Typecasting PAMELA ROBERTSON WOJCIK In January 3000. the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) protested the lack ol representation of people of color in American TV shows and demanded more diversity in casting, to provide more opportunities for actors of color and to more accurately reflect the multi-racial diversity of America. Shortly thereafter, the NAACP signed diversity agreements with all the major networks—NBC. CBS. ABC. and Fox. The netwoiks agreed to Increase opportunities for people of color, both behind the scenes and on-screen, but with most public attention and scrutiny focused on the promise for better casting practices and image portrayal. This recent protest strongly echoes a World War II protest in which—frustrated with Hollywood's perpetuation of stereotypes that Donald Bogle famously encapsulates as Toms, Coons, Mulattoes. Mammies, and Bucks* (Bogle 1973)—the NAACP demanded better representation of African Americans In Hollywood films, claiming it would be hypocritical to denounce Nazism without addressing racial issues at home The issues of concern to the NAACP in both protests have also been of concern to the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) (est. 1933), which began issuing Casting Reports in 1977 to keep data on film and TV roles, numerically cataloguing them by gender, age. race, and ethnicily; and which resolved in 1990, following the debacle of Mísí Saigon casting, that performers of color should receive preferential consideration for ethnic roles. A related movement is Non-Traditional Casting, which works to advance the open casting of actors of color, female actors, and actors with disabilities.' These movements, like the NAACP protest, endeavor to ensure that casting practices are representative and fair. They seek diversity both in the kinds of roles performed and among the actors who perform them. Defining diversity another way. SAG staged a somewhat different protest over casting practices in March 1950. The Us to^Ha Times reported that SAG was waging a campaign to get motion picture studios to stop typecasting. Angry that an actor would be consistently cast in. say, bartender parts. SAG spokespeople were quoted in the L« An^ŕŕŕsTimt'i (27 Match 1950) as saying Typecasting should not prevent an actor who is established in the public mind as the portrayer of one particular role from being given the opportunity to display his acting talents in other types of roles'1 Rather than racial diversity. SAG's 1950 protest aimed loopen up casting practices lo allow Individual actors the right to portray a diversity of roles, rather than be typed in one kind of role. At stake is the actors' desire lo show their versatility and 2 170 PAMELA ROBERTSON WOJCIK also to escape being typecast in bltparts. thus (ailing locllmb the Hollywood ladder to leading roles and slardom. Interestingly, almost a hundred years earlier, theater actors had protested against versatility requirements and dmandtd a farm of typecasting. In 1864. the American Theatrical Protective Association farmed. In Its first set of resolves the union asked (or I) "a fixed minimum salary (or each distinct line of business, from leading to utility* and 2| "a return to the old system o( engaging members of the profession (or definite lines of characters, thus obviating all professional misunderstanding and preventing any artists Írom undertaking any more than his or her legitimate business, and by such means keeping another professional out of an engagemenflMcConachle 1992.2481.This prolest dillers markedly (rom the 1950 SAG protest in that it aims to protect an actor's right to perform a single type of role, or "line." consist enily across his or her career rather than be farced to play multiple and diverse roles. Here, the stakesare job security and the right to maintain one's earned place In the "Hnes-of-business" hierarchy of roles (which I will discuss In detail shortly). Each of these protests, spanning three separate entertainment forms, and crossing three centuries, protest unfair casting practices. None of them succeeded in their goals. 1 begin with them because they seem lo me to provide useful touch-points for thinking about the relationship between acting and identity, and particularly changing notions of type. Each o( them makes clear that typecasting is political practice, not only as a labor issue but also as a touchstone for ideologies of identity. The shift between the 1860s Theatrical Protective Association resolution and the 1950 SAG campaign, especially, reflect a sea. change in the discourse around acting, and especially shilling notions o(what constitutes realism In acting. The 1990S N AACP protest represents the culmination of that changing discourse, which leads to an increasing demand for a homology between actor and role, and which, ironically, enforces typecasting in the service oi diversity. Typecasting may be. as one critic put it. "one of the theatre's deadly sins" and the "sublimation o( the unpro(esslonal in acting" (Isaacs 1933. 132) but. as these somewhat contradictory responses to typecasting suggest, typecasting in film is. to a large degree, inescapable. Insofar as the business of film acting, and especially the star system, relies on recognizability. marketability, and the necessity (or known commodities, typecasting will be part and parcel of the institution. Further, insofar as the actor represents human characters. Illm acting relates to changing conceptions of identity and identity politics, and thus the actor will inevitably negotiate stereotypes and represent identities inflected by race, gender, ethnicity, class, and national differences. Rather than something imposed on actors and audiences from without, or simply an elfect of casting or performance style, typecasting occurs at many varied levels, and is equally something spectators and fans enact or impose on actors. As Patricia White succinctly explains: -Casting and performance are already a reading of type; the audience performs a reading on another level, informed by cultural and subcultural codes, spectatorlal experience of the star in other roles, and subsidiary discourses" (White 1999. I49J. Rather than critique or defend typecasting, this essay explores competing notions of type, especially as they relate todlscourses of realism, anddiscusses typecasting in its most literal sense as a labor issue and as institutional practice in Hollywood: that Is, in terms of historical casting practices. Walking Gentlewoman ist and 2nd Old Women (one usually low comedy) Chambermaid (sometimes "singing." Soubrette) Juvenile Lady Leading Lady ; figure 1 Ures ol txulr Rather than view each character as a psychologically defined individual—as realist modes of performance and dramaturgy would do—the lines-of-business tradition sorts characters intoreoognizableandrepeatable roles.Therefore, the lines-of-business tradition emphasizes the similarity between plays and assumes that in each play there will be roles suited to most of the vaiiouslines. In virtually any given play performed by the company, there would be need for one or more musicians ordancers. some supernumeraries or extras, various non-speaking parts for those actors assigned to general utility roles, one or two small speaking parts for those actors slotted to play t he walking gentlemen or old man. a role that could be categorized as a chambermaid role, another for an old woman, somequirky or comedic character requiring a bit of eccentric business |a catch-all for ethnic Impersonation, and heavily accented roles reliant on peculiar make-up and costuming), perhaps some villainous role appropriate for a - 'VPECASIING 173' heavy, young and romantic roles for Iuveniles and ingenues, and two leading roles wh t|> tragic or comic Despite the promise of mobility and versatility, in the lines-of-business tradition, an actor's movement is limited and determined by the actor's seniority, rules of succession, precedence in performance, and "possession of parts." 