From Lillian Gish to James Dean: My Interview with Dan Callahan

I had a lot of fun interviewing Dan Callahan about his new book The Art of American Screen Acting, 1912-1960.

It’s now up at Slant Magazine:

Mystery of Screen Acting: An Interview with Dan Callahan.

This entry was posted in Actors, Books, Movies and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to From Lillian Gish to James Dean: My Interview with Dan Callahan

  1. mutecypher says:

    That was really enjoyable. I put Dan’s book into the Amazon queue.

    I recall your comments here about every current actress looking the same on the red carpet – I think we were discussing how disappointing it was to see Kate Winslet looking like EveryStarlet at some movie opening or ceremony. I really need to read Molly Haskell. I understand (at a descriptive level) that very young men getting a lot of power in the entertainment industry beginning in the late ’60’s seems to have led to this homogenization – but I don’t have a good grasp of the why.

    • sheila says:

      Every time an actress shows up with that long-curl-flip I go, “NOT YOU TOO.”

      Danneel Ackles on Supernatural is the latest example. Why can’t she just have long brown hair? Why make her look like everybody else? I need someone to track that style. I have a feeling it was either a Kardashian or a Real Housewife who got the whole trend started – and that’s even WORSE.

      Actresses should want to stand OUT. They should want to have their own LOOK. It’s really really bad right now. Cookie-cutter actresses.

  2. Jessie says:

    great interview — in particular love the observations on Hepburn/Grant (of course) and Cagney who I know barely anything about — such a bummer that shipping to Aus is so expensive but I’ll be keeping an eagle eye out for it, really looking forward to reading!

    • sheila says:

      Jessie – thanks!

      Yes, the chapter on Cagney was really illuminating! He really made me think about Cagney in a new way – and I already love him. But Dan picking up on the “femme” side of Cagney – I hadn’t really picked up on it, but now that he’s pointed it out it’s so obvious!

  3. Sheila

    I am running out and getting this book.
    Seriously.
    Great interview!
    From Bresson to Brando. To what Callahan says about Dietrich, Garbo, Cagney.
    And what he says about acting should be required reading for actors!
    It’s stuff I think about a lot that he put into words. And what you two are so eloquently talking about.
    I was watching a one woman show the other night. And she was terrific. I loved it. At the same time I saw how she was doing it. In other words, I could see the wheels turning and how she crafted it. I can’t explain how I still loved it! But I knew that she did it many times before. It was very smooth, and as an actress I don’t have an interest in doing that myself. To have it be a surprise coming from some unknown place. So it could go rocky at times. It has to go into I don’t know what to call it, but a zone. You can be in the zone in any style, whether is subtle or larger then life. All valid attempts to transcend the mundane.

    • sheila says:

      Regina – I know just what you mean – and I love how you put it: “transcend the mundane.” That’s it, isn’t it – that’s the goal. I mean, obviously not for everyone – and there are those actors who CAN’T transcend the mundane –

      It makes me think of Stella Adler’s comment on what talent is: “The talent is in the choice.”

      Tough talk!! But I think it’s true. Talent is shown in the choices an actor makes. You think of those unexpected moments from actors we love – Bette Davis or Gena Rowlands or De Niro or whoever …. sometimes I think, “WHY did they decide to play it like that? Where did THAT come from?” Only THEY would make the choices they make.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.