It is never quite clear to me what the actor does.
What she does, when I discern something like doing, seems to hover between great style and great anonymity.
The style of some actors reveals itself in vocal and somatic stillness.
Others, through a clipped or frenzied movement.
In neither case do I receive the actor’s work as a full expression. Full as in the purported aptitude of form to enact (perfectly) a content. The notion that an actor might communicate with precision an inner sorrow, joy, or turmoil is to me absurd.
The silent and frenetic actors whom I enjoy never entirely convey their characters. There is too much that cannot be seen or heard. So the actor’s presence is a shape: a gravity, a sonority. Her personality resists novelization.
In this sense, style—or stylization—is a kind of anonymity. Actors of camp are virtually unrecognizable, as actors and as quotidian subjects.
I think that when style increases, anonymity increases also. But I also think that anonymity increases when style decreases. Anonymity always increases.