Terungkap! Inilah Beberapa Alasan Sumire Adalah Topeng Misterius

Inilah beberapa alasan yang dapat menjelasakan bahwa Sumire adalah sosok di balik Topeng Misterius sekaligus dalang di balik insiden Ghost.

Sumire Kakei adalah salah seorang murid di akademi Konohagakure. Gadis berambut ungu ini merupakan ketua kelas. Ia juga merupakan teman satu kelasnya Boruto. Dalam episode 12 diketahui bahwa orangtua Sumire sudah tewas sejak ia kecil, sehingga ia tumbuh sebagai anak yatim piatu. Ibu Sumire merupakan sosok yang peduli pada anaknya sedangkan ayahnya merupakan salah satu ninja yang cukup hebat.

Kepribadian yang terlihat dari Sumire sendiri cukup mengingatkan kita pada sosok Hinata. Ia terlihat sebagai gadis yang tidak banyak bicara dan nampak seperti anak kecil lainnya yang mengagumi Hokage ke 7. Ia juga tampak sebagai seorang yang cukup peduli terhadap teman sekelasnnya.

Like & Follow
Facebook	Instagram	Twitter
Anime Naruto Indonesia Untuk mendapatkan informasi tentang Naruto

Bukan hanya itu dalam beberapa episode serial Boruto ia juga nampak penuh hormat dan patuh kepada gurunya. Ia juga selalu menghindari konflik yang tidak perlu. Salah satu alasannya menjadi shinobi adalah karena ayahnya yang juga merupakan seorang shinobi hebat semasa hidupnya.

Sosoknya yang nampak pemalu dan lemah tentu saja membuat ia tidak nampak sebagai seorang yang mencurigakan. Namun 5 alasan ini akan membuktikan bahwa benar sumire adalah sosok di balik topeng misterius yang menjadi dalang bayangan hitam Ghost.

1. Sumire Belajar di Pabrik Pemurnian Air

Saat Boruto dan teman-temannya belajar magang di tempat yang menyenangkan, kelompok Sumire memilih tempat yang membosankan yakni pabrik pemurnian air Konoha. Hal ini terlihat dari pembicaraan Boruto saat bertemu Sumire dan teman-temannya di pabrik pemurnian air. “Kalian memilih pabrik pemurnian air? Bukankah itu agak membosankan”

Teman satu kelompok Sumire pun mengiyakan perkataan Boruto tersebut. Sumire nampak merasa bersalah karena memilih pabrik pemurnian air tapi kemudian teman-temannya menghibur Sumire.

Nah mengapa Sumire memilih pabrik pemurnian air yang membosankan? Tentunya ada tujuan tersendiri. Tujuannya adalah ia ingin mempelajari mengenai saluran air di Konoha. Itulah alasan kenapa saat ia kabur dari Metal Lee ia dapat dengan mudah menemukan tempat untuk bersembunyi yaitu di terowongan air. Hal tersebut dapat ia lakukan karena sebelumnya ia sudah mempelajarinya dari tempat ia magang yakni di pabrik pemurnian air.

2. Chakra Sumire Tidak Diserap Seperti Korban Lainnya

Di akhir episode kita melihat bahwa Sumire menjadi salah satu korban serangan Ghost di pabrik pemurnian air. Saat itu dirinya ditemukan di salah satu saluran air. Namun yang menjadi pertanyaan adalah mengapa cakranya tidak diserap seperti korban-korban lainnya. Padahal yang kita ketahui jika korban dirasuki oleh Ghost seharusnya chakra mereka akan diserap sampai habis kecuali korban berhasil disadarkan dari pengaruh Ghost.

Seperti pada kasus Denki, Metal Lee, dan Shino, yang pada saat itu berhasil disadarkan oleh Boruto sebelum Ghost sukses menyerap seluruh chakra yang mereka punya. Jawabannya sudah jelas karena Sumire lah pemilik chakra bayangan tersebut. Bisa jadi penyerangan di pabrik pemurnian air sendiri merupakan alibi sumire agar ia tidak dicurigai sebagai sosok di balik topeng misterius tersebut.

3. Perban di Kaki Sumire

Saat terjadi penyerangan di pabrik pemurnian air, kita dapat melihat bahwa kaki Sumire tampak terluka. Kemudian kita juga dapat melihat bahwa Sumire tidak ikut bersama Boruto dan kawan-kawan untuk mencari sosok si topeng misterius.

Tentu saja kita dapat berpendapat bahwa Sumire tidak ikut membantu Boruto karena ia sedang berada di rumah sakit. Nah, saat terjadi penyerangan Ghost di kantor pos tempat Boruto magang kita dapat melihat kaki dari sosok bertopeng misterius tersebut juga sedang diperban. Apakah ini hanya kebetulan saja bahwa kaki Sumire dan si topeng misterius sama sama diperban?

