hello. i am the asked from yesterday. thank you for linking that tag, it did answer my questions. the “more specific question” i have, that i don’t think you answered was: since i am only 18, is there anything i can do now to prepare for being an FA? i still plan to go to university, but what skills, experiences, and traits do airlines look when hiring FAs?
Hii!<3
There isn't much you can do to specifically prepare for the job. It diverges from typical work experiences, and the specifics vary between airlines. Until you decide which airline you're shooting for, concrete and definitive details are hard to find because each airline has its unique requirements. The necessary skills for the job are gained through training, IOE, and during your first year of inflight. The only skills and experiences that would possibly enhance your eligibility over candidates who just has regular customer service skills, is if you already have prior aviation experience. I truly believe that your charm, elegance, and overall aura are more important to focus on than any particular skills or work experiences.
Before flying my resume consisted of working at a spiritual shop, pet sitting, and grooming dogs. When I was studying wildlife conservation at university, I worked in nutrition at the zoo and cut men’s hair. Despite having much more experience with animals than I did with human customers, I believe my charisma, elegance, and aura is what sealed the deal and led to my being selecteds over candidates with extensive aviation backgrounds.
I discussed in more detail the traits that airlines look for here. Being considered “conventionally attractive” can definitely provide an advantage and afford you more privilegess in the aviation world, especially when it comes to networking, but it also needs to be said that having a beautiful aura and being naturally sociable + enthusiastic are equally important. Appearance is just one aspect of the overall picture and recruiters are looking for those they perceive to be the full package. I have observed on multiple occasions recruiters complimenting candidates before turning them away, and usually it’s because they’re not the “full package.” I have also seen them turn away women who, in my opinion, fit the model esque beauty standard.
I would say the most important quality to have is being an extrovert. I saw that previously you mentioned you can pretend for the jobs sake, and while it's possible to simulate extroversion temporarily, I think that attempting to sustain this facade for the long term would not work out well. Authentic extroversion is crucial to prevent burnout and perpetual agitation in a role that heavily involves interacting with people (who are sometimes unpleasant) and spending copious amounts of time in crowded places like airports. I’ve seen many flight attendants quit due to their social anxiety or just misanthropic attitudes in general. The turnover rate for flight attendants is at an all time high and that’s because it’s too much for most people. Most people want to live a “normal life.” (I’ve heard flight attendants make this particular complaint numerous times and usually they don’t last long.) I'm not implying introversion is lesser or shameful, I have my days/moments of introversion as well. But for sustained success, progress, and career satisfaction, having genuine extroverted tendencies by default is necessary. Keep in mind that you don’t get breaks on the aircraft or in the airport, as long as you’re in uniform, you are considered “on duty,” which means you’re expected to be of service to anyone and everyone who needs it, even when you’re not being paid. We’re not even allowed to wear headphones in the airport just in case someone asks us a question, so yeah… Imagine being stuck in the airport for 8 hours and you can’t put on headphones. 😬
Apart from that, being team oriented and able to work without directions are very important skills. While there might be a senior or purser on the crew at times, there isn't a constant supervisor during flights. It's important to have confidence in your ability to take initiative and be a team player, making it less suitable for introverts. Not taking initiative in certain situations has the potential to end in disaster. Continuous communication between crew is vital, discussing various aspects of the flight, flight deck activities, and airport procedures. Flight attendants are in charge of the entire aircraft. The pilots’ only job is to liftoff and land safely, and to relay information to flight attendants that pertain to those two duties, but only if they feel like it lmao. During training it’s constantly emphasized that extensive communication to ensure passenger safety and maintain order during the flight is the main priority.
Anyway, I hope this was insightful and obvi you are welcome to send me another message if you’d like. Best of luck to you at university!<3 :)
4 notes
·
View notes
Ask Game : ALL OF THEM !!!!!! Or, perhaps slightly more realistically, 💭 ! 👓! 🚀 ! 💥! and/or [INSERT PREFERENCE HERE] ! (they're all free choice, answer as many or as little as you like)
Hahaha yes that would be maybe A Lot (though I did have fun, these are good asks! I might answer more at some point!!)
I have already replied to some of them here!
💭 What inspires you and your writing?