'Possession" refers to "the assumption by an actor of the privilege to play every part in which he appeared with success before the public in any and all subsequent revivals of the play until he resigned the part, retired, or died' (Burse 1986.3). In (he lines-of-business tradition, "possession" is literal Since actors are not given whole scripts, but only the "sides." or sheets with lust their lines, if an actor owns the sides, he owns the part. Thus, the actor may. through possession, stay in a line that another actor could perform belter and for which he or she is no longer well suiteii—and there seem to be numerous cases of juveniles being played by actors with seniority who are well past their prime. Most often, an actor in the lines-of-business tradition will settle into a line and perform all roles in the repertoire that apply to that line, occasionally picking up general utility roles when a play does not contain his or her line As is the case with Hollywood's division between character actors and stars, actors in the lines-of-business tradition are unlikely to shift between leading roles, such as Hamlet or Tartuffe, to mid-level character roles, such as heavies or eccentric business. Rather, an actor will develop a specialty within a line, peihaps seivlng only as a lead tragedian, never doing comedy, or narrowing his eccentric business lo specialize In Irish or lewish roles. Furthermore, the Interpretation of the role in the lines-of-business tradition Is, to a large degree, fixed Historically, the interpretation of a role was taught to an actor by the playwright, und then handed down from one actor to another, along with sides and costumes—and the Interpretative mode tended towaid frontal displays, declamation, and codified poses. As the 1860s American Theatrical Protective Association protest suggests, lincs-of-buslness and possession of parts were ths actors' preferred mode of operation In the stock system, actors worked in a number of dlffc-ient plays, in high rotation, with virtually no rehearsal, and they supplied their own costumes. Thus, it was in their interests to be identified with a particular line or set of roles and typecasting was a very practical response to the material circumstances of theater production. From Stanislavski's perspective, the stock system necessarily produces bad mass-produced acting and leads actors to create types rather than characters. Citing the large number of plays performed and the general lack of rehearsal for them, he asks. "Is it astounding then that these unfortunate and hard-pressed actors have recourse first to craft and then to mass production methods in their parts? What happens is a division of labor with each actor having his own specialized field of endeavonStanislavski 1968.16). He claims that the division of labor, in turn, attracts people who cannot act but who can be a type; "The most ardent partisans of the custom of type-casting are the poorly endowed actors, whose range is not broad but rather one-sided. Such gifts as they have are somehow made to do for narrowly circumscribed types, but they are unlikely to be sufficient to meet any wider demands" (Stanlslavski 1968. 16). In an interesting twist on the Stanislavskian critique of typecasting, avant-gardisrs such as Brecht have viewed the anti-realist aspecr of typecasting as offering a crucial alternative to mainstream commercial practice and have embraced the use of types linked to te-mmtdta Marte and other anti-realist traditions, like vaudeville, as a means of achieving alienation 06 I JA PAMELA ROBERTSON WOJCIK effects that de-naturalize ihe assumed fll between aclor and role. By contrast, some avant-garde theorists and practitioners have regarded typecasting as a means of ensuring gnaier realism. In Soviet cinema, for Instance, a form of typecasting, called "lypage." calls for the use of non-actors, selected solely on the basis of appearance, lo create a realist effect. The principles of typage were articulated by Lev Kuleshov In his 1929 M et Ike Ontna. Arguing that 'real things In real surroundings constitutecinemaiographic material." Kuleshov states that "Imitating, pretending, playing ate unprofitable, since this comes out poorly on screen" (Kuleshov 1974,56.63). For example, he relaies. "If you need a tall, slout man. but your actor is thin, and you pad your lliln aclor with cushions, and the like... the results on screen will be obviously false, theatrical, a prop, a game." Therefoie. he claims: Because film needs real material and not a pretense of reality—owing to this, it Is not theater actors bul "types" who should act in film—that Is people who. in themselves, as they were born, constitute some kind of Interest for cinematic treatment That is. a person with an exterior of character, with a definite, brightly expressive appearance could be such a cinematic "type- (Kuleshov 1974.63-64). For Kuleshov and his followers, including Eisenstein, and. later, Italian neo-reallsts like De Sica. the use on non-actors lends films a documentary touch. The non-actor not only fulfills realist criteria for physical appearance, but also is taken to reflect and be typical o( the reality represented. As Siegfried Kracaucr puts It. "It is precisely the task of portraying wide areas of actual reality, social or otherwise, which calls for 'typage'—the lecouise to people who are part and parcel of that reality and can be considered typical of It" (Kracauer 1960.99). In its emphasis on the exterior appearance of the non-actor, and its recognition of real persons as types, typage differs from those versions of typecasting that refer to slock character types, such as the juvenile, or the heavy. Ironically, however, as Kracauer points out. the non-actor in typage clearly resembles a different concept of type in Hollywood—the star: The typical Hollywood star resembles the non-actor in that he acts out a standing character identical with his own or at least developed from It. frequently with Ihe aid of make-up and publicity experts. As with any real-life figure on the screen, his presence in a film points beyond the film. He affects the audience not |ust because of his fitness for this or that role but for being, or seeming to be, a particular kind of person ... The Hollywood star imposes Ihe screen image of his physique, the real or stylized one. and all that this physique implies and connotes on every role he creates (Kracauer 1960,99). Both the non-actor in typage and the Hollywood star create a role homologous with themselves, a "character identical with his own or at least developed from ii" that is. as Kuleshov says, defined In large part by "exterior of character" and 'expressive appearance." One term used to describe Hollywood casting that would also apply to Soviet typage Is "facecasting." or casting basedouexiemal appearance |Yoakem 1958|. This modeof casting— in which a pretty girl and not an aged male, plays Ihe ingenue, and the man wiih the broken nose and cauliflower ears will be cast as a boxer, not a banker—lends tobe taken for granted. However, it is worth noting that other modes of performance and casting do not place the same emphasis upon the actor's Individual appearance. For Instance, certain kinds of m .■.-. ■: TYPECASTING 175 non-realist theater—tommedia delt arie and kabuki among them—rely on masks and ritualized modes of performance in which the actor's face and external appearance are irrelevant. In a dilferent vein, because of Its emphasis upon song. Hindi cinema has long relied upon the use of playback singers to dub actors' voices, and In the 1940S ailempted "voice casting, or the use of a singing voice thai matched both the speaking voice and personality of rhe actor" (Ma|umdar 2001. 