4. Siswa Penguntit Magire

Saat Chocou, Boruto dan kawan-kawan berhasil menyadarkan Magire dari serangan Ghost kita dapat melihat bahwa Magire terluka cukup parah dibandingkan dengan Metal Lee dan Denki. Kenapa bisa demikian? Dan kenapa harus Magire yang dirasuki oleh sosok Ghost?

Jawabannya adalah karena ia menguntit Sumire. Sumire yang merupakan sosok misterius tentu sangat menjaga kerahasiaan mengenai identitas dirinya yang lain. Bayangkan jika Magire menguntit Sumire dan tidak sengaja memergoki Sumire sedang beraksi sebagai sosok misterius bertopeng, tentu saja identitasnya akan terbongkar. Hal tersebut tentu tidak disukai oleh Sumire, karena itulah ia menyerang Magire dan melukainya dengan cukup parah.

5. Orang Tua Sumire Adalah Anggota Anbu Root

Salah satu alasan penting yang mungkin adalah benar dan juga sebagai alasan mengenai mengapa Sumire melakukan hal buruk ini adalah karena kematian orang tuanya.

Orang tua Sumire dijelaskan sebagai ninja yang heba. Nah, saja ia adalah salah satu anggota Anbu Root yang tewas. Dalam episode Boruto yang memperlihatkan munculnya Nue, narator berkata “Cakra negatif dari hati yang lemah telah membuka pintu yang diciptakan oleh Sel Hashirama dan menjadi nutrishi yang akan membangkitkan Nue.”

Jadi mungkin inilah yang sebenarnya terjadi. Danzo merupakan pemimpin dari pasukann Anbu Root. Akibat  kejahatannya, kedua orang tua Sumire harus tewas sehingga membuat Sumire harus tumbuh sebagai anak yatim piatu di panti asuhan Konoha.

Kemudian setelah tumbuh dewasa Sumire masuk akademi Konoha untuk menjadi mata-mata demi membalaskan dendap kepada desa Konoha yang telah membunuh kedua orang tuanya. Meskipun sebenarnya semua kematian orang tua Sumire adalah kesalahan Danzo, namun tetap saja Danzo merupakan bagian dari petinggi Konoha.

Hal tersebutlah yang membuat hati Sumire lemah. Kemudian ia mengumpulkan banyak cakra dari orang-orang yang sedang terpuruk dan berhati lemah yang nantinya digunakan untuk membangkitkan Nue.

Dalam salah satu episode Boruto: Naruto Next Generation ketika  teman-teman satu kelompok Sumire yang juga terluka akibat serangan Ghost di pabrik pemurnian air di jemput oleh kedua orang tuanya, kita tentu dapat melihat Sumire berwajah murung dan nampak “iri” dan tidak suka melihat momen tersebut.

Bisa dibilang scene tersebut merupakan pertama kalinya kita ditunjukan ekspresi lain dari Sumire yang sebelumnya tentu belum kita ketahui. Ya, sebagaimana kita ketahui sebelumnya Sumire merupakan sosok yang cukup periang, ramah, mudah tersenyum dan sangat pemalu. Namun saat itu kita nampak melihat sosok lain dari Sumire ya.

Preview Episode 13

Dalam bagian akhir Boruto episode 12 ketika Mitsuki membongkar sosok dibalik topeng misterius kita diperlihatkan kamar rumah sakit yang kosong. Tentu saja saat itu kita dapat menebak dan langsung teringat dengan sosok Sumire yang seharusnya sedang berada di rumah sakit. Meskipun demikian tentu masih belum pasti bahwa Sumire adalah dalang dibalik kekacauan yang terjadi akhir-akhir ini di desa konoha. Semuanya akan segera terbukti dalam serial Boruto Episode 13 yang akan tayang tanggal 28 Juni 2017.

Itulah beberapa alasan yang membuktikan bahwa Sumire adalah sosok di balik topeng misterius.

Sumber

pallet wood shelves

Way back when, somewhere in the mists of time, you may remember that I started making over our en-suite bathroom. Yes, that was almost a year ago and it is still far from finished. I blame the fact that no-one but us sees it so it's easier to forget. Embarrassment is a great motivator I find. But I had a short list of things I wanted to get finished before the baby arrives and getting this space finished was way up there.

Click here to read the rest of this post »

fancy-fied plant pots

I feel a little bogged down lately guys. It seems like quite a bit is getting done around here diy-wise (di-yise?) but actually getting things finished, photographed on the odd day when there's decent light and I have the energy to clean up and then actually blogged about is a lot of hard work. And I'm like, large and slow at the moment. Plus, it seems like all I want to write about right now is the kids, or being pregnant, and while the odd post like that is probably interesting for you guys, it's not what most of you come here for right?

