presents the performance of the film actor to the public need not respect the performance asan integral whole. Guided by the cameraman, the camera continually changes its position with respect to the performance. The sequence of positional views which the editor composes from the material supplied him constitutes the completed film. It comprises certa in factors of movement which are in reality those of the camera,not to mention special camera angles, close-ups, etc. Hence, the performance of the actor is objected to a series of optical tests. This is the first consequence of the fact that the actors performance is presented by means of a camera. Also, the film actor lacks the opportunity of the sta ge actor to adjust to the audience during his performance, since he does not present his performance to the audience in person. This perm its the audience to take the position of a critic, without experiencing any personal contact with the actor. The audiences identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera. Consequently the audience takes the position of the camera; its approach is that of testing This is not the approach to which cult values may be exposed For the film, what matters primarily is that the actor represents himself to the public before the camera ather than representing someone else. One of the first to sense the actor's metamorphosis by this form of testing was Pirandello. Though his remarks on the subject in his novel Si Gira were lim ited to the negative aspects of the question and to the silent film only, this hardly impairs their validity. For in this respect, the sound film did not change anyth inessential. What matters is that the part is acted not foran audience but for a mechanicalcontrivance-in the case of the sound film for two of them. ' The film actor wrote Pirandello, feels as if in exile -exiled not only from the stage but also from himself. With a vague sense of discomfort he feels inexplicable emptiness: his body loses its corporeality, it evaporates, it is deprived of reality, life, voice, and the noises caused by his moving about, in order to be changed into a mute image. flickering an instant on the screen, then vanishing into silence.. The projector will play with his shadow before the public, and he himself must be content to play before the camera. This situation might also be haracterized as follows: for the first time-and this is the effect of the film-man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgoing its aura For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it. The aura which, on the stage, emanates from Macbeth, cannot be separated forthe spectators from that of the actor. However, the singularity of the shot in the studio is that the camera is substituted for the public Consequently, the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays lt that it should be a dramatist such as Pirandello who, in characterizing the film inadvertently touches on the very crisis in which we see the theatre. Any thorough study proves that there is indeed no greater contrast than that of the stage play to a work of art that is completely subject to or, like the film, founded in, mechanicalreproduction. Experts have long recognized that in the film the greatestpresents the performance of the film actor to the public need not respect the performance as an integral whole. Guided by the cameraman, the camera continually changes its position with respect to the performance. The sequence of positional views which the editor composes from the material supplied him constitutes the completed film. It comprises certain factors of movement which are in reality those of the camera, not to mention special camera angles, close-ups, etc. Hence, the performance of the actor is subjected to a series of optical tests. This is the first consequence of the fact that the actor’s performance is presented by means of a camera. Also, the film actor lacks the opportunity of the stage actor to adjust to the audience during his performance, since he does not present his performance to the audience in person. This permits the audience to take the position of a critic, without experiencing any personal contact with the actor. The audience’s identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera. Consequently the audience takes the position of the camera; its approach is that of testing. This is not the approach to which cult values may be exposed. IX For the film, what matters primarily is that the actor represents himself to the public before the camera, rather than representing someone else. One of the first to sense the actor’s metamorphosis by this form of testing was Pirandello. Though his remarks on the subject in his novel Si Gira were limited to the negative aspects of the question and to the silent film only, this hardly impairs their validity. For in this respect, the sound film did not change anything essential. What matters is that the part is acted not for an audience but for a mechanical contrivance - in the case of the sound film, for two of them. ’The film actor,’ wrote Pirandello, ’feels as if in exile - exiled not only from the stage but also from himself. With a vague sense of discomfort he feels inexplicable emptiness: his body loses its corporeality, it evaporates, it is deprived of reality, life, voice, and the noises caused by his moving about, in order to be changed into a mute image, flickering an instant on the screen, then vanishing into silence... The projector will play with his shadow before the public, and he himself must be content to play before the camera.’ This situation might also be characterized as follows: for the first time - and this is the effect of the film - man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgoing its aura. For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it. The aura which, on the stage, emanates from Macbeth, cannot be separated for the spectators from that of the actor. However, the singularity of the shot in the studio is that the camera is substituted for the public. Consequently, the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays. It is not surprising that it should be a dramatist such as Pirandello who, in characterizing the film, inadvertently touches on the very crisis in which we see the theatre. Any thorough study proves that there is indeed no greater contrast than that of the stage play to a work of art that is completely subject to or, like the film, founded in, mechanical reproduction. Experts have long recognized that in the film ’the greatest