1671. Later, and continuing lo the present day. Hindi cinema dropped ihe practice of voice casting and created a new model of stardom in which both ihe on-screen Bctor and the playback singer achieve stardom wlih a split between visual and aural stardom. While the on-screen star may becasl according to principles like ihose of Soviet or I lollywood cinema, the playback singer, cast as only a voice, and equal to or greater in stardom than the onscreen actor, challenges the primacy of the face. Rather than assumed as the norm, ihen, face casting should be seen as merely one possible response to certain conceptions of realism. While both Soviet cinema and Hollywood emphasize facecasting. however, the non-actor in ly page differs markedly from the Hollywood star because the two models of type are based on compeling notions of identity and the role of the individual in typage. the non-actor represents a social type, characterized by social class and social role—a Bolshevik, a sailor, a member of the aristocracy, etc. The individual serves as a stand-in for a class or caste and is meaningless in himself.' Rather than individual psychology, typage relates the character's individual personality and problems to larger social forces, such as poverty, and uses non-actors to represent "ideas, elements in an intellectual argument" (Healh 1981. 183). Thus, a person may be cast as something he Is nol. since the role is based on physical appearance (he looks like a aar) and Is not meant to reflect his real identity In fact, the role might run counter to the non-actor's ideology, personality, and class. For Instance, according to Eisenstein, when he cast non-actors, they often resisted playing characters different from themselves when Ihe role was viewed as negative, because they did not want iheir friends lo lake their screen persona as reflecting their real self Thus, he would have to ■resort to tricks." He says that when filming T«t Dans, "Everyone wanted lo play the Bolsheviks and no one wanted to play the Mensheviks ... (so| we gave the actors the lext of an inflammatory speech and they spoke it with great fervor. After this we added titles lhat said Ihe exact opposite" (Elsenstein 1988,198). In contrast to the Soviet model. Hollywood characters are generally defined In psychological and not social terms Social siiuaiions. such as a war or the Depression, may establish action, but then Ihe narrative will focus on how individuals respond Thus. Hollywood adopts a classically realist model of narration and character: narrative aclion springs from individual characters who function as causal agents with psychological motivation, goals, and desires. Not surprisingly, ihen, Ihe Hollywood star is not generally seen as representing a member of a class or caste. Instead, she Is considered a unique individual Stanley Cavell usefully explains the distinction: The creation of a (screenl perfoimer is also ihe creation of a character—not the kind of character an aulhor creates, but Ihe kind that certain real people are: a type. Does ihis mean that movies can never create individuals, only types? What it means Is that this is the movies' way of creating Individuals; they create iiufivuluiiiilift. For what makes someone a type is nol his similarity with olher members of that type but his striking separateness from other people (Cavell 1979, 29. 33). 176 PAMEIA ROBERTSON WOJCIK This notion o! type, then, emphasizes not only the actors unique physiognomy but also his personality and performance style, and these are viewed as distinguishing him ftom the masses. An additional difference between the actor in typage and the actor In Hollywood has to do with Issues of recognizabllily and repetition. The actor or non-actor cast according to the rules of typage can appear and fulfill his role as a type in a single appearance on film. By contrast, if viewed only in a single appearance, the star might be viewed as perfoiming a role as a realist character, in the Stanlslavskian sense. Typlflcation—and, Indeed, stardom__ occurs through the actor's recurrence across a number of films in different roles. Recognition of the actof in a series of films creates a double Identification in which we see not only the character but also the star. This recognition is crucial both to ihe star's (unction in the text and his or her extralextual success. On the one hand, as Murray Smith notes, recognition is the most basic level on which viewers grasp and construct characters. We know a character in a film and perceive her asa continuous agent because we recognize the body that coheres around hei and "the star system provides an especially well-developed set of character models* to enable recognition (Smith 1995, 119). On (he other hand, repeated recognition enables the com modification of the star. As Gayiyn Studlar suggests, "acting stars who disappear into their roles are never stars for very long": The Hollywood system appears too dependent on the exiratextual as well as textual overvaluation of star faces and bodies as recognisable commodities... While it is not unknown (or stars to transform themselves physically in the process of creating codes of character (such as Robert De Niros weight gain for Raging Bu\l), it is generally acknowledged that making your star unrecognizable is dangerous. This is because the value of stardom is most frequently measured In audience anticipation at seeing—and recognizing—their favorite box-office attraction (Studlar 1996,237-238). Whereas typage requires only the recognition of the social type through external clues, recognition in Hollywood entails a complicated relationship between audience recognition of the star and the character. In Hollywood, the star image is used in the construction of character and the characters that a star plays are seen to reflect aspects of the star's "real* self. To borrow a phrase from Erving Goffman. the star achieves a form of "expressive coherence" between his social front— his outward performance and appearance—and his "true" inner self {Goffman 1959. 5Ó).1 There may be instances when the star and role seem at odds but these are generally viewed as exceptions to the rule: failures. Understood in this way. not only stars but also character actors are types. As Cavell says. "Not to remember the name of a traditional Hollywood bit player is possible, if hardly excusable; not to remember their faces and temperaments is unthinkable' (Cavell 1979. 76). Of course, the individual actor type may also represent a social type, stock character, or stereotype. Smith notes that particularity, even in ihe realist novel, will also be in the service of types. For instance, proper names individuate agents but also perform a typifying function insofar as proper names bear connotations of class, region, nationality, gender and race (Smith 1995. 30 and passim). For Cavell. there is a distinction between the actor as a type. Individuated through his eccentricity, or striking separateness from others, and the caste-system of social types and stereotypes. I lesays. "Until recently, types of black human beings TYPECASTING 177 were not created in film: black people were stereotypes... We were not given, and were not in a position to be given. Individualities that projected particular »ttys of inhabiting a social roles; we recognized only the role" (Cavell 1979. 