Click here to read the rest of this post »

Original "Marty" with Rod Steiger 1953 + Playboy interview

PDF of Playboy interview:https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw_iM4Zy4hpuOHZPNG1NTHV0ZGc

Confessions of a Hollywood Tough Guy: An Interview with Rod Steiger

• Santiago Rubín de Celis
• January 31, 2010

8

“The only thing that is absolutely important for me is quality.”

Meeting Rod Steiger was a matter of sheer chance. It was during a film festival in the Canary Islands, Spain, when I suddenly ran into Steiger at the hotel where we both were staying. It must have been the palm trees, or maybe this enormous man, all dressed in black, his head completely shaved, but all of a sudden I felt as if I had been transported deep into the jungle, facing Kurtz from Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. I was struck immediately not only by his massive size but also by his friendliness. Obviously he was not like the villains he often played, but he was also not the typical Hollywood star. We started talking and went on into an almost two-hour interview. We discussed Steiger’s education and early career both in theatre and television and went through some of the highlights of his film career. Below is a brief part of that conversation, which took place in March 2002 . [Editor’s note: Steiger died four months later, on July 9, 2002, age 77.]

Like many other members of your generation, you studied in the Actors Studio and recently you appeared in a documentary on the Studio. Are you still in touch with the people from the school?

Comme ci comme ça. The people at the Actors have changed. Now it’s part of New York’s New School for Social Research, which is more or less a university. At the beginning the Actors was independent. It belonged to no other institution. There were auditions to be accepted. Nowadays — in my opinion — it has lost all its independence. It has become a kind of university. But I think it’s still a place where an actor can learn from his own mistakes. That was always the best thing about the Studio. The actor could make a thousand mistakes without being dismissed. It’s very important that actors have a place to work in. A place to learn. Because if you’re not right for the theatre, you’ll be fired. So I’ll be always grateful to the Actors for giving me such a learning place.

I’m quite acquainted with your film career but not really with your previous work in the theatre. You were involved with the Group Theatre, weren’t you? What are your memories of that time?

Oh, I could be talking about it for a couple of days! I began my career as an actor in the theatre, in New York. The first play I acted in was by Clifford Odets. Then I worked in a very interesting piece based on the screenplay of the Japanese picture Rashomon. I also acted in a version of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. Well, at that time I tried to work in things a lot different than television or Hollywood films.

So is there any difference between acting in the theatre and in the movies?

I don’t think so. In my experience there is not. A good actor is good in the theatre, the movies, television. The one and only thing that changes when you act in the theatre is the voice. I mean, when I’m working in a play, what worries me the most is my voice — that the audience can hear my voice clearly. That’s all. The rest is the same as working in the movies.

You finally moved to Hollywood in the early 1950s. Your first role in a film was in 1951 in Fred Zinnemann’s Teresa. 

That’s right. My first picture was Teresa. Zinnemann was a wonderful man, a great director. We became good friends. So we made another picture together. It was called Oklahoma! [1955], and it was something very unique in my career. You know, it was a musical — by Rodgers and Hammerstein — a genre with a reality and a life of its own. Something absolutely new for me. A year later I did another western, Jubal. It was a sort of Othello set in the American West. It was directed by Delmer Daves, a fine craftsman but a man lacking of imagination. Anyway, it was nice to work with him.

In the early 1950s TV shows were challenging the movie industry. A lot of young professionals working in that medium conquered Hollywood a bit later. And some very successful TV shows were then reshaped for the big screen. I’m thinking, for example, of Paddy Chayefsky’s Marty. You played Marty in the TV show. Why not in the film?

That was a very sad story for me. I had created Marty. It may sound egocentric but it’s true. Burt Lancaster and a man named Harold Hecht bought the rights to the play to make a film of it. I went to see them and they agreed I was the one to play the part. I was mad with joy. But later they told me I had to sign an exclusive contract with them for seven years. I said I wouldn’t do it. I asked them, “Who will decide my parts?” They said they would. So I told them I was the one with the right to choose. Even if I chose the wrong thing. I was the one and only one to do it. So I lost the part. Sometime later somebody told me that during the shooting of the movie they were always using my interpretation of Marty.

What was it like working with Elia Kazan in On the Waterfront [1954]? He was a director renowned for working with the actors.

Yes. I was very excited. Mr. Brando had a tremendous success at the time with Kazan’s A Streetcar Named Desire [1951], and they wanted me to play his elder brother in the picture. So I was feeling a little nervous because he was a great actor. I got the part in the end, so we finally worked together. And then came the very famous cab scene. If I see it once more I’ll blow my head off! We did two shots and then his close-ups. I was off screen talking to him. Because acting is in the first place reacting to somebody. The actor off screen helps the one in front of the camera. You need somebody to act to. Well, we did his close-ups together, and then when we were about to shoot mine he just went home. I haven’t forgiven him for that, and I think I never will.

