【图片】【求片源】请问吧里的哪位朋友有休的全部片子啊？【休格兰特吧】_百度贴吧
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&签到排名：今日本吧第个签到，本吧因你更精彩，明天继续来努力！
本吧签到人数：0成为超级会员，使用一键签到本月漏签0次！成为超级会员，赠送8张补签卡连续签到：天&&累计签到：天超级会员单次开通12个月以上，赠送连续签到卡3张
关注：2,046贴子：
【求片源】请问吧里的哪位朋友有休的全部片子啊？收藏
上个月刚刚喜欢上休，把能找到的片子都看了一遍，但是有好多都找不到了，请问吧里的哪位朋友可以贡献一下的，万分感谢
&1号店618&进口食品年中优惠大放送,大牌汇聚,好物联欢,全网底价购,1号店倾情回馈,优惠不停息!
找不到之一《战栗夜色》Night Train to Venice外文名：Train to Hell其它译名：去威尼斯的夜行列车发行公司：Divisa Home Video制片地区：德国导
演：Carlo U. Quinterio类
型惊悚 / 悬疑外文名称 Night Train to Venice编剧：Toni HirtreiterLeo Tichat主演：马尔科姆·麦克道威尔 Malcolm McDowellRobinson Reichel休·格兰特 Hugh Grant上映日期：日 西班牙剧情梗概：马汀是一位作家，因写了一本有关纳粹党的书，在前往威尼斯途中被歹徒追杀！除此之外，一名神秘人物的出现和他不怀好意的眼神，更使他感到深受威胁，分不清那股邪恶的力量是真？是幻？还是一场梦？虽然网上评价不太好，但当最喜欢的惊悚片碰上休的美颜，这片子还是一定要看的
找不到之二《牛津之爱》导演: 迈克尔 霍夫曼 (Michael Hoffman)编剧: David Woollcombe / Jeremy Beadle / 迈克尔 霍夫曼 (Michael Hoffman)主演: Robert Woolley / Diana Katis / 休·格兰特/ 詹姆斯·维尔拜James Wilby类型: 剧情 / 喜剧制片国家/地区: 英国语言: 英语上映日期: 片长: 96 分钟牛津之爱的剧情简介 ：A story about a group of Oxford undergraduate acting students and their troubled lives while producing the play The Duchess of Malfi.虽然这部片子休出场的时间非常短，但作为休的处女作还是一定要收的
找不到之三《香槟查理》英语原声导演: Allan Eastman编剧: Robert Geoffrion / Jacqueline Lefèvre主演: 休·格兰特 / 梅根·加拉格尔 / 梅根·佛洛斯类型: 剧情 / 爱情 / 冒险制片国家/地区: 法国 / 加拿大语言: 英语上映日期: (美国)片长: 190分钟剧情简介：查尔斯出生在法国的一个香槟酒制造世家，环境的熏陶使他对香槟酒情有独钟。但天有不测风云，一场疾病使不满十岁的查尔斯失去了父亲。母亲为了继续家族事业，无奈之中，找来了查尔斯的叔叔亨利帮忙。但亨利因为当年向查尔斯的妈妈求爱遭到拒绝一事仍旧耿耿于怀，作为报复，他计划着吞食查尔斯父亲留下来的所有财产。十五年过去了，查尔斯早已长大成人，并在巴黎的一所大学读书。时值法国最动乱的时期，在一次混乱中，查尔斯救了年轻美貌、但又雄心勃勃的美国姑娘鲍利小姐，两人一见钟情，坠入爱河。为了把父亲遗留下来的事业重新从叔叔手中夺回来。查尔斯不得不暂时告别心爱的爱人，回到家乡，但不久便传来了鲍利结婚的消息。查尔斯悲痛欲绝，随后也与深爱他的表妹路易斯结了婚。婚后的查尔斯一心料理自己的酒厂，为了能够顺利地在美国推销香槟酒，作为交换条件他答应为法国政府传送秘密文件，而他自己也成为了美国上层社会的交际名流。在一次聚会中,查尔斯意外地遇到了鲍利，两人旧情复燃。但没多久，鲍利为了维护美国南方的奴隶制度回到了家乡，二人再次分手。而此时，查尔斯也为酒厂出现的危机四处奔波。一个偶然的机会，查尔斯得知鲍利的家乡正遭受美国北方部队的攻击，他不顾生命危险冒死赶到那里，却不幸被当地的军官抓进了监狱。在监狱中，查尔斯饱受折磨，在妻子路易斯的一再努力下，法国政府出面交涉，释放了查尔斯。通过鲍利的表弟，查尔斯与她再次相见。虽然此时美国北方统领南方的大局不可扭转，但鲍利仍旧不听劝告，一味沉浸于复辟南方奴隶制度的幻想中。心灰意冷的查尔斯毅然离开了一意孤行的鲍利，重返家园，与妻子和家人团聚。但此时家里的情况极其困难，酒厂面临着被亨利叔叔收购的危险。就在全家人为此事愁眉不展的时候，一个曾经被查尔斯资助过的商人及时出现，解了酒厂的燃眉之急。亨利叔叔的阴谋破灭了，查尔斯一家顺利地度过困境，而香槟酒厂的生意也再度兴旺起来。土豆上有央视曾经播放过的中文版，无奈清晰度不够，中文配音太难听，还有删减，所以在此打滚求原版。
《编剧情缘》也找不到
找不到之五《待到重逢时》英语原声f虽然这部片子，休不是主要角色，但是作为他作品中为数不多的反派角色，还是一定要收的
吧里有没有可以海外代购碟片的亲啊
年代都太久远
最近几天尽我最大努力，找到了这几部，别的再怎样都找不到了，曾经自诩多么重口味的片子都能找到，结果愣是找不到《牛津之爱》
另，群里有没有也同喜欢谷原章介、约翰·库萨克、朱镇模、没被毁容之前的米基·洛克的？
lz有没有美国梦的高清下载链接
不会用百度云分享……
楼主我想要两周情人，求网盘
楼主登了你的网盘传了几部电影，表介意
楼主，求休叔电影下载链接，也发一个地址给我吧
楼主，账号密码登不上去
可以发给我吗？非常感谢