33) To be a type is to individuate the social lype. stock character, or stereotype. Thus, according to this notion. Marilyn Monroe may be the quintessential dumb blonde, representative of a class. Thelma Ritter may never rise above the rank of low comedy eccentric; and Butterfly McQueen may be stuck in racist maid roles; but. as a type, each is unique in the way she inhabits the role Ironically, then, it Is Hollywood's adherence to realist principles of individual character psychology which allow the realist character—who exists in a single film—to be transformed into a recurrent lype. the star or character actor. This suggests thai, despite the anti-type discourse of realism, the break between pre-Stanislavski acting and post-Slanislavski acting Isn't as sirong as it might seem. And. in fact, in his essay on type. Stanislavski's litany of types includes not only traditional stock roles, such as "farce comedians* and 'dandies," but also realist types such as "Ibsen types" and "neurasthenic Hauptman roles," thus emphasizing his point that typecasting occurs due to the way theaters are organized, and cannot be simply altered by performing different kinds of lexis IStanislavksi 1968, 13). The seeming conflict between a realist aesthetic and typecasting In Hollywood, then, can be explained by acknowledging the fact that the discourse of realism in most 20th-century theories of acting deals with performanu siyie. whereas typecasting reflects a complex web of iHSliiulioiudpraaka. it is not the case thai acting style and institutional practice are unrelated. Stanlslavski. after all, recognized that In order to transform acllng one had to transform the institution of theater by enhancing the role of the director, adding rehearsal time, cutting the number of plays performed, creating new realist set designs, etc. However. In Hollywood, acting style and institutional practice, and In particular casting practices, represent a case of uneven development, with acting style shifting increasingly to the dominant naiuralist model while casting maintains a residual outmoded iheatrical model. Typecasting and acting in early cinema As many critics and film historians have argued, because technological limitations encouraged the use of a frontal, presentational style of aal ngand the lack of dialogue seemed well-suited to pantomime, early cinema adopted the performance style and character conception of 19th-century melodrama rather than Sianislavskian or novelistic modes of realism- Most accounts of early Hollywood acting thus recount a tale of the new film form having to overcome outmoded theatrical traditions as part of a progressive march toward a more naturalistic and more cinematic acting style For instance, in her analysis of acting in the films of D. W. Griffith. Roberta Pearson argues that there is a shift from a "histrionic" or theatrical, melodramatic pantomime style of acting influenced by theories of pantomime, such as Oetsarte's system of poses, to a "verisimilar" style, which is more realist, and involves by-play and small gestures; and she links this stylistic change to cinema's transition from its status as cheap amusement to respectable mainstream mass media (Pearson 1992). With a different emphasis. f3en Brewster and Lea Jacobs argue that more naturalistic styles developed as film developed faster editing, which left actors little time fot posing and insisted instead on fragmenting the performance into parts (Brewster and lacobs 1997. 109). Similarly, lames Naremore traces the shift from melodramatic styles to more naturalistic or "Invisible" 178 PAMELA BOflERISON WOJCIK approaches. Acknowledging thai pantomime exists residually in classical Hollywood. Naremore also argues that cinema realizes a Stan Isla vsk Ian Ideal through such technical innovations as close-ups. directional microphones, and shot-reverse shot editing, that enable a transparent, gestureless. un-ostentatious acting style INaiemore 1988. esp. 9-981. Without denying the importance of melodramatic styles and theories of pantomime, or technical limitations, for understanding acting in early cinema. I would suggest that we can supplement these accounts oleaily Him acting by considering early Hollywood's institutional structure, which increasingly models itself on the outmoded stock system and llnes-of-buslness tradition at the same time that II mov« toward progressively more naturalistic acting styles. Dy most accounts, the lincs-of-buslness tradition and theatf leal stock companies largely expired in America in the 1860s and 70s.6 First, as I have been suggesting, the turn to realist modes ot theater challenged the pfeceptsoi lines. Mote Importantly, realist theater displaced the manager in favor of Ihedirectot. and placed casting in thedirectorS hands, not the actors'. In addition, the rise of the star syst em threatened stock. The rise ol the star can be traced back to 18th-century Licensing Acts in England, which limited the number of new plays performed and stabilized the repertory so t hat companies tended to rotate a stable group of plays, thus highlighting the work of a few actors, like David Garrick. in roles that could be repeated time and again. The star system developed further in America in the 19th century through the development of long-runs and combination systems. Motivated by economic rationali7ation, the long-run allowed a performet to play a single role for a longer period ol time than repertory theater, and thus highlighted theiole of the virtuoso. Combination systems created traveling companies that would tour a single play throughout the country, rather than perform a lepertory in a single theater. Consisting of a star am! supporting players, combinations meant that actors were hired for single parts, instead of lines. However, while touring companies and headllners displaced one version of slock. 19th-century melodrama created another According to David Grimsted. melodrama arose In large part as a way of competing with Hie burgeoning star system. Whereas stars were associated with sure-fire old plays and revivals, especially Shakespeare, stock companies offered new Flays, and especially melodrama, in order to compete (Grimsted 1968. 92-93) Due to its reliance on stock characters such as the virtuous heroine. Ihe villain, the old man father, and low comedy men and women, melodrama was well suited to the lines-o(-business tradition. In addition, the lines-of-business tradition was still an undercurrent In casting practice outside the stock system. As Benjamin McAithur explains, the combination system created new casting needs (McArthur 1984. 17), While the star headliner might tour with the show, smaller parts were often cast city-by-city. No longer an in-house process, casting became rationalized in the 1860s and dramatic agencies were created. Much as they do today, dramatic agents served as brokers for actors and managers. Actors registered at agencies and filled out questionnaires, describing the parts they had played, their physical characteristics, and their wardrobe When managers contacted agencies, they tended to request actors using terminology from lines-of-buslness, calling, for example, for a soubrelte or a heavy, rather than describing the particulars ol the role. So. lines-of-business typecasting existed residually in 19th-century melodrama and casting practices. In addition, the realist theater created a new kind of type The new realist style, as popularized m America by William Archer, advocated "a reliance on personality By this was simply meant that the actor Infused his personality into the role he played—openly TYPE« "'ii''-- iT' and without apology" (McArthur 1984.183) This was intended to help the actor break free from typiftcation and toward creating individuated and psychologically defined characiers. but 'critics charged that modern actors ... played every role in a similar fashion, making the author's character merely a vehicle foi their individual personality" and deeded 'an era of typecasting, with outward appearance valued more highly than proven acting skill" (McArthur 11984. 