And what about Kazan? He had just testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee. What was like the atmosphere around the shooting of the film?

I feel no respect for Elia Kazan. We all adored him when we were young and we were beginning acting. Then he went to Washington and sold out his friends. It was a big blow for everyone. As if somebody told you your father has slept with your sister. We just couldn’t believe it. How could we believe Elia Kazan had sold out his friends in order to save his career in Hollywood? That was the end of my respect for Elia Kazan. Forever.

Your next film was The Big Knife [1955] based on a play by Clifford Odets. It was directed by Robert Aldrich, a talented young director.

Yes. Bob Aldrich was a good professional and a man of great craft. It’s still a wonderful picture. It was shot almost entirely in a single set. A huge room. There was only one scene shot on location. And it’s amazing that Aldrich managed to do it so well with that restriction. Technically speaking it was a big challenge. In Hollywood the picture was received badly. It was considered an attack on the movie industry. I’d love to do it again today, because as long as Hollywood exists, the film will be still valid. It’s a marvellous story for a film.

I’d like to tell you something that happened while we were shooting The Big Knife. You see, as I was working in the film, I wasn’t very sure of the motivations of the character I was playing, Mr. Hoff. Neither the things he liked, his way of acting or treating women. Well, an actor has to use everything that helps him to improve his role. So then I did something I usually do on these occasions. It always works out fine for me. I went into a big store and walked around every floor. I also like to do it whenever I feel depressed. I imagined Mr. Hoff’s taste for shoes, jackets, and even for women’s underwear. And in the men’s floor I noticed a golden tiepin in the shape of a question mark. I told myself: “Mr. Hoff is exactly like that. He knows nothing about his feelings. He doesn’t even know if he is homosexual.” So while I was shooting the picture, any time I was feeling uneasy about the character I just touched that tiepin and all the troubles disappeared. He was a question mark! That proves that anything can help an actor improve himself.

Do you think The Big Knife shows Hollywood as it really was?

Well, it basically does. The Big Knife shows how Hollywood could corrupt a very talented man. To see this man’s corruption, it was necessary to show the corruption of Hollywood.

It seems to me a very autobiographical play, I mean of Odets’ own experiences in the movie industry.

Of course. It has a lot to do with the life of Clifford Odets. He felt as if he had betrayed himself by working in the movies. It was a common idea for all the people in the theatre who went to Hollywood — especially those working in the Group Theatre.

Otto Preminger got a reputation for being a difficult director to work with. Frank Sinatra, Tom Tyron, and other actors refer to him as a kind of a tyrant. You worked with him in The Court Martial of Billy Mitchell [1955]. Did you have any arguments with him, or was he easy to get on with?

I never had an argument with him! It’s funny you say that. I got along with him very well. If I scratched my head, Preminger made a close-up of my face. Then I’d say to him, “I’m only scratching my head!”And he would say,”Never mind, it’s perfect. Go on!” He was a very talented director. And if you worked with him as a professional, there was no trouble. But if you didn’t . . . I guess that was it!

Another classic piece of acting of yours is in Mark Robson’s The Harder They Fall [1956]. What can you tell me about the film?

For me, to act in The Harder They Fall was a great pleasure and an honour because of working with Humphrey Bogart, whom I admired a lot. He was one of the finest persons and professionals I’ve worked with. You know, at that time he was very ill. In fact, he was dying. And he was always ready to shoot at 9:00 a.m. exactly and stayed on the set until 6:00 p.m. every day. I remember people often told him:”Bogie, the scene went alright, but . . . maybe you could stay a little longer.” He invariably replied [imitating Bogart’s voice],”What time is it?”And somebody said: “It’s 6 o’clock.” So Bogart said: “I’m deeply sorry but I’m leaving at 6. See you tomorrow.” One day he came to work when he wasn’t supposed to be working. I was having my meal and he came closer. I called him “Mr. Bogart.” You know, I call “Mister” anybody who had survived for twenty years in this business. So as he came next to me, I asked him: “What are you doing here?” He said he was doing some retakes — some close-ups. The day before, his eyes had been watery. Just one month later he died of cancer. He was feeling terrible pain and he didn’t say a word about it. I never heard him moaning. That was a man!

I love the films of Samuel Fuller. You starred in Run of the Arrow [1956], for me one of his best.

Do you like Samuel Fuller? Seriously?

Yes, very much. 

