it would require some significant body transformation on his behalf to play the role. Reznik is described in the original screenplay as a “chronic insomniac”. It was important that the actor appear to be unnaturally thin, in order to reflect the fragile mental state of the character, and his circumstances. At one point he is told in the film, “If you were any thinner, you wouldn’t exist.” Having already earned a reputation for body metamorphosis in American Psycho, expectations were high. Bale took several steps to embody the character. He approached the character as a method actor, and worked in several factories in the run up to the film. Bale was not given any special treatment, but found comfort in the repetitive nature of the work. Anderson sent Bale to a nutritionist, whose job was to guide Bale safely through a calorie controlled diet. The Director wanted Bale to drop a couple of pounds. Just as with Empire of the Sun all those years ago, make-up and costume would play a significant role in making Bale appear thinner then he actually was. Bale had other ideas, however. Not content to simply appear thin, Bale felt the need to fully inhabit Trevor Reznik. He needed to live in his body, as he had done with Patrick Bateman, in order to fully understand him. Bale rejected the advice of the nutritionist and he began to fast. He took up smoking in order to suppress his appetite, and chewed gum to keep his mouth occupied. His diet consisted of salad, apples and non-fat latte’s. Filming was pushed back, due to production problems, which forced Bale to extend his crash diet. He prepared for the role for six months. By the time rehearsals began in the run up to filming, he had lost over a third of his body weight, sixty-three pounds. When he turned up on the set, Anderson was shocked, and sent him to see the doctor immediately. Despite wanting to lose more weight, Bale was forbidden to, due to the potential health risks.
Bale began to suffer side effects beyond hunger. He found himself exhausted, and despite having become accustomed to not sleeping (also in preparation for the role) he did not have any desire to get out of bed in the morning. Bale said that in spite of his physical body feeling ill and hungry, his mind was clearer then ever. He did not worry about trivial things because he didn’t have the energy to, and very little seemed to matter. He could not sleep because he did not exert his body, and he did not exert his body because he simply did not have the strength to do so. Crew members observed that he would regularly sit on the set and stare into space for an hour or more. When asked what was on his mind, Bale would tell them that he was thinking of nothing at all. His hunger allowed him to slip into a comatose-like state of awareness. It gave Bale the opportunity to see the world how Reznik might have. Bale could observe how easily reality and imagination might blur. Never fully awake and conscious, but never asleep either, it was easy to see why an individual would begin to imagine things and create their own sense of reality under the circumstances. The restricted diet gave Bale a better understanding of the isolation that Reznik felt. It was a lonely existence but, as he had with American Psycho, Bale secluded himself from the rest of the cast and crew on the set. His lack of energy affected his work, particularly during the scenes in which he had to run away from the other actors. Bale had given up the cardio part of his preparation for the role, after his body could no longer take the exertion. Having to not only keep up with the others on set, but rather run faster then them, was a real test for Bale. At this point in the film, the character is in a bad condition and can barely walk, let alone run. In the scene, in which he is running from the police station, there are several shots which feature Reznik’s face. He is covered in cuts and bruises, and his frail frame is particularly striking as it jolts under the strain of his activity. The pained expression on the actor’s face is almost certainly only embellished for the character. Bale would have been under considerable strain shooting the sequences. While there are several shots which will have given him time to rest, as opposed to running the distance from the station to the sewer all at once, it will have taken several takes to get them right. Lacking the nutrients required for energy, the task of the running scenes would have been monumental for Bale.