183). This new type, defined by the actor's appearance and personality. Is akin to. and often overlaps with, the star. Thus the 19th century establishes new trends toward typecasting despite anti-type discourse and changes in theatrical institutions. Unes-of-business and typecasting by role exist residually in melodrama and the rise of dramatic agencies: and star systems and realist acting create an emergent new type, hinged on the individual actor. All these tendencies and trends will b? reproduced In early cinema. In terms of performance style, early cinema adopted many ol the features of 19th-century melodrama, including not only Its presentational style and use of pantomime, but also Us mode of characterization and reliance on stock types (Müsset 1990 3-5) More importantly, and with mare long-lasting institutional effects, early cinema modeled itself on the stock system. Initially, as Charles Musser points out. when films were first made, there was not yet a category of the Ulm actor. Early cinema has been famously described by Tom Gunning as a "cinema of attractions' linked to novelties, amusements, and modes of display and spectacle, rather than narrative. Early film included actors from theater and vaudeville, entertainers from the circus, boxers, dancers, and non-actois caught In actualities or put on screen for staged events (Musser 1987. 57-62; Musser 1990. 3; Gunning 19901 Rather than acting, their activity on lilm was understood as a form ol modeling, or posing |DeCordova 1990, 341) As the "cinema of attractions" gave way to story films, the notion of film acting began to be developed. The use In story films coincided with the nickelodeon boom in 1907 which created a demand for more films and, therefore, greater rationalist ion (Musser 1987. 58; DeCordova 1990. 27). To handle the greater demand, film companies could no longer rely on the casual and Intermittent use of actors for Individual films and so created permanent stock companies of actors. These stock companies initially emphasized versatility. An actor in a Grillith film, for instance, might, according to Roberta Pearson, "play the lead In one film and appear as an extra at a garden party the next' (Pearson 1992.88). And. as late as 1909. t here are claims that actors in stock companies receive equal pay. five dollars a day (DeCordova 1990, 79). In addition, Indicating how far removed film acting still is from theater, actors were uncredited and anonymous. Despite these differences, film production was similar to the mode of production in theatrical repertory theaters. Until about 1912. film production was still not concerned with the whole script. Leads might be given a sctipt beforehand, but minor players wouldn't know anything about the film until they were called for rehearsal and they still wouldn't know the whole I Pearson 1992,85-86). Over time, rather than diverge further from theatrical models, the stock system became Increasingly similar to repertory stock. According to a 1913 actor's manual by Frances Agnew. would-be film actors would register with dramatic agencies togaln entry to the studio system and both agents and studios typed actors by lines She writes. The number of players carried in the stock organization differ with the various film companies. Some have as many as thirty or more on the regular list, both at the principal 180 PAMELA BOBtRISON WOJCIK studio and in the western headquarters. Such a company includes live or six emotional and ingenue leads (actresses); about the same number of leading actors three or four "heavies* (both actors and actresses) (this type is sometimes called the villain of the play); three or four character artists; two children for Iuveniles and hall adozen or more minor players who serve fo( general business, playing various parts and requiring some versatility (Agnew 1913.51.53). As In repertory theater, actors were required lo supply their own costumes, and do their own make-up (Agnew 1913.75-78). Under the stock syslem, the director initially controlled casting, selecting leads from his stock company and extras from anyone who appeared at studio "bull-pens" (Bordwell. Thompson and Staiger 1985.149). As in the lines-of-business. actors in the studio stock syslem could ascend through the ranks, from extra lo lead (Agnew 1913. At. 65). As actor Charles Graham makes clear, early film castingadopts terminology and practices Irom the lines-of-business tradition. He describes how he was picked out of a bullpen to begin acting in 1912: We joined a crowd of people ... We had said not a word to a soul, and no one had questioned us. when a man In shirt sleeves and with a green shade over his eyes came into the room and scrutinized first oneand then another. He picked out one or two. then came to Arundel and mysell. "I can use you." said he. and handed each of us a card. My card bore a number and the mystic words "Walking Geht Card Scene.- Arundel's card bore the same number and the same words. We learned that the film would be known by this number till its name was revealed to a waiting public, that we were Ihe "walking gents" in a card playing scene whkh was to be shot that morning and that we were to take the card to the wardrobe room. Told to wear their own clothes, but with straw hats. Graham and Arundel are made up and sent lo the studio. For about three hours, "we smiled the same smiles, we frowned the same frowns, we played ihe same cards and at last the big lights went on and we did it all again while the camerasshoi the scene." Graham, limited in knowledge tohis activities, has no idea of the whole film: "Mr. Young... was the producer, and if he knew what he was producing I certainly did not* (Graham 1998, 19-20). As film production expands, and director units are overseen by producers, the assistant director takes over casting and major players hire agents. Then, in 1915, the first casting director is hired.' As Janet Staiger explains; The phrase ■lype-casting" has literal implications within this mode of production. In order to set up such a system, the casting director, an expert who replaced the more casual approach which the firm had employed, needed some method to classify the potential players for his system...the selected classification became somewhat permanent as it went down on a card with other statistics and Into the casting director's indexed and cross-indexed files (Bordwell. Thompson arid Staiger 1985,149). Increased rationalization of the stock system thus leads to more codified systems of casting and Increasedtypecasting. ffPFCASIING 1B1 At the same time, the studio stock system, like theatrical stock, finds thai it cannot mainiain its policy of anonymity and versatility. The stock system of repetition leads film fans to recognize leading players and to nickname them according to which studio's stock company they belonged. For instance. Florence Turner becomes known as The Vjragraph Girl, and first Florence Lawrence and then Mary Pickford are recognized as Biograph Girls. Recognition creates a star system Competitive bidding (or leading players begins in 1909 when Carl Laemmle hires Florence Lawrence away from Biograph to become the Independent Moving Picture Company Girl, or IMP Girl (Musser 1987. 