C’est la vie! Samuel Fuller was a . . . He came to show me the script for the film. I didn’t know how to play that part, but the thing was I was absolutely sure I wanted to do it. It was something different. We worked together at his house on the role for three weeks — maybe a month. Then we went to shoot the picture, and we never talked again about it. The first day of shooting — in my first scene — I was concentrating and a little bit nervous but almost ready when I heard the sound of a gun. “Bang!” I thought: “What the hell was that?” Fuller — that idiot — was there with the gun in his hand. And that’s how he was trying to make my acting more intense! I said to him he obviously didn’t know a thing about acting. An actor should be concentrating before shooting. Doing such a thing, you would only get the actor frightened. He knew nothing about acting! I can hardly understand how he became so successful. For what? Just a couple of pictures. The Steel Helmet[1951]? He was no Eisenstein! Not even a Kazan, Lumet or Zinnemann. I do not understand why here in Europe everybody likes him . . . Some other day I went to his house and we talked about the picture we’d just finished shooting. I asked him if he had children. He answered with a plain “No!”, and then he told me that they all had died. A very human guy! Why do you like his films?

He portrays the dark side of America in his films. Something very different from the usual Hollywood style. He’s always got such intensity and passion. I think his films show very precisely how your country was at that time. His characters are basically very primitive and they are full of contradictory and intense feelings, very dramatic conflicts.

Oh, yes! Fuller was very primitive. Fuller? You can keep him . . . I prefer the man who made Les Enfants du Paradis [1945] — Marcel Carné. He was a director.

Now that we are talking about European cinema, in the early ’60s you came to work here. Especially in Italy — in Francesco Rosi’s Le Mani Sulla Città [Hands Over the City, 1963] and Lucky Luciano [1973]; Sergio Leone’s Giù la testa [Duck You Sucker, 1972] and Carlo Lizzani’s Mussolini: ultimo atto [1974]. Why did you come Europe?

I will make a picture no matter where if I like the script and, of course, the part I will play! Art knows nothing about nationalities. The only thing that is absolutely important for me is quality. There are good and bad pictures everywhere. It doesn’t depend on their nationality. I am also very keen on independent filmmaking. Here in Europe, the director is seen mainly as an artist. That’s another reason why I love Europe so much. I like the respect for Art that you’ve got here. Here, good pictures are not made just thinking about money . . . Anyway, Rosi, Lizzani and Leone were all very good directors — internationally acclaimed.

So you were looking mainly for more freedom to choose your roles. You were interested also in better parts and more complex characters to play.

Yes. That’s it. It was all about freedom. The Art is free. But, you see, there is something funny about freedom. Let me tell you a story. When I was young — in the early ’50s — everybody was going to the psychoanalyst. Everybody in Hollywood did. And if you didn’t, people looked at you as an odd sort. So I became curious about it, and I decided to visit one of them. I sat down and asked him how the sessions would help me as an actor. I told the doctor: “It is absolutely necessary for me to be free. I need to be free to walk, to talk, to act, to love . . . I’ve got to be free!” And he said something that changed my life completely: “Be careful or you will become a slave to that freedom.” After I heard that I could only tell him:”What time did you say is the next session?” I became an actor, and that’s how I kept the ideal of freedom I had had since I was a child. I could work three months a year and the rest of the time do whatever I feel like. So becoming an actor was a happy accident. I’m not going to work every day . . . After the war I had a job in the Army office. It was terrible, a nightmare. If I had stayed there for the rest of my life I would have blown my head off — or I would have become a drunkard.

But there’s no routine in an acting career. You have portrayed many different roles, including some historical personalities such as Napoleon, Mussolini or Al Capone. How do you prepare for that kind of character? What is your approach to them?

Well, first of all I read as much as I can on the character. I gather as much information as possible. But doing that, sometimes you find conflicts between the different sources, authors, and so on. So when I first find contradictions, then I stop reading and I begin searching inside of myself. My own private version of the character. Have you seen my portrait of the comic actor W. C. Fields in a picture titled W. C. Fields and Me [1976]?

No, I’m afraid I haven’t. 

It’s a pity. It’s one of my best performances.

Well, at the same time you came to Europe there was a kind of Hollywood exile. Actors, screenwriters, producers and directors came here to work in what has been called “runaway productions.” Sam Spiegel was one of the most notable producers at the time. And you worked in one of his productions, David Lean’s epic Doctor Zhivago [1965], filmed here in Spain.

David Lean was a man of the movies. He began editing newsreels. He had to put all the news together in less than 20 minutes! So he was one of the best English editors. I think that ability helped him a lot to become a director. I’m sure one of his virtues was precisely that he shot his pictures thinking all the time of the editing room. He also had a fine taste for actors. And as he had the capacity to choose among the best. . . Well, for me, that’s not all. You see, a director should be able to help an actor with his performance — especially if the actor’s in trouble. David wasn’t at his best on that, even when he chose great actors trying to avoid that kind of trouble. You know, I’m thinking of Alec Guinness, Ralph Richardson and all those amazing English actors. At least Lean was able to value good performances.