I always found the "inspiration" questions to be really hard to answer, because I'm not always 100% sure what qualifies as inspiration to be honest? If I had to answer beyond the obvious (just living one's life, watching others live theirs, get involved with other people's art, learn cool facts about being alive and how we made it obtuse and complicated), I think my thing is to notice intersections, heighten them and push them in a direction that I can then observe? I think it's why I really like fan creation: there isn't the arbitrary part of making things up that could be literally anything, it's more about reckoning with particular feelings and exploring where they come from and what they mean. I think I create in a very... reactory way, if that makes sense? Which sounds awful put like that, but oh well!!!!
👓 What helps you focus when you write?
Two things!
Music and a drink of some kind (generally tea or coffee, but can be a nice cold something, or even alcohol in rare occasions)
NO INTERNET.
This second part is so crucial. As time goes by, I think I have a fairly decent amount of suspicion that I fall somewhere on the ADHD spectrum, and so the internet simply murders my ability to focus. I didn't use to be so bad, but two burnouts before hitting 25 years old will mess up a brain real good, and now I need my way out of the interwebs to do anything remotely productive.
I am so worried about the inevitable moment where my old phone dies and I *have* to get a smartphone.
🚀 Do you like to outline your fic first or create as you go?
It mostly depends on the story. If it's a short piece, I either don't outline or outline in extremely broad strokes.
When it comes to longer pieces, I do outline pretty extensively! I have developed a method that works extremely well for me and involves some sort of table that recaps what's going on in a given chapter, but also notes any crucial information we're supposed to learn regarding main character arcs, main plot and subplots. I only get to the table phase once I have a seriously good idea of what the story will be, which usually takes several notebooks to iron out.
Even then, the outline is pretty loose, and I know I will make adjustments while putting the actual words on the page --there's always something I forgot to take into account, or a narrative opportunity I didn't realize was there to begin with.
(also sometimes I forget what I put in my outline and remembers too late oops)
💥 What is one canon thing that you wish you could change?
Oh nooooooo this is so hard!!! And what is hard about it is to only pick one!!!
So I'm trying to pick the one that would have the most positive impact overall, and that reflects my arbitrary bias the least (it still will, but I'm not picking something like "more salarians", which for sure would be great for me but wouldn't do much to enhance the story as a whole)
So. I love Mass Effect 2, I really do. It's my favorite of the trilogy, mostly thanks to its bold narrative design that was pretty revolutionary at the time, and its cast of amazing characters. But... I think the main plot kind of makes very little sense, and its connection to the rest of the trilogy is tenuous at best.
The thing I would change is that instead of Collectors reaping out humans colonies to make a Super Human Reaper, which is pretty stupid, Collectors are still there (and maybe still kidnapping colonists why not), but they are used as an inside job inside the Terminus Systems to stirr trouble and mess things up between different factions, increasing tensions between Council Space and the Terminus Systems before the invasion strikes. We can keep the whole game pretty similar, except that the danger is less in humans disappearing (which... ok mary sues why is it always about you) and more in "we are eating our own instead of being united against the Reapers when they do arrive". We could get a great peak of who are these people opposing the Council and why, and get a sense of the "dark" side of the Milky Way --which I think was always the intention, though it got a little muddied-- and why it still deserves to be saved. We can keep everything: the suicide mission, us being allied with Cerberus and questionning the Alliance, the diverse perspective of all these suicidal outcasts... And!!! That would justify giving depth to batarians, I did it, I made batarians part of my change without making it seem as if the one thing I would change is to write batarians in a better way!!!
(my other pick for those who are curious would be to rework Priority: Thessia and make it less sexist. I really think just reworking this mission would make ME3 overall less weirdly bitter --though toning down the sexism in the entire game also works)
And I'm throwing a wildcard generated by a number generator for good measure:
🎁 Have a piece of a WIP you want to share?
That one's pretty easy! Here's a snippet from The Empire of Preys, from the perspective of the one and only, our favorite eugenist, racist and misandrist space frog: Dalatrass Linron!!!
(it's not edited, first draft, etc, thread with caution --also Dalatrass Linron's first name is Nemore)
Nemore ignored the alien’s brutish sturdiness to return the salarian his defiant gaze; a pastel shade that looked like a discreet blush, an unbecoming secret. He was young, his clothes baggy and practical and unkempt; used to run away from the local city watch, his angles sharpened by the toll of constant revolt, or the streets, or long-term overdose. She wondered whether his mother knew where he was, if she knew about the imprint that krogan claws left on his skin and how it was now overpowering the imprinting on her; whether these claws ever dug deep enough to soil her son’s blood.