58-59). Then, publicity for individual actors is generated, producing what Richard DeCordova has called the "picture personality." an intermediate identity (or film actors before a full-fledged star system develops. Fan recognition begins with the actor's image—her physical appearance. The picture personality indicates fan interest in "the personality of the player as represented on film." According to DeCordova: Personality existed as an effeel o( the representation of character In a film—or. more accurately, as the effect of the representation of character across a number of films. It functioned primarily to ascribe a unity to the actor's various appearances in film. However ,.. the illusion that it had its basis outside the film was constantly maintained (DeCordova 1990.86). Film discourse around personalities asserts a connection between the actor's identity and the characters she plays on screen. This in turn requires that the personality portray consistent character types, if not literally the same character from film tofilm. As DeCordova points out. serial fllmsshow an especially Insistent version of this homology in that the serial character's identity is often conflated with the actor through naming, so that King Baggoi plays a character named King in the IMP detective series, and Kathlyn Williams stars iixJhe hdivniura of Katítli/n (DeCordova 1990.89). However, despite claims that the actor's real identity was an extension of her screen image, the picture personality was a "professional existence—a history of appearances in films and plays and a personality gleaned Irom those appearances." but did not reveal very much about Ihe actor's private life (DeCordova 1990,92). The picture personality establishes the screen actor as a type defined by physical appearance and role. In the teens, "the private lives of players were constituted as a site of knowledge and truth," thus leading to the development of the star proper (DeCordova 1990. 98). As fan discourse shifts to the star's personal life—her marital status, homes, leisure, consumption, political views, etc.—the homology between actor and character is deepened. At the same time, the development of the star system alters the nature of studio stock companies so that they are more hierarchical. Rather than a company of versatiles that can be called upon to play any role, the star system creates a hierarchical system. In it. stars are cast as leads, and smaller parts are rilled by a range of non-star types The character actor develops in this period as a mid-level player, recognizable and associated with a particular line of business, but not "known'' as a real or private person. In addition, there are bit players and extras, who may or may not ascend through the ranks to become stars or character actors. While stars and character actors are permanent members of stock companies, extras are freelance and hired through the Central Casting Corporation, formed in 1925. Based on this hierarchical and ascending system of roles, the studio system therefore mirrors the earlier stock system, on the one hand; but. on the other hand, with the clear 182 PAMELA ROBERTSON V/OJCIK hierarchy between stars and character actois, and the tendency for studios to loan headliners out for particular projects. Hollywood re-invents the combination system. Throughout the classical system, Hollywood studios have stock companies. In addition, certain directors and producers, like Preston Sturges. lohn Fotd. and David Selznick. maintain theirown stable of players within the studio. When actors become free agents in the 19605, the official stock system breaks down, but continues in de facto stock companies such as the stable of players linked to Martin Scorsese, lohn Cassavetes, Spike Lee. the Coen Brothers, and Paul Thomas Anderson. Emphasizing practical considerations, many actors' manuals recommend that the actor must be willing to be typecast in order tobe more easily classified with agencies, For Instance, one manual acknowledges. "There are stars, of course, who are remarkably versatile. But for a beginner »t is wise to work out one especial type of thing, one sort of characterization, which will be particularly good, even though he should try to learn to play every sort of role. Then there is no difficulty in making classifications when one registers with a casting director or agent' (Klumph 1922. 72-74) * An essay entitled 'The Value of Specialization" suggests that an actor should not Just adopt a broad specialization In comedy or drama, but should carve out a niche in small roles. The list of possible specialties includes butlers, smart dty men. bookmakers, doctors, flunkeys, and judges for male actors: and cooks, maids, half-castes. aunts, nurses, and typists foractressesfPlckford, 6-12). This highly stratified division of labor Is aimed at keeping the actor employed in a regular line of business when being a lead may not be a reality. Stuart Hem ward puts it bluntly in his actor's manual: The average feature picture usually has two "leads* which call for a good looking young girl and boy... but there is also the surrounding cast... older men and women, heavies, comedians, singers, dancers. Therefore in point of quantity there Is a greater demand for the homelier, standard types than (or the ingenue and leading man... Your face may be ycHir fortune, but not exactly in the way you think. There are many types of comediennes who are not known as beauties, but who, nevertheless, have been successful. Therefore, first of all, type yourself (Hemward 1937,9). Interestingly, and in contrast to Stanislavski, early cinema discourse views typecasting not only as a practical strategy but also as key to naturalistic acting. Arguing against versatility in a how-to acting book, producer Kenelm Foss argues: Acting, in the sense of Impersonating a character foreign to the player's personality, does not exist. All actors deny this: all actors can play anything,.given the chance, according to their own account... If an actor Is not himself the part, or If his personality does not approximate to that of the part, he's not tlie man to play it . Types! That is what casting comes to. first and last—the selection of proper types (Pickford, 25-26). Similarly. Hcmward emphasizes that typing will produce more realistic performances: "You must know your type and then develop naturalness of acting within the characteristics of the personalities you desire to portray' (Hemward 1937.13). In addition, typecasiing is viewed as the result of the cameras "accuracy" which demands a particular kind of realism akin to typage. Frances Agnew writes: IVPECASIIřJG 163 Oh. that word "type!" In days ol yore, an artist was always an artist. By the aid of makeup and artistic temperament a young man or woman played a character many years his senior, or an older player was likewise considered capable of giving an artistic youthful characterization . .To-day the cry of managers is for types, a child must be played by a child, sweet sixteen must be sweet sixteen, not only in years, but in appearance "offstage" as well as on; the stage mother, aunt, old maid. etc. must be played by actresses possessing the appearance in private life; the handsome hero, the gallant old gentleman—each must look the part toa certain extent when engaged (Agnew 1913,59). While the idea of typing oneself goes against the grain ol most theories of naturalism, in Hollywood, typing oneself quickly became and continues to be a practical necessity, and has been institutionalized and formalized In casting practice through the production and distribution ol casting directories and casting services. Casting directories and services Almost as soon as casting becomes rationalized through the development of dramatic agencies and in-house casting directors, casting directories that promote and categorize actors are published and circulated. These directories feature photographs of actors and actresses, sometimes listing their credits and/or studio affiliations, in alphabetical order and within certain categories. The earliest casting directories categoriie actors using terminology that closely resembles the llnes-of-business tradition.9 For instance, the undated Directory of ArtiUs Under Exclusive Management of the Etfcwrd Small Company—which we can assume to be from the "picture personality" era. due to its epigraph. "Personality is a Commodity"—categorises actors in descending order as either leading men. Iuveniles (including leads, characters and lieavies). males (including second