这不片子！！急求！！休叔演一个医生叫guy的那个片子！
楼主你好～可以发百度云吗？
楼主～求资源谢谢～
楼主 求Maurice
楼楼可以给我发下K歌情人吗
不论哪部电影里休叔一颦一笑都是美得动人心魄
网盘己失效，时隔几年LZ还在吗
楼主战栗夜色找到了吗 牛津和香槟我有
你好，加你百度好友了，好多电影找不到，可以分享给我嘛～谢谢。
楼主我也加了你百度云啦求分享
登录百度帐号From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
's performance in 's film of
exemplified the power of Stanislavski-based acting in cinema.
Method acting is a range of training and rehearsal techniques that seek to encourage sincere and emotionally expressive performances, as formulated by a number of different , principally in the United States, where it is among the most popular—and controversial—approaches to acting. These techniques are built on , developed by the Russian actor and director
and captured in his books , , and . Among those who have contributed to the development of the Method, three teachers are associated with "having set the standard of its success", each emphasizing different aspects of the approach:
(the psychological aspects),
(the sociological aspects), and
(the behavioral aspects). The approach was first developed when they worked together at the
in New York. All three subsequently claimed to be the rightful heirs of Stanislavski's approach.
"The Method" is an elaboration of the "system" of acting developed by the Russian
. In the first three decades of the , Stanislavski organized his training, preparation, and rehearsal techniques into a coherent,
methodology. The "system" brought together and built on: (1) the director-centred,
and disciplined, (2) the actor- (3) and the
staging of
and the independent theatre movement.
Diagram of , based on his "Plan of Experiencing" (1935).
The "system" cultivates what Stanislavski calls the "art of experiencing" (to which he contrasts the ""). It mobilises the actor's
thought and
in order to activate other, less-controllable psychological processes—such as emotional experience and
behaviour—sympathetically and indirectly. In rehearsal, the actor searches for inner motives to justify action and the definition of what the character seeks to achieve at any given moment (a "task"). Later, Stanislavski further elaborated the "system" with a more physically grounded rehearsal process known as the "". Minimising at-the-table discussions, he now encouraged an "active analysis", in which the sequence of dramatic situations are . "The best analysis of a play", Stanislavski argued, "is to take action in the given circumstances."