She clenched her teeth. Her crusade had never been about saving everyone –especially not souls desperate to sink themselves back to lower cycles. The Salarian Union was a collective struggle, but collective didn’t imply all-encompassing. Nemore was well aware of the sacrifices left to make. All those wayward girls and motherless boys; tragically lost, incapable of being saved.
She wrenched her attention away from the nauseating pair, and back at the crowd chanting her name.
“They’re too close,” Nemore murmured to her security chief. “Get them away from my people.”
Thank you so much, those are really fun!
From this ask game!
7 notes
·
View notes
Academics Sooo Miss the Point in the Tarot
Consider this Symbol:
Chances are, this image took a second for you to appreciate. And if you paid attention, you noticed that simply by observing it the image of The Tower caused your brain to fire off in all sorts of directions. That is, the symbol caused your mind to imagine. Even as your eyes looked upon the card, your mind was seeing other things, which flashed beneath your vision and projected onto the card (i.e., "read" the card) in a specific way.
Hold that thought. Here comes another.
Knowledge is pointless on its own. For instance, if you live in a society that doesn't care about making concrete, then the knowledge about how to properly mix concrete is irrelevant. Alternatively, if someone asked you to make concrete, it wouldn't make a difference if you could explain how its done; it would only help if you knew how to actually make it. The question with all knowledge is: can you apply it?
It's the same with symbols. Just as the knowledge of concrete-mixing doesn't really exist in a textbook, but in your ability to apply that knowledge, so too the power of the symbol is not in the symbol, but in your ability to experience the symbol. The knowledge of the tarot does not lie in memorizing cards. The true power of the tarot is in your ability to "converse" with the cards. The power lies IN YOUR MIND. But that doesn't make it a delusion. Far from it. Cognitive scientist John Vervaeke calls this sort of thinking "imaginal" thinking, and points out that it's a real way of knowing.
This might sound abstract. After all, meditating upon a symbol seems totally different than mixing concrete. The former is highly abstract, while the latter feels much more concrete (pun intended). But this is an illusion.
Allow me to make an analogy, and think about a computer algorithm, which is just lines of code. This code essentially is immaterial. It doesn't exist anywhere physically (it's just an analogy folks; don't get too literal).
The algorithm — the line of code — is an abstraction of some task which the machine can perform. The code represents some particular job the computer does. When a person interacts with this line of code (i.e., "runs" the code), the result is that the computer does something. And this is true even though the process is not simply material or physical, but sort of an abstraction.
Symbols, I believe, are the same. Meditation is the key that flips the switch, and makes the program run. The process of meditating on a an esoteric symbol activates that symbol like a line of code. Moreover, these symbols carry associated functions which unfold in an imaginal space — just as a line of code might unfold "in cyberspace" rather than in physical space. This is what Jung was doing with his "active imagination," by the way, except he did not meditate upon symbols explicitly. He mainly just let his mind wander, which is kind of hard (especially for newcomers to esotericism). It is clear that a SYMBOL facilitates active imagination. It helps to anchor our awareness "somewhere" while it simultaneously goes "somewhere else" in the imaginal space. Go back and look again at the Tower card and tell me this isn't true. Doesn't it 'instantly trigger a series of images to flash in your mind, even as you hold the image of the Tower in your eyes. You feel it, if you pay close attention — that split between what your eyes are seeing, and where your mind is going. And the two are not the same.
The question is: What does this say about esoteric belief systems in general?
I would argue that the clinical academic approach, which is so popular in our scientific age, is absolutely fucking pointless. It's only interesting as an intellectual exercise, and doesn't actually tell you anything. Archaeologists and historians from the future, looking back on OUR culture — the one in which we are REALLY LIVING right now — might be able to guess a variety of things about us based on our buildings and our texts and our art. They might make decent guesses about how our society is organized, what we believe, how we conceptualize our place in the world, etc.
But they would never know what it was like to be here, to see life from our particular vantage point. To do that, the academics of the future would have to imagine themselves "here" where we are. And that's not science. That's imaginal thinking. That's what a poet or writer or artist does.
This approach, the imaginal approach, works the same with symbols and esoteric materials. You could memorize the meaning of each card in the tarot, each sign of the zodiac, each element of the Alchemist. You could take notes until the info is drilled into your hippocampus and you retain the information long-term. You could map out the meanings of each symbol and give lectures on what "some people think about the tarot" or "what the Ancients used to believe about astrological symbols."