leads and heavies), or character men. Women are similarly categorized as leading women, ingenues, (emales (including second leads and heavies), and character women. In \924,ihe Stmn Artist breaks down its listings into feature men, feature comedians. leading men. juveniles, heavy men, and character men. with virtually the same groupings lor women and a separate category for children Reflecting f he need for increased SpociaUzMon.The Standard Directory of Motion Pk\ureTalenl\rom 1922 lists principals according to compressed llnes-of-business—feature men. leading men, juveniles, character men. lealure comedians—but also adds a section for "supporting cast." comprising those minor roles that would have been filled by the lower ranks in the lines-of-business tradition. This "supporting cast" includes an amazing array of specializations, defined by appearance or role, and Including male roles as acrobats, bits and parts, character men (old) and character men (young). Chinamen, doctors, female impersonators, lewish (old and ycung). Russian types, mins, underworld types, and well-dressed men (old and youngl. For women, supporting parts include not only character women and Ingenues, but also cooks, dancers, grande dames, nuns, small town (old and young), tall women (old and young), and witch types. Eventually, these specializations will disappear from primary casting directories and will be relegated to casting services dedicated to extras. For instance, In 1946 the classified groupings (or the Central Casting Coiporation include the following: American Indians; Arabians, able to handle camels; beards—dress and character; butlers; Chinese: cigarette 18d PAMELA ROBERTSON WOJCIK Siříš; clowns; cops: girls—sweet looking; Hindus, able lo handle elephants: midgets; rough characters; strong men; and short men. These specializations also exist residuálly in studio files on contract players such as those ol cast ing director William "Billy* Gordon. Gordon was casting director at MGM Studios from the 1930s lol947. and then at 20th Ceniury-Fox until I960, and he became head of talent at Columbia for the 1960s and 1970s. Gordon's files on actois from his tenure at MGM consist of typed lists of actors placed in folders with headings such as the following for male actors: Anglo Saxons. Arab, bald, bartender, beards, character, collegiate, colored/Negro, cripples/midgets/freaks, tat. fencers, iuveniles, nances, rubes, and underworld. For actresses, Gordon's files include: beautiful, blonde, characters (young). colored/Negro, exotic, fat, heavies, hookers, maids, old, old maids, prison matrons, showgirls, and singers. As general utility and supernumerary specialties fall increasingly under the category of extras and bit parts, most casting directories are then focused on actors who can fill principal parts; and typical directories list lines-of-business and include information about whether an actor is under contract, there is some overlap among categories. For instance, in I924's Tne Sŕrťfit A/ttíl. Francis X. Bushman is listed as both a leading man and a feature man. indicating a distinction between starring roles and other major roles. Similarly, in Ihe Players Iik. Si/w» Casimir Dir«icru of 1928. Skeets Noyes is listed as both a heavy and a character. There Is some mobility among the lines—an actor can ascend from juvenile or ingenue to lead—but the distinction between starring roles and roles as characters or comedians seems firm. At this time, the actors listed are almost all white but race and ethnicity figure heavily m the category of "character." which seems to tefer back to the categories of light comedy and eccentric business in traditional lines and generally includes actors who play distinct ethnic lypes. roles in uniform or other elaborate costumes, and roles in heavy make-up.10 For Instance, In a lune 1928 issue of T/w Players. Iní., character actor William Vox Mong lists his specialities: "Chinamen, Frenchmen. Russians and Americans and am learning English, Roman and Eskimo." By the 1930s, race becomes its own category as The Aftiďemi/tV'Motion Piiiure Aris and Sciences: Players DifRton; Bulletin (generally referred to as Tue AcoďeiHu Pf«(iers Directory) includes separate sections labeled "Colored" and "Oriental." which list all African American and Asian actors and actresses, adults and children, together while it classifies white men (without Identifying them as such) as leading men. younger leading men, characters and comedians; white women as leading women, ingenues, characters and comediennes; and white children as boys and girls. While African American and Asian actors and actresses exist outside the lines, as It were, with no indication of whether they are, for instance, characters or ingenues, white actors such as Bela Lugosi and Peter Lorre who play ethnic types are still listed in the main male categories as "characters." By 1945. possibly in response to NAACP calls for belter representation In Hollywood, actors of color are Included among the regular categories but are indexed separately. Initially, liiere seems to be an unwritten rule that an African American or Asian actor cannot be a lead. Lena Home, for instance. Is listed as a "character and comedienne* in the 1945 teadmy Players Diiwtóry. despite her groundbreaking star contract. While actors of color were eventually included among leads, they were still indexed separately as, first, Colored, then Negro, and eventually as Black. Today, this practice continues with Inaeasing attention to multiculturalism and political correctness, as actors and actresses are cross-Indexed as not only Black Artists, but also as Artists with Disabilities (including the IYPECASTING 186 4 specific nature of their disability, such as quadriplegic, amputee, etc.). Deaf and Hard of Hearing Artists. Little People, Asian Pacific Artists, Hispanic Artists. Native American Artists, and. oddly. Twins." Ultimately, through the combined forces of increasing rationalization and the star system. Hollywood develops a complex and hierarchical ladder of types—some defined by lines, some by appearance, some by personality, some associated with certain stereotypes, and some with social types, some operating as stars and some as character actors. Over the years, the categories into which these types can be sorted changes according to changing tastes and mores. And. as the assumed homology between actor and role, and role and appearance gets increasingly rigid and Increasingly politicked, types are diversified and increase exponentially but are still recognizable as types. For instance, a recent survey of casting calls in Breakdown Services, the leading print and w«b source in Hollywood for casting, found roles described largely In terms of types. These types ranged from stock characters such as "high school sweetheart" and "mother type' to racial categories and corresponding stereotypes ("African American. 