The transmission of the earliest phase of Stanislavski's work via the students of the First Studio of the
(MAT) revolutionized acting in the . When the MAT toured the US in the early 1920s, the young
saw all of their productions and was deeply impressed by their
performances. At that time, , one of Stanislavski's students from the First Studio, presented a series of lectures on the "system" that were eventually published as Acting: The First Six Lessons (1933). The interest generated led to a decision by Boleslavsky and
(another student at the First Studio) to emigrate to the US and to establish the . The version of Stanislavski's practice that travelled to the US with them was that developed in the 1910s, rather than the more fully elaborated version of the "system" detailed in Stanislavski's acting manuals from the 1930s, An Actor's Work and An Actor's Work on a Role. The first half of An Actor's Work, which treated the psychological elements of training, was published in a heavily abridged and misleadingly translated version in the US as
in 1936. English-language readers often confused the first volume on psychological processes with the "system" as a whole.
Many of the American practitioners who came to be identified with the Method were taught by Boleslavsky and Ouspenskaya at the American Laboratory Theatre. The approaches to acting subsequently developed by their students—including Lee Strasberg, , and —are often confused with Stanislavski's "system". Strasberg's adaptation relied exclusively on psychological techniques and contrasted sharply with Stanislavski's multivariate, holistic and
approach, which explores character and action both from the "inside out" and the "outside in".
As well as Stanislavski's early work, the ideas and techniques of his student
(who had died in 1922 at the age of 39) were also an important influence on the development of the Method. Vakhtangov's "object exercises" were developed further by
as a means for actor training and the maintenance of skills. Strasberg attributed to Vakhtangov the distinction between Stanislavski's process of "justifying" behaviour with the inner motive forces that prompt that behaviour in the character and "motivating" behaviour with imagined or recalled experiences relating to the actor and substituted for those relating to the character. Following this distinction, actors ask themselves "What would motivate me, the actor, to behave in the way the character does?" rather than the more Stanislavskian question "Given the particular circumstances of the play, how would I behave, what would I do, how would I feel, how would I react?"
Among the concepts and techniques of method acting are , "as if", sense memory, , and animal work (all of which were first developed by Stanislavski). Contemporary method actors sometimes seek help from psychologists in the development of their roles.
In Strasberg's approach, actors make use of experiences from their own lives to bring them closer to the experience of their characters. This technique, which Stanislavski came to call emotion memory (Strasberg tends to use the alternative formulation, "affective memory"), involves the recall of sensations involved in experiences that made a significant emotional impact on the actor. Without faking or forcing, actors allow those sensations to stimulate a response and try not to inhibit themselves.
Every afternoon for five weeks during the summer of 1934 in , Stanislavski worked with the American actress , who had sought his assistance with the blocks she had confronted in her performances. Given the emphasis that emotion memory had received in , Adler was surprised to find that Stanislavski rejected the technique except as a last resort. Under the influence of , emotion memory had become a central feature of Strasberg's training at the . In contrast, Stanislavski recommended to Stella Adler an indirect pathway to emotional expression via physical action. In his biography of Stanislavski, Jean Benedetti writes: "It has been suggested that Stanislavski deliberately played down the emotional aspects of acting because the woman in front of him was already over-emotional. The evidence is against this. What Stanislavski told Stella Adler was exactly what he had been telling his actors at home, what indeed he had advocated in his notes for
in the production plan for ." Stanislavski confirmed this emphasis in his discussions with
in late 1935. The news that this was Stanislavski's approach would have significant repercussions in the US; Strasberg angrily rejected it and refused to modify his approach.
In training, as distinct from rehearsal process, the recall of sensations to provoke emotional experience and the development of a vividly imagined fictional experience remained a central part both of Stanislavski's and the various Method-based approaches that developed out of it.
