various cultural trends—a Grecian style of dress and posing inspired by Isadora Duncan, orientalism, wartime patriotism, and of course, European modernism— to spice up her act. As in previous parts, Stalter-Pace’s analysis illuminates the intersecting attitudes toward art, gender, and race in the reception of Hoffmann’s performances, as with the implications of the not-so-temporary dye she used to darken her skin for her reproduction of Max Reinhardt’s Sumurun. In this case, her importation of a stereotypical “Eastern” role from Europe left a physical mark on her body. Part V, “Offstage, 1923–1966,” follows Hoffmann’s transition from performer to director and teacher, including her leadership of the “Gertrude Hoffmann Girls,” in which she directed choruses of athletic girls that “shaped the understanding of Americanness and femininity throughout the 1920s” (150). Like its subject, the book crosses and makes connections among several realms of dance, theatre, and performance practice. Because Stalter-Pace emphasizes the ambivalence of Hoffmann’s reception—“one could never be sure whether her dance would be taken as high art, comedy, or smut” (64)—the descriptions and analyses of her work sometimes leave more questions than answers. Was Hoffmann a popular entertainer at heart, drawing on avant-garde forms when she could exploit their novelty? Or was she an auteur, with high taste and aspirations, spreading European modernism to the masses? The answer is both, of course, and if Stalter-Pace fails to offer a satisfactory categorization for Hoffmann, that is precisely the point. Throughout the book, Hoffmann’s status as a hybrid artist— adept at maneuvering the intersections of high and low culture—rings out clearly, as do the achievements of her career and artistry. Moreover, Hoffmann’s career proves an object lesson in the gendered cultural divides between modernism and mass entertainment. By closely following the many facets of Hoffmann’s career and reception, the book brings new perspectives to narratives of modernism, dance, and vaudeville, and throughout Imitation Artist’s detailed portrait of her life, Hoffmann remains a worthwhile and entertaining subject.

中文翻译：

---

娜塔莉·克罗恩·施密特 (Natalie Crohn Schmitt) 表演 Commedia dell'Arte，1570–1630 年。伦敦和纽约：劳特利奇，2020；pp. viii + 112, 11 个插图。59.95 美元的布，22.95 美元的电子书。

各种文化趋势——受 Isadora Duncan 启发的希腊风格的着装和姿势、东方主义、战时爱国主义，当然还有欧洲现代主义——为她的表演增添趣味。与前几部分一样，Stalter-Pace 的分析阐明了在接受霍夫曼的表演时对艺术、性别和种族的交叉态度，以及她用来使皮肤变黑的不那么临时的染料对她再现 Max 的影响莱因哈特的苏穆伦。在这种情况下，她从欧洲输入了一个刻板的“东方”角色，在她的身上留下了身体上的印记。第五部分，“舞台外，1923-1966”，讲述霍夫曼从表演者到导演和教师的转变，包括她领导的“格特鲁德霍夫曼女孩，” 在其中，她指挥了运动女孩的合唱，“在整个 1920 年代塑造了对美国性和女性气质的理解”（150）。就像它的主题一样，这本书跨越了舞蹈、戏剧和表演实践的几个领域并建立了联系。因为 Stalter-Pace 强调霍夫曼接受的矛盾心理——“人们永远无法确定她的舞蹈是否会被视为高雅艺术、喜剧或色情”（64）——对她作品的描述和分析有时留下的问题多于答案。霍夫曼内心深处是不是一个受欢迎的艺人，当她可以利用前卫的形式时，她可以利用它们的新奇之处吗？还是她是一位品位高、志向远大、向大众传播欧洲现代主义的导演？答案当然是两者都有，如果 Stalter-Pace 未能为 Hoffmann 提供令人满意的分类，这正是重点。在整本书中，霍夫曼作为一个混合艺术家的身份——擅长驾驭高低文化的交叉点——以及她的事业和艺术成就，都清晰可见。此外，霍夫曼的职业生涯证​​明了现代主义和大众娱乐之间的性别文化鸿沟的客观教训。通过密切关注霍夫曼的职业生涯和接受度的方方面面，这本书为现代主义、舞蹈和杂耍表演的叙述带来了新的视角，在模仿艺术家对她生活的详细描绘中，霍夫曼仍然是一个有价值和有趣的主题。霍夫曼的职业生涯证​​明了现代主义和大众娱乐之间的性别文化鸿沟的客观教训。通过密切关注霍夫曼的职业生涯和接受度的方方面面，这本书为现代主义、舞蹈和杂耍表演的叙述带来了新的视角，在模仿艺术家对她生活的详细描绘中，霍夫曼仍然是一个有价值和有趣的主题。霍夫曼的职业生涯证​​明了现代主义和大众娱乐之间的性别文化鸿沟的客观教训。通过密切关注霍夫曼的职业生涯和接受度的方方面面，这本书为现代主义、舞蹈和杂耍表演的叙述带来了新的视角，在模仿艺术家对她生活的详细描绘中，霍夫曼仍然是一个有价值和有趣的主题。