The film was not mainstream, and would most likely have been overlooked upon it‘s 2002 release, had it not been for Bale’s major physical transformation. The process of body metamorphosis was far from over for Bale, however. While shooting The Machinist, Bale won the highly coveted role of the new Batman in Christopher Nolan’s reinvention of the superhero in Batman Begins. It was a role that most actors in Hollywood had sought after. Bale was cast, for his innate ability to differentiate between characters. As Batman, he would also be required to play his alter ego, Bruce Wayne. The relationship of the character to his two sides was of primary importance to Nolan, as the central focus of the film would be on Wayne’s journey to becoming Batman. The character of Batman was an iconic one. The portrayal of a legitimate body was crucial to the role. It would require an actor with a powerful musculature physique. It was vital to the film that Bale measure up to the audiences expectations of the Batman character. His capacity for aesthetic transformation would be required again, to play the role. Going straight from the body of Reznik, to that of a superhero was no mean feat. Bale weighed just one hundred and thirty pounds by the time filming the role of Trevor Reznik was over. He had six months to become Batman before shooting the film would begin. Not only was Bale light, but his muscles were virtually non existent as his body had been using them to compensate for its radical fat loss. A personal trainer, who had previously worked as a marine, was brought in to begin working with the actor. Bale committed to his new training regime in preparation for the role, as passionately as he had with others. Initially, Bale’s sole task was to bulk up. Training consisted of heavy weights for three hours every day and a high protein, high carbohydrate diet. Bale had to start with the smallest weights and worked his way up to the heaviest. When he was not training he was eating. By the time he met with Nolan six months later for rehearsal, Bale had gained over one hundred pounds. At two hundred and thirty pounds, Bale was too big and not did not have good stamina or endurance. As the role was heavily physical, Nolan asked Bale to adjust his training to include more cardio and less carbohydrates. By the time it came to filming, Bale was in prime shape. At the beginning of the film, Bruce Wayne trains under the guidance of Henri Ducard, and achieves his toned physique along with a masterful control over his body. It was crucial that the actor be able to convey this authority over the body. The only way this could be achieved was through an actor who was in complete control of their own body. As an actor who had manipulated his physical state in the past, for roles, Bale was the perfect candidate. The bat-suit further enhanced Bale’s muscle tone, but restricted his movements. It was hot and tight. Bale used his frustration with the suit to aid his performance. Bruce Wayne is a haunted and frustrated character. Batman is the personification of his internal emotions, and this is why motion and physical condition are so important when playing the role. For the second film, it was stipulated in Bales contract that the suit be altered to allow more freedom of movement.
The extreme lengths which Bale goes to, in order to inhabit the physical state of the characters that he plays, present several questions regarding the craft of acting. Is Bale an incredible actor, or a performer who is fantastic at transforming his image? It is by means of using his body as a tool for artistic representation that he encompasses the physical aspects of his characters. Through his aesthetic metamorphoses, he can begin to comprehend the mental aspects which are affected by the characters physical state. The psychological comprehension gained by transforming the body drastically, gives the actor a profound insight into the mind of the character. This perception, goes beyond that which can be achieved by means of a typical transformation with costuming.
Bale’s utilization of the body comes from a core objective to become the character through means of physical transformation. By inhabiting the body of the character, Bale can learn things he otherwise might not know, and employ them for his performance in film.
-------------------------
Conclusion
The Body Is Of Paramount Importance To The Art Of Acting Today.
Through a detailed analysis of the three actors and their techniques, it is clear to see that while their approaches may differ, their objectives are the same. The target of the actor is embodiment. Through a concentrated and researched control over the body, the actor can fulfil their ultimate goal of ‘becoming’ the character.
Early theatre philosophers such as Stanislavski highlighted that an actors power over the body was one of the first tenets of performance. More recently, the French born Director and Author, Jacques Lecoq, has had a profound influence on the theatre world, in his focus upon the moving body. Lecoq’s book, The Moving Body: Teaching Creative Theatre has also impacted actors in their performance for film. Lecoq began his career in the sporting arena, specialising in physical education. Having dabbled in performance for a number of years, it was only after he became involved with a Comedia de l’Arte theatre company, that he began to see how he could merge the two worlds of sport and theatre performance. The art of comedia de l’arte involves high physicality, merged with crafts such as mime and acrobatics. Lecoq introduced a number of these elements to the more traditional theatre style. This new approach introduced a more intimate interaction with the audience, coupled with a focus on the physical body over the emotional mind. Lecoq opened his own theatre school in 1956, where a number of prolific and influential authors, teachers and actors have studied his unique style. What Lecoq did was to
reintroduce an academic focus upon the physical body to the acting world, just as Stanislavski had.
In the twentieth century, film became the new medium where acting flourished, and it grew as an art form as a result. With the increase in technology, on the surface, it would appear that the craft of acting for theatre, and acting for film, have become two separate techniques. So, is the new dependence on computer technology destroying the art of acting for film or merely, helping it evolve? While Brando was daunted by the new technology, his successors, like Bale have moved with the times and developed their craft to work in conjunction with them. The new generation have adapted so that they are not overshadowed by the new technologies but rather, have them working so as to enhance their performances. The recent Batman films, have seen Bale appear to soar across the sky, jump off huge buildings and survive mammoth explosions. Without the recent developments in CGI none of these effects would have been possible previously, without a great deal of smoke and trickery. At the same time, without his meticulous preparation -the origins of which Brando had learned from his theatre studies - Bale may have lost his connection to the character in the face of the new elements, which had been introduced to him. As the film industry becomes more competitive, these actors must also contest with bigger stunts, faster cars and more real action. The new generation of actors, like Pitt and Bale, must work alongside these new developments and add them to their already extensive skill sets, in order to compete in the industry.