A widespread misconception about method acting—particularly in the popular media—equates method actors with actors who choose to remain in character even offstage or off-camera for the duration of a project.[] In his book A Dream of Passion, Strasberg wrote that Stanislavski, early in his directing career, "require[d] his actors to live 'in character' off stage", but that "the results were never fully satisfactory". Stanislavski did experiment with this approach in his own acting before he became a professional actor and founded the , though he soon abandoned it. Some method actors employ this technique, such as , but Strasberg did not include it as part of his teachings and it "is not part of the Method approach".
Strasberg's students included many prominent American actors of the latter half of the 20th century, including , , , , , , , , , , among others.
Some American acting teachers inspired by Stanislavski broke off with Strasberg, believing his method was not an authentic adaptation of Stanislavski's system.
, another Group Theatre pioneer, believed the method was far too focused on the internal workings of the actor, and that acting should be "outside in" rather than "inside out". His ideas came to be called the . He advocated actors fully immersing themselves "in the moment" and concentrating on their partner (what Stanislavski called "communication" and "adaptation"). Meisner taught actors to achieve spontaneity by understanding the
of the scene. He designed interpersonal exercises to help actors invest emotionally in the scene, freeing them to react "honestly" as the character. Meisner described acting as "living truthfully under imaginary circumstances".
also broke with Strasberg. In his books Method—or Madness? and the more autobiographical Slings and Arrows, Lewis argued that method acting was too focused on pure emotional training and neglected vocal and physical training, which forms a fundamental part both of classical actor-training and of . The method's reliance on emotion, he felt, could too easily encourage overacting.
, an actress and acting teacher whose students included , , and , also broke with Strasberg after she studied with Stanislavski, by which time he had modified many of his earliest ideas. Her version of the method is based on the idea that actors should stimulate emotional experience by imagining the scene's "given circumstances", rather than recalling experiences from their own lives. Adler's approach also seeks to stimulate the actor's imagination through the use of "as ifs", which substitute more personally affecting imagined situations for the circumstances experienced by the character. Adler argued that "drawing on personal experience alone was too limited. Brando himself claimed he never studied with Strasberg and never liked him for being so selfish and ambitious. Brando was a student of Stella Adler's, and in his book, he claimed to have abhorred Lee Strasberg's teachings and praised Adler for her work.
The charge that Strasberg's method distorted Stanislavski's system has been responsible for a considerable revivalist interest in Stanislavski's "pure" teachings. As the use of the Method has declined considerably from its peak in the mid-20th century, acting teachers claiming to teach Stanislavski's unadulterated system are becoming more numerous.[]
described his work with
as difficult "because you know, he was a method actor". He recalled similar problems with Paul Newman in .
quipped: "It's ridiculous. How would you portray death if you had to experience it first?" , who worked closely for a time with , argued that "Method actors give you a photograph", while "real actors give you an oil painting."
In , a form of method acting was developed independently from American cinema. , a
actor who debuted in the 1940s and eventually became one of the biggest Indian
of the 1950s and 1960s, was a pioneer of method acting, predating Hollywood method actors such as . Kumar inspired many future Indian actors, from
to . Kumar, who pioneered his own form of method acting without any acting school experience, was described as "the ultimate method actor" (natural actor) by the famous filmmaker .
Blum (1984, 63) and Hayward ().
Krasner (2000b, 129).
Krasner (2000b, 130).
Benedetti (, 15, 18) and (1999b, 254), Braun (1982, 59), Carnicke (, 29), Counsell (1996, 24), Gordon (–41), and Innes ().
Benedetti (1999a, 201), Carnicke (2000, 17), and Stanislavski (). Stanislavski's "" corresponds to 's "actor of reason" and his "art of experiencing" corresponds to Shchepkin's "actor of feeling"; see Benedetti (1999a, 202).
Benedetti (1999a, 170).
Benedetti (1999a, 182–183).
Benedetti (1999a, 325, 360) and () and Roach (–198, 205, 211–215). The term "" was applied to this rehearsal process after Stanislavski's death. Benedetti indicates that though Stanislavski had developed it since 1916, he first explored it practically in the early 1930s; see () and (1999a, 356, 358). Gordon argues the shift in working-method happened during the 1920s (). Vasili Toporkov, an actor who trained under Stanislavski in this approach, provides in his Stanislavski in Rehearsal (2004) a detailed account of the Method of Physical Action at work in Stanislavski's rehearsals.