But what's the fucking point of that? You should be interested in what the tarot can do for you, right here, right now, in this life. And if you're going to really apprehend what's going on in the tarot — and by extension, understand what you hold within yourself — you have to hold off on the detached, intellectual, academic bullshit.
You have to step into it, and use it.
1 note
·
View note
really ridiculously detailed character stats.
FULL NAME: Gregory
NICKNAME(S): Greg, nicknames given to him by someone that he's become emotionally close with so long as it's nothing too ridiculous.
AGE: 10 years old
MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE: INTJ
BIRTH DATE: January 7th
ETHNICITY: N/A since he's an alien cat lol
PLACE OF BIRTH: deep within the Psion home-planet and at its core where the Psion production machine and corresponding facility is located.
GENDER IDENTITY: N/A
PREFERRED PRONOUN(S): he / him / his
SEXUAL ORIENTATION: N/A
RELIGION: he wouldn't identify with a particular religion, but his beliefs about the universe and its workings at large are heavily oriented towards proven science and educated theories, with a gap left open for that inherent (from his pov) quantity of unknown. That is, he recognizes that there are inherent limitations to life-forms (and thus the ways that they collect and analyze data, himself included) and that as a result, no one can know the complete truth of things in whole. There's just too many variables that can influence or skew one's perception of things--even if a truth that is genuinely objective is staring them straight in the face--thus making any data produced by imperfect beings, flawed.
And so, while he subscribes to established science as a basis on which he operates (because he needs to have something to guide his actions, even if it's imperfect), he's not completely attached to it and rather, opts to simultaneously maintain the flexibility required to accept new data and update his views accordingly, especially if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that he is completely and utterly wrong about something.
OCCUPATION: explorer / slightly chaotic scientist / engineer
FACE CLAIM: Whatever I end up drawing lol. More seriously? it's worth noting that he can alter his appearance to best suit whatever setting he finds himself in and so, if I did use icons (which, as of the time of this post, I have no plans on doing since I'd have to draw everything myself) they would reflect a given disguise that he's using out of practicality, to blend in.
RELATIONSHIPS.
PARENTS: Maria & George (adoptive human parents)
SIGNIFICANT OTHER(S): N/A
CHILDREN:
LEVEL OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE:
STORY OF FIRST KISS:
A SOCIAL PERSON? technically, he does interact with other people frequently enough that he might look like he's a conventionally social person (despite his flat and unemotional demeanor) and he isn't opposed to attending social functions, but that isn't hinged on a genuine interest in interaction for its own sake. Rather, it's more so about the knowledge that he has to gain from it personally and satiating his own curiousity.
It's not about building a meaningful connection with someone (usually that happens by accident aka not by any intentional effort on his part) but rather it's more so about observing them and documenting their movements. He generally thinks of social interactions as unstructured, uncontained, and naturally-occurring 'social experiments' and so, while he can appear to be superifically social, he's not truly a social person. Because if he didn't have a motivation distinct from socializing for its own sake (or really anything else more personal) then he wouldn't bother with it.
HOW DO THEY THINK OTHERS PERCEIVE THEM? he doesn't actively think about it. For the most part, he comes across as oblivious because though he doesn't mean to be malicious or harmful, the feelings of others factor in at the very bottom of his reasoning process for taking actions, if it's not skipped entirely altogether. His brain is very much directed towards thinking of things in terms of pros-cons and optimizing the approach taken to his selected action accordingly.
[Segue but, from this point I want to clarify that he does care about people (not personally, but in a detached, general good kinda way) but his understanding of people's emotions can be pretty limited thus making him shortsighted about them. He thinks that by cutting through emotion and getting straight to the most logical and efficient way of doing something, it should 'logically' satisfy anyone else involved. Because it's efficient and achieves the goal! So !!! there's no reason to be unhappy! He definitely wouldn't be unhappy so the other person shouldn't be unhappy either!]
AND SO, he rarely ever considers how others perceive him. His brain is so laser-focused on his goals and interests and achieving them that he barely even notices negative or positive receptions to him (and in some cases, he's only clued in because of his PSI). But, if he were to stop and actually think about it, the truth becomes abundantly clear. Like an intuitive flash of realization.