20-35. Dance .. Basketball skills required"! to types defined by pre-existing actors and characters ľa young Jodie Fosi er orOueen Latifah. or Peppermint Party from Peanuts" in a call for "real" and diverse girls).11 Thus. In a certain sense, the older lines-of-business practice was less traditional in its conception of casting—insofar as what enabled an actor to play a line was not strictly speaking his physical appearance but rather his costume and make-up. whereas In todays seeming diversity, the actor is defined Increasingly by physical appearance, race, body type. age. gender, and sex. In the Interests of upholding shifting conceptions of realism. Hollywood has proliferated rather than blurred the lines." Conclusion To conclude, I would suggest that a consideration of casting helps deepen and expand our understanding of film acting. First, casting needs to be seen as an interpretive process. A consideration of casting could complicate current models of authorship and of stardom. Examining casting helps acknowledge not only the way roles are characterized but also the ideologies about identity they embody. In addition, a consideration of casting helps show changes in performance styles as only one part of what constitutes actingon screen. We need to more consciously relate performance styles to casting practices and take Into account political, cultural, and labor issues at the time of performance. On a related note, just as the meaning of the word "type" has evolved, notions of "realism* have undergone a metamorphosis to reflect changing ideas about acting and identity: and. therefore, the discourse of realism which has dominated studies of classical cinema needs to be more specifically informed by an understanding of institutional practice and historical context. Finally, while recognizing the influence of embedded 18th-century theatrical traditions on contemporary casting may lead us to view typecasting as inevitable, it should also open a door to change. If, as Stanislavskl suggests, performance style and institutional practice go hand in hand, then we need now to envision ways to break free from residual and perhaps outmoded casting traditions, to denaturalize naturalism and break free from modes of realism that simply reproduce our own everyday tendencies to typecast. PAMELA aoaiSTSON WOJCIK Acknowledgments '- -■ « ■.■ Notes ;•■■ Portions ol thlsessay were presented ai the Chicago Film Seminar, ai the University o! Notre Dame, and at I he Society fot Cinema and Media Studies and a slightly longer version of the essay appeared in a special issueof CrilicäiK Special thanks to lames Naremor e, Tom Gunning, -:-; Donald Crafton. l-esley Brill, and readers at Criticism for their comments Casting directors ^íř|3 (ane Alderman and Debra Zane generously shared their thoughts with me: Gary Marsh at \':á& Breakdown Services provided sample breakdowns; and Barbara Hall at the Margaret Herrick 3 Library of the Academy ol Motion Picture Arts and Sciences helped me to lind archival casting "$§ materials. 1 For more on Non-Traditional Casting. seeGlbbons 1991; Schechner 1989-, and the website i for the Non-Traditional Casting Project, www.ntcp.org 2 The Mími is the clownish underling or servant, an acrobatic mimic, a Harlequin. 3 The Australian larrikin Is a young street rowdy, a delinquent. Though the term refers to ■ minor criminals, it can also be used to name valued Australian characteristics such as irreverence, non-conformism. and Impudence 4 Typage tends toward representations of what Richard Dyercalls"membertypes"Member types 'are linked to historically and culturally specific and determined social groups or classes and their praxes, which are almost bound to be outside the present cultural hegemony (in so far as it has so much invested in the notion of Individuality)." Dyer values member types because they hold out the promise of collective identity, and therefore, political action, as opposed to social types and stereotypes which operate on an exclusionary basis. See Dyer 1980, 37. 5 On "expressive coherence" and theoriesof acting In Hollywood, see Naremore 1988.68-82 and passim. 6 On the demise of the llnes-of-business tradition, see Bürge 1986. 212-213; McConachle 1992. 248-256; and MeArthur 1984.7-8. 7 See "Casting Efficiency," MoliiinPiitttrrWorW26.no. II (I I December 1915); 1985. 8 Similarly.inconlrasttoherowndlscomfortwlthtypecasting.rvlaryPickfordadvisesactors m to know their strengths and weaknesses and find types or roles they can play. She writes; The producer will probably help you in your selection of the part. If he knows his work. as most producers do. he has divided humanity In sections—young men. old men. comedians, tragedians—and within a few minutes of your first appearance before him he will have allotted you toone of those sections, and more often than not his judgment will be the right one.* Pickford, 29. 9 All casting directories listed here are available at the Margaret Herrick Library of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Los Angeles 10 This senseol t hecategory of "character" parallels the useof the term "character" in dance, where, the 'character dance" is Invariably ethnic in nature and principally from the Russian or Slavic traditions, although there are Mediterranean character dances such as the Tarantella; and 'character dancer" refers to those dancers who portray older or comical characters such as Dr. Coppeltas In Coppefia. or the step mother in CindmWa (usually played by a male dancer) 1 am indebted to Kevin Dreyer for his explanation of this terminology. TYPECASTING 187 11 According to a February 2001 telephone Interview with Keith Gonzalez, ihe current editor of the Academy Piauers DliKiory, actors and/or their agent s decide whether to list themselves as leads, younger leads or ingenues, or characters and comedians, and they also decide whether or not to be cross-indexed. Gonzalez, likecastingdiiectors I interviewed, fuels that i actors are poor judges or their type and often mis-categorize themselves 12 Breakdown Services. Ltd. Provides "breakdowns" or capsule descriptions or all roles J needing to be cast for most Hollywood productions, Including feature films. TV shows. . commercials, student films, and industrials. The breakdowns are written by casting directors and/or in-house writers and breakdowns are sent to agents, managers, and other ■ subscribers daily Seewwwbreakdownservices.com [3 An anecdote will indicate how traditional "non-traditional" casting can be When 1 was doing research for this article. I had a conversation with a Chicago-based castingdirector who told me that if a directorasked to fill a role for a Polish female bank teller |which she assumed would be played by a Polish female actress), she might suggest the role be played as black, gay. and male instead; but her conception of who could play black, gay, and male was limited to actors who were themselves black, gay. and male. Thus, her conception of "non-traditional" casting consisted of swapping one type for another and her conception of type was tied to the actor s Individual "real" Identity. I had similar conversations with casting directors in Los Angeles. References Agnew, Frances. Motion Picture Acting. How to Prtpare for Phoioplaying. What QuaftflriMioiis are Necessary. How to Saute an Engagement. Salaries Paid la Photoplayeis New York; Reliance Newspaper Syndicate. 1913 Bogle. Donald. Toms, Coons. Muialloes. Mammies, and bucks. An Interpretive Hrilory of slacks in American Films. 1973. Reprint. New York Continuum. 2001. Bordwell. David. Kristin Thompson, and lanet Staiger. Tht Classical Hníl^xwf Cinema. Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. Brewster, Ben and Lea (acobs Tfienirr to Cinema: Stage Pklorialrsm and Ike Early Feature Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Bürge. lamesC Li>riso/BiisiiiřlS:C«>lú^Pn«iÍ(řiiiiď Políc« in Ihr AmerlfíwT/iŕaire. 1752-1899 New York; Peter Lang, 1986. Cavell. Stanley. TÄe WorWVi«vá:RWiectÍO"íOillnřOiitú(Oíi(o/Rim. Enlarged edition. Cambridge. MA; Harvard University Press. 1979. DeCordova. Richard. Picture Personalities: Tňe Emergence ol the SrarStrsrew in Amenta. Chicago; University of Illinois Press. 1990. Dyer. Richard. "Stereotyping." In Gays ami Film.edited by Richard Dyer, 27-39. London; British Film Institute. 1980. -------"The Role of Stereotypes." In Tne Malier of Images. Essai« oh Represent ileus. New York Routledge, 1993. Eisenstein. S. M 'The Principles of the New Russian Cinema." In Setictttl Woris. Volume I: Wrirriias. 1922-1934. edited and translated by Richard Taylor. Bloornhgton: Indiana University Press. 1988. Gibbons, lohn J TheAmetkan Theatre's Attempt to Achieve Muíriíalíura/ism on Stage Virough Hon- Tra