But sometimes you have to take risks. I mean, sometimes it’s more productive not to control everything so much.

Yes, of course. I think nobody can live without taking some risks sometimes. For example, have you seen The Loved One [1965]?

Yes. It’s one of my favourite films by Tony Richardson. It’s a masterpiece of black humour, very funny and bizarre. And I also love Evelyn Waugh’s novel. 

Well, that picture was a risk for me. I played Mr. Joyboy, a homosexual, and I had to perform the character trying not to offend the gay community. I did it and I’m very happy to say that nobody felt offended. You know, an actor has to play so many different roles, different kinds of human beings. This particular one was absolutely different from everything I’d done previously in my career. So I loved doing it.

What do you think about the awards? Do you like them?

I guess everybody likes to win sometimes. It makes you feel good.

But, for example, you won an Academy Award for In the Heat of the Night [1967]; do you think it’s your best performance?

No, of course not. Everybody thought I would win it for Sidney Lumet’s The Pawnbroker[1965]. That’s a far better film. But, you know, that year Lee Marvin won the award for a picture called Cat Ballou [1965]. Nobody knows that film nowadays . . . Sometimes it’s just like that. But I remember I felt very happy winning it. First, because — as I said before — everybody likes to win sometimes. And also, and this is something very important for the industry, too, because to win it means they’re going to offer you the best roles. You’re going to work with top director and producers. That’s what is important about it. And it’s always good also because you’re getting paid a lot better. Believe me!

In all these years, after working in the movie industry for such a long time, have you ever felt the temptation to direct your own pictures?

Sure. Although it’s a difficult matter to talk about. In California you need to be part of the social life to be able to make things on a big scale. I’ve never been part of that. I’ve lived there for fifty-two years, and I’ve never done such a thing. I don’t want to deal with people I don’t like even if I could direct a picture by doing so. No way. But I still hope I can direct a couple of screenplays I’ve written. At my age — and I’m seventy-seven years old now — I know it will be very difficult. So I need to take it seriously. Another problem is that I feel the things I’ve written are closer to the European sensibility. So, you know, it just won’t be easy.

— Santiago Rubín de Celis

Santiago Rubín de Celis is a film critic and historian. He holds a PhD in communication and has published books on Jules Dassin and Blake Edwards. A contributor to the Spanish version of Cahiers du cinema, he lives in Spain.

American Masters: Legend of the Group Theater Documentary

I totally missed my second blog-iversary!

  

Time flies when you're desperately trying to get through the day without collapsing in a sweaty heap on the floor and refusing to do anything else until someone removes the life sucking human you're gestating from you....and consequently I just realised that I totally missed my second blog-iversary!

This time last year I had had 60,000 visits to my little blog, and I was hugely proud of that. In the last year I have had 330,000!!!!!!! That's growth of like 550%* people!!!

*Please don't check my maths.

I hadn't actually realised things were going that well, and I'm so happy about it. On top of that I've recently been nominated for an Irish Beauty Blog Award (I know, weird, but it turns out they have a "design blog" category) and I ended up coming second in my category at the Blog Awards last September. It's really nice to get little pats on the back like that. Sometimes I wonder if I'm wasting time I should be spending elsewhere on this blog, but seeing things like that make me feel like I'm justified!

I'd totally keep doing it no matter what, but it's nice to feel like maybe I'm actually ok at this.

And wary as I am of seeming like I'm blowing my own trumpet here, I always love to know actual figures when it comes to blogs I follow, so I though some of you might be interested too. Plus, it's not like I make any money from this, so horn-tooting is all I have!

So what's the plan for the future of my little corner of the old interwebs? Well, I'm hoping that as soon as the little soul-sucker exits my body I'll get my mojo back and find myself able to do more of an evening than lie in a darkened room scarfing biscuits and binge watching Parks and Rec. There are many, many things that I could improve on here (starting with my blogging schedule!) if I just had a couple of hours a week to sit down and dedicate to it, and seeing as Em is starting school in September and Max will be in Montessori every morning then I'm hoping that the next year will be a LOT more productive than the last has been, blog-wise. Sure I'll have a newborn, but I've long since mastered the art of typing while breastfeeding, so I'm hoping it won't be a problem ;) 

So thank you guys for reading, and if you feel like saying hi leave a comment every now and again, I really do love hearing from you. Blogging can be weird and lonely, and it's hard to believe there's anyone paying attention sometimes.