The preparation of the actor is key, and it is particularly important for the actor to demonstrate control over their body, in this new environment. A recent occurrence on the set of Tom Cruise’s new film Valkyrie, which is directed by Bryan Singer, saw eleven extras injured after falling out of a moving lorry. All of the actors working on a set should be aware of their surroundings and they should understand the physicality of their body thoroughly, so that occurrences such as this can be prevented. The big Hollywood players, such as Bale and Pitt know this, and their systems and practices allow them to not only gain a unique insight into their character and translate this into art, but also, it allows them an authority over their body, unique to the learned actor.
Whatever the approach of the individual actor, and whatever objectives they prioritise, they are ultimately reaching for the same goal. As illustrated here, no single approach can be said to be more effective then another. It is only, when the psychological, artistic and physical elements merge, that a true representation can occur.
Through a detailed analysis of the methodologies and approaches of the actor, and an examination of the three case studies in practice, we can conclude that the body can indeed be utilized to the advancement of the actors performance in three core ways. And through the examples evidenced in this investigation, it can be concluded that the art of acting continues to flourish, and is well substantiated within contemporary Hollywood.
------------------------
bibliography
Adler, Stella (1988) The Technique Of Acting; foreword by Marlon Brando, New York: Bantam Books
Auslander, Philip (1997) From Acting To Performance, London: Routledge
Benedetti, Jean (1998) Stanislavski and the Actor, New York: Routledge Press
Boal, Augusto (2002) Games for Actors and Non Actors, 2nd edition, London: Routledge
Boal, Augusto (1993) Theatre of the Oppressed, London: Theatre Communications Group
Brecht, Bertolt Ed. and trans. Willett, John (1964) Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic, London: Methuen
Cohan, Steven (1993) Screening The Male, 1st edition, London: Routledge
Drain Richard (1995) Twentieth Century Theatre, 1st edition, London: Routledge
Ellis, Brett Easton (1991) American Psycho, 1st edition, New York: Vintage
Englund, George (2005) Marlon Brando: The Naked Actor, London: Gibson Square,
Grobel, Lawrence (1999) Conversations with Brando, 1st edition, New York: Cooper Square Press
Gunderson, Erik (2000) Staging Masculinity, New York: University of Michigan Press
Howley, Bill (2005) The Actor's Menu: A Character Preparation Handbook, New York: Compass Publishing
Kafka, Franz adapted by Berkoff, Steven (1988) The Trial / Metamorphosis / In the Penal Colony: Three Theatre Adaptations, London: Amber Lane Press Ltd
Lecoq, Jacques (2000) The Moving Body: Teaching Creative Theatre, London: Methuen Publishing
Leider, Emily W. (2003) Dark Lover: The Life And Death Of Rudolph Valentino, London: Faber
Mulvey, Laura (1975) Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema first published in Screen
Neale, Steve (1983) Masculinity as Spectacle first published in Screen 24
Robb, Brian J. (2002) Brad Pitt: The Rise to Stardom, New York: Plexus Publishing
Schickel, Richard (1990) Marlon Brando : A Portrait of a Generation, London: Pavilion,
Sheperd, Simon and Wallis, Michael (2004) Drama/Theatre/Performance 1 edition, Oxfordshire: Routledge
Stanislavski, Constantine (1980) An Actor Prepares, London: Methuen Drama
Toporkov, Vasiliy (2004) Stanislavski in Rehearsal, New York: Routledge Press
Vaz, Mark Cotta (2005) The Art Of Batman Begins, New York: Titan
web Recourses
An Actor's Metamorphosis; Physiognomy Specialist's Opinion as to Effect of Long Runs.
January 28, 1906, Sunday Section: Second Magazine Section, Page X3 http://www.spiderbites.nytimes.com/
Brookey, Robert and Westerfelhaus, Robert (2002) Hiding homoeroticism in plain view: the Fight Club DVD as digital closet http://www.informaworld.com/
Fischer, Paul Unmasking an American Psycho http://www.crankycritic.com/
Giroux, Henry A. Private Satisfactions and Public Disorders: "Fight Club," Patriarchy, and the Politics of Masculine Violence JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory, v21 n1 p1-31 Win 2001 www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ660758
Pronger, Brian The Cult of Buff and Lean which appeared in http://www.nedic.ca/
filmography
Ali (2001)
American Psycho (2000)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
Batman Begins (2005)
Empire of the Sun (1987)
Fight Club (1999)
Monster (2003)
Newsies (1992)
On the Waterfront (1954)
Raging Bull (1980)
Roundhay Garden Scene (1888)
Seven (1995)
Seven Years In Tibet (1997)
The Birth of a Nation (1915)
The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1920)
The Godfather Trilogy (1972, 1974, 1990)
The Great Train Robbery (1903)
The Men (1950)
The Score (2001)
The Sheik (1921)
Twelve Monkeys (1995)
The Machinist (2004)
Valkyrie (due for release December 2008)
Monday, February 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)