Benedetti (1999a, 355–256), Carnicke (), Leach (2004, 29), Magarshack (–375), and Whyman ().
Quoted by Carnicke (). Stanislavski continues: "For in the process of action the actor gradually obtains the mastery over the inner incentives of the actions of the character he is representing, evoking in himself the emotions and thoughts which resulted in those actions. In such a case, an actor not only understands his part, but also feels it, and that is the most important thing in creative work on the stage"; quoted by Magarshack ().
Carnicke (7) and (2000, 14), Counsell (), Golub (), Gordon (), Leach (2004, 29), and Milling and Ley ().
Benedetti (1999a, 286) and Blum (1984, 22). Strasberg was 22 at the time.
had been able to extend his visa thanks to an invitation from Stanislavski to act as an assistant director to the company.
Benedetti (1999a, 283, 286) and Gordon ().
Benedetti (1999a, 332).
Krasner (2000b, 129–130).
Benedetti (–148) and Carnicke (). Not only actors are subje 's
credited Stanislavski with the invention of the Method: "Mr. Strasberg adapted it to the American theatre, imposing his refinements, but always crediting Stanislavsky as his source" (Quoted by Carnicke 1998, 9); see Gussow (1982). Carnicke argues that this "robs Strasberg of the originality in his thinking, while simultaneously obscuring Stanislavsky's ideas" (1997, 9). In a note from 1913 Stanislavski wrote that a character "is sometimes formed psychologically, i.e. from the inner image of the role, but at other times it is discovered through purely external exploration"; quoted by Benedetti (1999a, 216). Neither the tradition that formed in the USSR nor the American Method, Carnicke argues, "integrated the mind and body of the actor, the corporal and the spiritual, the text and the performance as thoroughly or as insistently as did Stanislavsky himself" (1998, 2). For evidence of Strasberg's misunderstanding of this aspect of Stanislavski's work, see Strasberg (—151).
Carnicke ().
Kase () and Hull (1985, 10).
Benedetti (1999a, 351) and Gordon (2006, 74).
Benedetti (1999a, 351–352).
Strasberg (1988, 44).
Benedetti (1999a, 18–19) and Magarshack (–34). He would disguise himself as a
or drunk and visit the railway station, or as a fortune-telling . As Benedetti explains, however, Stanislavski soon abandoned the technique of maintaining a character it does not form a part of his "system".
Skog (2010, 16).
Gussow (1982).
Meisner (6).
Encyclopaedia Britannica (2011).
Abramson ().
French (2008).
, The Quint, December 11, 2015
. . 11 November 2012.
Kumar, Dilip (2014). . . p. 12.  .
. . 24 January 2012. Archived from the original on 8 February .
. 2000. The Art of Acting. Ed. Howard Kissel. New York: Applause.  .
. 1990. The Technique of Acting. New York: Bantam.  .
and Haskel Frankel. 1973. Respect for Acting. New York: Macmillan.  .
. 1991. A Challenge for the Actor. New York: Scribner.  .
, and Dennis Longwell. 1987. Sanford Meisner on Acting. New York: Vintage.  .
. 1936. . London: Methuen, 1988.  .
. 1938. An Actor's Work: A Student's Diary. Trans. and ed. Jean Benedetti. London and New York: Routledge, 2008.  .
. 1957. An Actor's Work on a Role. Trans. and ed. Jean Benedetti. London and New York: Routledge, 2010.  .
. 1965. Strasberg at the Actors Studio: Tape-Recorded Sessions. Ed. Robert H. Hethmon. New York: Theater Communications Group.
. 1987. A Dream of Passion: The Development of the Method. Ed. Evangeline Morphos. New York: Plume, 1988.  .
. 2010. The Lee Strasberg Notes. Ed. Lola Cohen. London: Routledge.  .
Abramson, Leslie H. 2015. Hitchcock and the Anxiety of Authorship.. New York: Palgrave.  .
Banham, Martin, ed. 1998. The Cambridge Guide to Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.  .