                  

Corey Parker On Camera Audition Take Aways

Motive: what is your goal for the audition? Is it just to book the job? Guess what? That is not something you have complete control over. You might want to focus on something more personal, establish a creative goal for the audition. Click here: Bryan Cranston  Avoid making the audition experience about "them," and falling into the trap of giving away your power to "them." Instead, make it about the work and bringing the character to life. 

Character breakdown: Avoid trying to be an entirely different person described in the breakdown. Instead,start from the Truth of you. Ask yourself: “What if I were this character?” Bring the essence of you, let them see something true. Of course, you can play many things- but build your characters from the truth of your essence. Watch your favorite actors if you want to see this in action. 
Marlon Brando said: "No one becomes a character. You can't act unless you are what you are- and you are who you are."
When Stanislavski was in Paris, he said,"What you are is what you are have to give." 

Given circumstances: Get all the clues to what the writer is giving you. If it helps you, write down those clues. Then build where necessary. Where there is no information, make your own clear choices. Avoid arbitrary choices, try to find what could possibly work with what the writer has given. Make choices that turn you on creatively, that are urgent. 

The W's: Where are you coming from? Why are you here? What do you want? How much do you want it? Why do you want it now? Who are you talking to? What do they mean to you? What do they have that is integral to you getting what you need? (The writer placed these characters together. They each want/ need something. The other character always has something that your character is after, pursue your objective and give it meaning to you.) 

Never judge the character. Is the character a prostitute, a murderer, a corrupt politician? Our job is not to impose our morality on their lives. Forget your ideas of right and wrong long enough to tell the character’s story. They were once a baby, innocent and full of promise. Somewhere along the way they got traumatized, neglected, abused, and they had to learn how to survive in life as broken people. That is what they are trying to do. The characters believe (as people do) that they are justified in their choices. For example, if they were harmed, they justify doing it back to the someone else. 

Our job is to take this human who never has had a fair chance, take them under our wing and tell their story with our body. Compassion is a crucial part of this equation. Don't judge them. What is their goal in life? What is their dream? What’s their blind spot (flaw)? They believe in the possibility of a better life. If a character doesn’t, then they will take no action and the story will stop in its tracks. But they do believe it is possible that their efforts will bring what they want.  That means they are driven and in pursuit. (Maybe they will even learn something by the end of the scene, and by the end of the story.) 

Help others understand this character, humanize the character with your own body, your heart and your humanity. Share the parts of you needed to lift them off the page, to create a three dimensional human being.

Memorization: Avoid memorizing only words, avoid approaching words as data. Our brains learn by making connections. Read the whole scene out loud (all the lines of all the characters) three times. Get a sense of the scene, of the rhythm, of what this scene is about.

Ask yourself questions as needed: What is this scene about? What does the character care about the most? How can you translate this into what you careabout, through experience or imagination?  Run the lines with someone else if you can. There are apps for running lines if you are alone. If in your dialogue you mention an object, like a tree, get an image for yourself of that object. Specify what you are talking about, by any means that work for you. Give your brain a chance to make connections. 

Be clear that you are communicating when you act. If you forget a line over and over, get clearer on what you are communicating there. Always give your brain context. Forgetting a line can simply mean you haven’t yet found why the writer placed it there. Every word, every letter is for a reason. If you get stuck, put the lines in your own language, the way you would speak it, make those connections and then bring that clarity back to the written text. Writing your scene down on paper can be helpful, it employs a different part of the brain and helps us really hear what is written (we are no longer just reading it). 

Journaling: An acting journal is a great way to foster the creation of your very own acting technique (which is the goal of all training, I believe; finding how you work as an actor and what you need.) 
In your journal:

Write down each audition. 

Write what you want to accomplish in it- a simple creative goal. 

After the audition: 

Write down how it went from a creative standpoint. 

How did you do in terms of your goal? 

What went well, what didn’t?
What do you need to work on?

Define who you can talk to when you need help. 

(Your acting class teacher, a friend, an acting book, etc.)  

Also, write down your notes from acting class. 

Write down performances you see that inspire you. 

Write down the people closest to you, 

so you can start to use them for substitutions. 

You can put pictures of old films, actors, 

whatever inspires you. 

Observe people in public, watch their behavior with each other, watch how they communicate. Write down what you see. 

Over time, you have a reference book that is specific to the formation of your technique. So when you get an audition and aren’t sure about how to approach it, you can go back and look in your journal and see what has worked for you in the past. You can also write your experiences in rehearsals and while working. The journal helps you to truly build something, to create a structural focal point and a means of true expression. In the long term you can build a collection of these acting journals. 

