Aaron Taylor
Dr. Aaron Taylor is an Associate Professor of Cinema in the Drama Department at the University of Lethbridge. He is also presently a Tier II Board of Governors Research Chair.
His work centers on screen acting, cognitive film theory, and the transmedia relations between film and comics. He is the editor of two anthologies on performance and characterization, and the author of over two dozen articles and book chapters. His ongoing research on acting and embodied cognition is enabled by interdisciplinary collaboration with colleagues in the Psychology and Drama Departments, as well as substantial internal and SSHRC funding.
Presently, he is the Associate Editor of Projections: The Journal of Movies and Mind, and a Fellow of the Society for Cognitive Studies of the Moving Image. He served in various capacities on the Film Studies Association of Canada’s Executive Committee from 2008-2014, and held a Teaching Fellowship at the University of Lethbridge from 2017-19.
RESEARCH INTERESTS
Screen acting
Cognitive film theory
Comic books & cinema
Contemporary American cinema
Emotions and film
Narratology and aesthetics
Phone: (001) 403 394-3922
Address: Centre for the Arts W864
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
T1K 3M4
His work centers on screen acting, cognitive film theory, and the transmedia relations between film and comics. He is the editor of two anthologies on performance and characterization, and the author of over two dozen articles and book chapters. His ongoing research on acting and embodied cognition is enabled by interdisciplinary collaboration with colleagues in the Psychology and Drama Departments, as well as substantial internal and SSHRC funding.
Presently, he is the Associate Editor of Projections: The Journal of Movies and Mind, and a Fellow of the Society for Cognitive Studies of the Moving Image. He served in various capacities on the Film Studies Association of Canada’s Executive Committee from 2008-2014, and held a Teaching Fellowship at the University of Lethbridge from 2017-19.
RESEARCH INTERESTS
Screen acting
Cognitive film theory
Comic books & cinema
Contemporary American cinema
Emotions and film
Narratology and aesthetics
Phone: (001) 403 394-3922
Address: Centre for the Arts W864
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
T1K 3M4
less
InterestsView All (17)
Uploads
Videos by Aaron Taylor
Co-authored with Bryn Hewko
Published in [in]Transition 4.1, 2017. https://bit.ly/3oYqkfO
Papers by Aaron Taylor
To these ends, we can first itemize some specific impressions of the acting on Twin Peaks, and theorize why they may prove profitable to analyze carefully. Influential aspects to discuss will include: (1) the surprising degree of oratorical flatness and archetypal embodiment vs. declamatory amplification and emotional excess; (2) an elastic approach to duration, rhythm and temporality; (3) modal and generic blending; (4) musical rather than dramatic logic; and (5) abrupt affective shifts and absurdist cognitive dissonance. These distinct features will be connected to more expansive performative trends in complex TV as a whole. Some of these general conventions under discussion will include: (1) character density vs. telegraphed repetition; (2) serial consistency and episodic logic vs. the fluidity, verticality, and withholding tendencies of a complex series; (3) the privileging of an aesthetic of decipherment over the establishment of parasocial relationships; and (4) the elasticity of the televisual body. This discussion of Twin Peaks’ fascinating and paradigm-changing performance strategies should prove to be a useful taxonomy for future analysts of an equally captivating televisual mode.
and cultural assumptions that underlie the classification of certain performers as "supporting actors." By disentangling a number of the intertwining constituents of this categorical position, I hope to reveal certain dominant assertions about cinematic characters and the actors who portray them. I will respond to the situation of the supporting player as a mere ally or adversary, lacking complexity as a “flat” character or “type,” and whose performance lacks what Richard Maltby has described as star “autonomy” (389). More importantly, it shall be determined how these assertions implicitly suppress alternative conceptions of character, performance and narrative engagement.
Co-authored with Bryn Hewko
Published in [in]Transition 4.1, 2017. https://bit.ly/3oYqkfO
To these ends, we can first itemize some specific impressions of the acting on Twin Peaks, and theorize why they may prove profitable to analyze carefully. Influential aspects to discuss will include: (1) the surprising degree of oratorical flatness and archetypal embodiment vs. declamatory amplification and emotional excess; (2) an elastic approach to duration, rhythm and temporality; (3) modal and generic blending; (4) musical rather than dramatic logic; and (5) abrupt affective shifts and absurdist cognitive dissonance. These distinct features will be connected to more expansive performative trends in complex TV as a whole. Some of these general conventions under discussion will include: (1) character density vs. telegraphed repetition; (2) serial consistency and episodic logic vs. the fluidity, verticality, and withholding tendencies of a complex series; (3) the privileging of an aesthetic of decipherment over the establishment of parasocial relationships; and (4) the elasticity of the televisual body. This discussion of Twin Peaks’ fascinating and paradigm-changing performance strategies should prove to be a useful taxonomy for future analysts of an equally captivating televisual mode.
and cultural assumptions that underlie the classification of certain performers as "supporting actors." By disentangling a number of the intertwining constituents of this categorical position, I hope to reveal certain dominant assertions about cinematic characters and the actors who portray them. I will respond to the situation of the supporting player as a mere ally or adversary, lacking complexity as a “flat” character or “type,” and whose performance lacks what Richard Maltby has described as star “autonomy” (389). More importantly, it shall be determined how these assertions implicitly suppress alternative conceptions of character, performance and narrative engagement.