Benedetti, Jean. 1989. Stanislavski: An Introduction. Revised edition. Original edition published in 1982. London: Methuen.  .
Benedetti, Jean. 1998. Stanislavski and the Actor. London: Methuen.  .
Benedetti, Jean. 1999a. Stanislavski: His Life and Art. Revised edition. Original edition published in 1988. London: Methuen.  .
Benedetti, Jean. 1999b. "Stanislavsky and the Moscow Art Theatre, ". In Leach and Borovsky (–277).
Blum, Richard A. 1984. American Film Acting: The Stanislavski Heritage. Studies in Cinema 28. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Press.
Braun, Edward. 1982. "Stanislavsky and ". The Director and the Stage: From Naturalism to Grotowski. London: Methuen.  . p. 59–76.
Carnicke, Sharon M. 1998. Stanislavsky in Focus. Russian Theatre Archive Ser. London: Harwood Academic Publishers.  .
Carnicke, Sharon M. 2000. "Stanislavsky's System: Pathways for the Actor". In Hodge ().
Carnicke, Sharon M. 2009. Stanislavsky in Focus: An Acting Master for the Twenty-First Century. 2nd ed. of Carnicke (1998). Routledge Theatre Classics. London: Routledge.  .
Counsell, Colin. 1996. Signs of Performance: An Introduction to Twentieth-Century Theatre. London and New York: Routledge.  .
Daily Telegraph, The. 2013. "". The Daily Telegraph 23 January 2013. Web. Accessed 13 August 2016.
Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2013. "". Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Web. 27 October 2011.
Flom, Eric L. 2009. Silent Film Stars on the Stages of Seattle: A History of Performances by Hollywood Notables. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.  .
French, Philip. 2008. "". The Guardian. 21 September 2008. Web. Accessed 31 August 2016.
Golub, Spencer. 1998. "Stanislavsky, Konstantin (Sergeevich)". In Banham (–1033).
Gordon, Marc. 2000. "Salvaging Strasberg at the Fin de Siècle". In Krasner ().
Gordon, Robert. 2006. The Purpose of Playing: Modern Acting Theories in Perspective. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P.  .
Gussow, Mel. 1982. "". The New York Times 18 February 1982. Web. Accessed 4 March 2014.
Hayward, Susan. 1996. Key Concepts in Cinema Studies. Key Concepts ser. London: Routledge.  .
Hodge, Alison, ed. 2000. Twentieth-Century Actor Training. London and New York: Routledge.  .
Hull, S. Loraine. 1985. Strasberg's Method as Taught by Lorrie Hull. Woodbridge, CN: Ox Bow.  .
Innes, Christopher, ed. 2000. A Sourcebook on Naturalist Theatre. London and New York: Routledge.  .
Kase, Larina. 2011. Clients, Clients, and More Clients!: Create an Endless Stream of New Business with the Power of Psychology. New York: McGraw–Hill.  .
Krasner, David, ed. 2000a. Method Acting Reconsidered: Theory, Practice, Future. New York: St. Martin's P.  .
Krasner, David. 2000b. "Strasberg, Adler, Meisner: Method Acting". In Hodge (–150).
Leach, Robert. 2004. Makers of Modern Theatre: An Introduction. London: Routledge.  .
Leach, Robert, and Victor Borovsky, eds. 1999. A History of Russian Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.  .
. 2003. Slings and Arrows: Theater in My Life. New York: Hal Leonard Corporation.  .
. 1950. Stanislavsky: A Life. London and Boston: Faber, 1986.  .
Milling, Jane, and Graham Ley. 2001. Modern Theories of Performance: From Stanislavski to Boal. Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave.  .
Roach, Joseph R. 1985. The Player's Passion: Studies in the Science of Acting. Theater:Theory/Text/Performance Ser. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P.  .
Skog, Jason. 2010. Acting: A Practical Guide to Pursuing the Art. Mankato, MN: Compass Point.  .
Toporkov, Vasily Osipovich. 2001. Stanislavski in Rehearsal: The Final Years. Trans. Jean Benedetti. London: Methuen.  .
Whyman, Rose. 2008. The Stanislavsky System of Acting: Legacy and Influence in Modern Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.  .
: Hidden categories:}