The arc: Every scene starts in one place and has a journey to the end of the scene. It starts in one place and ends in another. How does this actually happen? It starts with the character wanting/ needing something. You pursue your objective and you will find that there are always obstacles in your way in every scene. The obstacles may come from the other character, from your environment and even sometimes from inside your character. These obstacles build pressure on your objective, raising the stakes. The pressure builds. (Who is a person for your life that presents the most obstacles to you getting what you want? Does the pressure build form the obstacles they present?)  By the end you are in a different place. 

This means you never have to do an audition as a one note character. Ever. Connect to what you want, pursue your objective and try to overcome every single obstacle the writer has put in your path. (this is where actions can help when needed.) Never give up, never lose this battle. The objective is the engine that launches the arc. 

Conflict: Every scene has conflict, it drives the action forward and gets us interested in the action. Align yourself with the writer's intention by defining his given conflict (the conflict between the characters). Get clear what the two sides of the conflict are in your scene. (This can help you avoid making choices that don't support the arc of then scene.) The writer has created an active way for you to be in pursuit of your objective. Dive in. When I say over and over to pursue your objective, I don't mean like a well behaved, nice, obedient way. I mean get out of your head and go! Jump on it. Pursue what you're after! It's not about polite. It's about telling what happens when humans care a lot about something. If you know anything about that, share it with all your heart- or in whatever way makes sense for you. 

Accept yourself, your strengths and your limitations. Use them! Have you ever seen a musclebound actor enter a scene and overact, indicating that they are really tough and scary? I believe that we all have strengths and once we see ours, we don’t need to hit them over the head. In other words, a musclebound actor already looks tough, as an actor he doesn’t need to be playing “I’m tough, I'm tough.” We get it, we already see him. But as a tough guy, he can then trust his strength and seek a deeper choice: what does the character want or need? Approval? Recognition? To be rewarded? Pursue the objective, not the quality of the character. Trust what we naturally communicate. If an actress is meek in some natural way that we all see, then she limits herself and her choices by playing “I'm meek, I'm meek." She is already doing the work of the writer with her natural qualities. This frees her up to look deeper into the script and find out what drives the character, her super objective, her scene objective, to then connect with it from a place of true care inside herself and then to let us see a human being in pursuit.

So don’t try to be someone else, use who you are. Trust what you communicate naturally. Your humanity, your strengths and weaknesses, are the colors on your palette as an artist.

Never beat yourself up. Unless you want to. It is possible for us to beat ourselves up since we are the instrument that we use. This will create a destructive habit and will never allow our work to truly blossom.  Take care of you. What are your needs: patience, support, to be loved, encouragement, being valued no matter what, etc. Define your needs in your journal and find the ways to get them met in a healthy way. If you have ever seen a child being shamed for making a mistake or for failing, you see the body language of a human collapsing in on itself. Beating ourselves up breeds shame. Shame is the belief that something is wrong with me. Did you ever see a child who is loved and supported? The results are joy, blossoming, possibility, fun and knowing that they are valued even when making mistakes. 

I believe we each have an inner child, which simply means the energy of our own tenderness, our own vulnerability. The way we treat ourselves on our journey as actors will create positive habits or destructive habits. Inside ourselves, we will expand or we will contract. Make the choice a conscious one.

Find what works for you. No one has a monopoly on acting. Find the teachers that feel right for you. Set healthy boundaries. Let no one bully you.  Once you have a teacher, stay teachable. Prepare. The more you prepare, the more the teacher can teach you.  Try new things. Write it all down in your journal.

When you try new technique, it may throw you off at first. Lee Strasberg spoke about this. It takes time. Be patient and persevere. 

I support you to trust your inner voice, if you are working and a technique is putting you in your head while you are auditioning or performing, drop that technique immediately. Get in the moment. Get out of your head in audition acting. Bring your creative self. The solution to most problems in an audition is renewing your commitment to being in the moment. 

Carry the pages into the room. Hold them. At home, practice with them until you are fluid in your ability to look down when needed and find the line you need without disturbing the natural rhythm. 

If it feels like the industry says “no” to you, and you truly want to do this work, then reach outside the box. Do readings of plays with your friends. Write your own short play or indie. Network with other people you want to work with, motivated creative people. Go to the library. Read actor autobiographies. Steal from them any good idea. Learn the history of the work. Become fluent in the areas of the work that interest you. Get onstage. Do one acts. Shoot your indie. Get it into a festival—any festival. Form a collective. There is no limit to this. Do not let the industry make you feel like a victim who sits around and waits as a lifestyle. That is also a choice. 

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Many thanks,

Corey

 I invite you to do a search on this blog with the word, "audition." You will find some casting directors, directors, writers and actors talking about the process. 

“One cannot always create subconsciously and with inspiration. No such genius exists in the world. Therefore our art teaches us first of all to create consciously and rightly. The more you have of conscious creative moments in your role, the more chance you will have of the flow of inspiration.”

Stanislavski