At least since Denis Diderot’s 18 century essay, Paradoxe Sur Le Comedien (c.1773), the question about what, precisely, constitutes the nature of acting has been hotly debated, both within the acting profession itself (as part of an actor’s practice) and, more theoretically, within academia. Indeed, a concern relating to the actor’s apparent transformation into someone else is already present in Plato – a concern that led to the philosopher’s distrust of the theatre and mimesis more generally. A central question in the debate is this: does the actor experience a dual consciousness, where (s)he is both “living character” and “controlling artist” at one and the same time, OR does the actor identify so completely with the written character that a new entity, the actor-character, is born – Ya Esm “I am being” – as Stanislavsky puts it (Stanislavski 2008, p.684)? Vladimir Mirodan’s The Actor and the Character: Explorations in the Psychology of Transformative Acting continues this discussion on the nature of acting, comparing, specifically, the “actor-in-action”model – where what the audience sees is the experiencing, emotionally authentic actor “living truthfully under the imaginary circumstances” of the play (see Meisner et al.) – versus the “transformative actor”, where the actor’s personality and that of the character remain distinct. This, according toMichael Chekhov, allows for an acknowledgement of the actor as “artist”, who transcends his/her own personality through a process of transformation, thus creating a character, who is “other” than them (p.3). Mirodan’s particular approach here is to employ insights gained from the study of both Psychoanalysis (a staple of acting theory and practice since the first half of the 20 century) and the more recent findings from Scientific Psychology (or Cognitive Science), as a frame for analysing the actor’s method of creating character. Terms such as “body-mind” are used throughout, in recognition of the rejection of a Cartesian duality – a move also reflected in the contemporary popularity, and ubiquitous use of, the term psycho-physicality in actor training (see, for example, Zarrilli 2009). ‘What happens when one of us “becomes somebody else”, Mirodan asks, provocatively, at the outset. The application of current thinking in neuroscience to the discipline of acting and, consequently, to the development of methodological approaches in actor training was a central theme at the recent S-Word Symposium held at the University of Malta in April 2019, where Mirodan was one of the key speakers. It is also the subject of several recent studies, notably Rick Kemp’s Embodied Acting: What neuroscience tells us about

中文翻译：

---

演员和角色：弗拉基米尔·米罗丹 (Routledge, 2019) 对变革性表演心理学的探索。朱利安琼斯的批判性回应

至少自丹尼斯·狄德罗 (Denis Diderot) 的 18 世纪论文《喜剧之旁的悖论》(Paradoxe Sur Le Comedien (c.1773)) 以来，关于表演的本质究竟是什么的问题一直在激烈争论，无论是在表演职业本身（作为演员实践的一部分）从理论上讲，在学术界。事实上，柏拉图已经存在与演员明显转变为其他人有关的担忧——这种担忧导致哲学家更普遍地不信任戏剧和模仿。辩论中的一个核心问题是：演员是否体验到双重意识，他（她）同时是“活着的角色”和“控制艺术家”，或者演员是否与书面作品完全认同？角色是一个新实体，演员角色，出生 - Ya Esm “我正在” - 正如斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基所说（斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基 2008，第 684 页）？弗拉基米尔·米罗丹 (Vladimir Mirodan) 的《演员与角色：变革性表演心理学的探索》继续讨论表演的本质，特别是比较“演员在行动”模型——观众看到的是体验中的、情感上真实的演员“真实地生活在想象的环境下”（见迈斯纳等人）——与“变革性演员”相比，演员的个性和角色的个性仍然截然不同。根据迈克尔契诃夫的说法，这允许承认演员是“艺术家”，他通过转变过程超越了自己的个性，从而创造了一个与他们“不同”的角色（第 3 页）。米罗丹在这里的特殊方法是利用从精神分析（自 20 世纪上半叶以来表演理论和实践的主要内容）和科学心理学（或认知科学）的最新发现中获得的见解，作为框架分析演员塑造角色的方法。诸如“身心”之类的术语被贯穿始终，以承认对笛卡尔二元性的拒绝——这一举动也反映在当代流行和普遍使用的演员训练中的心理-物理术语（例如，参见，扎里利 2009）。“当我们中的一个人‘变成另一个人’时会发生什么，米罗丹一开始就挑衅地问道。神经科学中当前思维在表演学科中的应用，因此，2019 年 4 月在马耳他大学举行的 S-Word 研讨会上，演员培训方法论的发展是一个中心主题，Mirodan 是其中的主要发言人之一。这也是最近几项研究的主题，特别是里克·肯普 (Rick Kemp) 的《具身表演：神经科学告诉我们什么》