This article mainly covered two aspects how the intermediality appropriated or adapted during the early era of cinema history. The article is written by Ralf Remshardt. Below is abridged texts from full book.

p.42
In this chapter, I am interested particularly in the moment of transition when the apparatus of the early cinema redefined the “real” of the actor in the process of cinematic remediation of stage performances. The process of remediation, “the formal logic by which new media refashion prior media forms”

“The historical relationship of liveness and mediatization must be seen as a relationship of dependence and imbrication rather than opposition”

p.43
The confrontation with the demands of silent film forced actors, who were accustomed to a dominant subject position on stage to accede their objectification and commodification by an apparatus they understood only incompletely.

For instance, the American actor James O’Neill in The Count Monte Cristo (dir. Edwin Porter, 1912) virtually performs his ambivalence about cinema in every frame. Bernhardt and Duse, as I will describe later, either attempted to force a theatrical logic onto the cinema in a gesture of appropriation, or forced themselves to adapt to film.

p.44
The camera does not define and delineate the performance; it only registers a demonstration of sorts, calculated not to fulfil a desire but to summon it: the live performer’s voice and body beckoning beyond the imperfections of the mute and flickering images.

the simulacrum(for it was scarcely real) of an authentic self.

p.45
he himself must transform into the apparatus, … as a machine to a machine.

but if the camera is not making a note of it, you have not accomplished the task the directors has set for you (Sothern 1998: 30-31)

p.46
“the camera has no mercy o the actor who is thinking of other things or is incapable of imagination”

Elizabeth was a kind of ‘test case’ by Bernhardt of how far she could extend the loyalty of her following into the new medium, and more importantly, how far she could make the medium extend itself to her.

the ‘true’ self and the performative self.

“distinction between the actor’s authenticity and the authentication of the character s/he is playing” (1998:21).

p.48
Perhaps she was aware that close-ups would challenge the supremacy of her physical idiom; to allow a close-up would have given the camera the power to extract emotional moment, rather than authorizing the actress’s to project it.

p.49
This “regally attitudinized death” is entirely in keeping with a film that every turn denies its film-ness.

Thus Bernhardt resists making the performance medially transparent by subordinating herself to film’s naturalistic aesthetic and simply disappearing; in salvaging the theatrical she retains what Bolter and Grusin refer to as the medium’s “hypermediacy” – essentially, the continuing visibility of film as a secondary medium through which theater (as the orginary medium) is mediated. It is only in the hypermediated mode that the performer’s autonomy survives erasure.

Thus she appropriated the film in theatrical way.

A devoted filmgoer, she was convinced also that films were not living up to their artistic potential, and she began to conceive of possible film projects for herself.

I want to do nothing that resembles, even remotely, my work of the past.

p.50
In what she felt was her innovation Duse decided not to have the character speak at all, even though the intertitles render her dialogue. Thus, we never see her opening her mouth, and the lines assigned to her appear as if they were mental projections of her will

p.51
This strategy of indirection was used also by Griffith in scenes of what Tom Gunning has dubbed “hidden emotion.”

Duse found that she could not pull off the feat of reappearance. She called film making a “spiritual problem” and complained that she felt “detached” when she saw herself on screen.

Duse adapted herself for quintessential film-ness.

p.52
we lose the very thing that art was supposedly preserving: our point of contact with the irreplaceable, finite person. (Klawans 2004)