Reviewed by:

• Cue Tears: On the Act of Crying by Daniel Sack
• Peta Tait (bio)

Cue Tears poses fundamental questions about human expression and communication through a discussion of crying and tears in the visual and performing arts, particularly in theatrical performance. “How do performers cue their tears?”, and “What does it mean to witness another crying?” As Daniel Sack points out in his thoughtful, wide-ranging, and engaging discussion, crying and tears are not the same, although they often coincide. The use of breath and voice to cry may suffice on stage whether tears flow or not, but a camera close-up expects tears. Sack astutely explores the rich social and philosophical domain of crying and tears and the ways in which these can range from an appreciation of the sincerity of the theatrical purpose to recognition of duplicitous persuasion. Sack describes the uncertainty surrounding tears for an actor, since they are not easily willed, and claims, “My tears act alongside me” (2). His book is personal and remembered as well as well-researched and persuasive, and his thinking about tears has much to offer performance studies as well as a wider readership.

The type of theoretical questions asked by those of us with a background in acting do often differ. An actor knows that emotional expression is central to all performance and that its challenges are so often overlooked in reception. Emotions are an expressive hurdle that every performer must repeatedly manage and audiences look for as indicators of value. For example, the problem of performing pain and sadness to have an effect presumes some crying and/or tears. But then, as Sack explains, crying can mean howling in pain or in laughter, and tears might arise from frustration.

If crying is a dynamic expressive process, tears are the visual cue that is assumed to resonate with perceptions of actual feeling. Both are theatrically meaningful and therefore assumed to be indicators of feeling. Contradictions abound, however, when tears are indicators of honesty and authenticity and assumed to reveal much more than speech can explain. The Introduction to Cue Tears succinctly raises these complexities and their implications within an overview of thinking about tears.

The crying of a baby might suggest that humans are hard-wired to respond to crying if not also tears. Sack accepts that tears “cue” responses in others, sometimes intensely. They reveal hidden depths of a person—or do they? Tears are bodily processes whether from the stirring of memories about past events or the cutting of an onion. But some people cry more easily than others and for science. Sack turns to his scientist father, Robert, to ask about his career studying tears. There is a dialogue between them that gradually confirms that while science [End Page 498] can study the chemical composition of tears and their physiology, it is not easily able to explain how they are emotionally generated. Tears invite philosophical examination.

A capacity to show tears within fictional circumstances is assumed to denote the substance of acting. Artificial stimulants can be used. Do artificial tears “metonymically represent the art of acting,” as Sack suggests (99)? Yet an absence of tears can equally evoke a felt response in audiences and reflect a Stanislavski-influenced adage that “holding back” can have a powerful effect.

Sack drills down on the meanings of crying and tears. He unpeels numerous possibilities—like the proverbial onion layers that he recognises are used to tear-up in acting. A performance of tears evokes tears in someone watching which, in turn, can stir actual tears in the actor. Alternatively, tears can be disruptive through an inappropriate display. I agree with Sack that emotional feeling surrounds language and constantly defies the effort to put it into words; that is, an emotional feeling such as love or fear is a dynamic process that defies objectification. I follow his argument that tears “contest” knowledge and reason (142), although I still think his intriguing claim continues to implicate language. The significance and the...

 校订者：

• 
  提示眼泪：关于哭泣的行为 丹尼尔·萨克
•  Peta Tait （生物）

Cue Tears 通过讨论视觉和表演艺术中的哭泣和眼泪，特别是在戏剧表演中，提出了关于人类表达和交流的基本问题。“”表演者如何提示他们的眼泪？“和”目睹另一个哭泣意味着什么？正如丹尼尔·萨克 （Daniel Sack） 在他深思熟虑、范围广泛且引人入胜的讨论中指出的那样，哭泣和流泪并不相同，尽管它们经常重合。无论眼泪是否流淌，在舞台上使用呼吸和声音来哭泣可能就足够了，但摄像机特写预计会流泪。萨克敏锐地探讨了哭泣和流泪的丰富社会和哲学领域，以及这些领域从欣赏戏剧目的的真诚到承认口是心非的说服。萨克描述了演员眼泪的不确定性，因为他们不容易意志，并声称“我的眼泪与我并肩作战”（2）。他的书是个人的、被记住的，也是经过充分研究和有说服力的，他对眼泪的思考对表演研究和更广泛的读者群有很多帮助。

我们这些有表演背景的人提出的理论问题类型往往是不同的。演员知道情感表达是所有表演的核心，而它的挑战在接受中往往被忽视。情感是每个表演者都必须反复处理的表达障碍，观众会寻找作为价值指标的指标。例如，表现痛苦和悲伤以产生效果的问题假定会有一些哭泣和/或流泪。但是，正如 Sack 解释的那样，哭泣可能意味着痛苦或大笑的嚎叫，而眼泪可能会因沮丧而产生。

如果说哭泣是一个动态的表达过程，那么眼泪就是被认为与实际感受的感知产生共鸣的视觉线索。两者都具有戏剧意义，因此被认为是情感的指标。然而，当眼泪是诚实和真实的指标时，矛盾比比皆是，并且被认为揭示的远比言语所能解释的要多。《提示眼泪》导言在对眼泪的思考概述中简洁地提出了这些复杂性及其含义。

婴儿的哭声可能表明，人类天生就会对哭泣做出反应，如果不是眼泪的话。萨克承认，眼泪会“暗示”他人的反应，有时是强烈的。它们揭示了一个人隐藏的深度——或者他们是吗？眼泪是身体的过程，无论是来自对过去事件的回忆的激荡，还是来自切洋葱。但有些人比其他人更容易哭泣，也更容易为科学哭泣。萨克转向他的科学家父亲罗伯特 （Robert），询问他研究眼泪的职业生涯。他们之间的对话逐渐证实，虽然科学 [完第 498 页] 可以研究眼泪的化学成分及其生理学，但并不容易解释它们是如何在情感上产生的。眼泪引发了哲学的审视。

在虚构环境中表现出眼泪的能力被认为表示表演的实质。可以使用人工兴奋剂。人工泪液是否像 Sack 所说的那样 “转喻代表了表演的艺术” （99）？然而，没有眼泪同样可以引起观众的情感反应，并反映出受斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基影响的格言，即“忍住”可以产生强大的影响。

Sack 深入探讨了哭泣和流泪的含义。他揭示了许多可能性——比如他认识到众所周知的洋葱层被用来在表演中撕裂。眼泪的表演会引起观看的人的眼泪，这反过来又会激起演员的真正眼泪。或者，撕裂可能会因不适当的显示而造成干扰。我同意 Sack 的观点，即情感围绕着语言，并且不断不费吹灰之力将其转化为语言;也就是说，诸如爱或恐惧之类的情绪是一个无视物化的动态过程。我遵循他的论点，即撕裂“对抗”知识和理性（142），尽管我仍然认为他有趣的主张继续牵涉到语言。意义和...