It depends on the person that he interacts with, but overall, he thinks that even though he doesn't see himself this way, he probably comes across as weird, antisocial (even though he isn't), kinda rude (since his adherence to certain social norms is fairly inconsistent and he might end up not doing some things that are expected), cold, and overly direct. And I mean, he somewhat understands why people might think this and while he doesn't take it personally, he can acknowledge that it poses some limitations on his ability to gather data. And that, to him, is the real issue here lol.
HOW DO OTHERS ACTUALLY PERCEIVE THEM? he's actually correct! even if he can seem oblivious at times to certain things, it's not for a lack of perception, but rather a lack of interest in paying it any mind or actively thinking about it, beyond filing it away (if noticed) with the other information gathered. Whenever he actually thinks about/focuses on certain things, his power of perception and deduction is actually pretty good, even without PSI. Even the smallest details can give away a lot about someone and so, to him, no interaction is actually insignificant.
PHYSICAL TRAITS.
EYE COLOR(S): Dark blue
HAIR COLOR(S): Blonde (human form), clear (true form, microscopic hairs though), off-white blue (offshoot form and it's actually fur)
SKIN TONE: porcelain almost like a doll (human form), off-white blue (true form, offshoot form)
HEIGHT: 5'2" (human form), 2'3" (true form, offshoot form)
WEIGHT: 75 lbs
BODY BUILD: across all three forms cited on the main information page, his build generally tends to be slender and small. He's not thin as a twig, but he wouldn't have much muscle definition (or any drastic body shape --it's more akin to the 'rectangle' body shape than anything) either. The idea is that he looks like someone that lives an extremely sedentary lifestyle, but otherwise maintains healthy habits.
GLASSES? CONTACTS? he doesn't need either one. The only times he'll wear either thing is if it were actually disguised technology that he plans on using or if it serves some other benefit for him.
STYLE OF DRESS/TYPICAL OUTFITS: you already know this Psy, but for anyone that doesn't --to preface the answer to this, he doesn't see what the big deal is about not wearing clothes, but since he just happens to like certain clothing, he's decided to not go naked as his default lol. And so, his style is primarily centered around comfortable and oversized sweaters while everything else is picked out on the basis of how well it serves its intended function.
SO !!! nothing impractical or overly embellished (from his pov anyways lol)--just the bare minimum--but not without standards either, in that it has to be neat, in pristine condition, single colour, well-fitted, and functional above all else. If it doesn't do what it's supposed to or struggles with it, then he sees no use in wearing it. Fashion trends or looking trendy means nothing to him. In effect, this overall translates to him broadly wearing the aforementioned sweaters, usually a turtleneck long-sleeved shirt underneath, and maybe jeans + shoes. It depends on the form that he's assuming, even if he'd rather not bother with shoes in particular lol.
JEWELRY? TATTOOS? PIERCINGS? he has what looks like three diamond-shaped and crystalline black earrings on his left ear, but actually it's one of those technology-disguised-as-ordinary-objects things whereby these in particular are regulators associated with various aspects of his psionic abilities, including a failsafe to block future would-be Giygas transformations.
Beyond that, he wears a necklace underneath his hoodie (but over his shirt) with a small shell with the 'XX' marking on it on a silver chain. It doesn't have any immediate practical use (thereby making it one of the few things that he wears for its own sake or more accurately, as a memento of Maria), but it's not a totally ordinary object either. There's still something to it that makes it seem vaguely... magical, for the lack of a better word.
ATHLETIC? nope! He doesn't really like intensive physical activity much and rather relies more on his PSI and whatever thing he manages to invent to compensate for his lack of physical ability.
HOW DO THEY WALK: he walks in a very upright and proper way. His posture borders on being almost too perfect at times (especially for a 10 year old) and every step taken is very intentional and calculated to be efficient, no matter how small.
HOW DO THEY SMELL LIKE: mostly like nothing. The most one gets is the vague scent of stringent sterilization chemicals and maybe machines if he's been tinkering around with discarded robots or engineering new things.
WHAT’S THEIR POSTURE LIKE? his posture is great and like I said earlier, almost too perfect at times. The only time he ever eases up on that is if his interest is captured enough by something that it becomes secondary to indulging in it.
PHOBIAS AND DISEASES.
PHOBIA(S): he's positively terrified of being corrupted above all else. Like I mention other things specifically on his information page, but it all fundamentally boils down to being absolutely gutted by the fear of becoming corrupted because of what it means. To be corrupted means to lose his mind and sanity. To be corrupted means to lose control of his own actions and lose himself as a person. To be corrupted means to hurt others and that's just fundamentally distasteful to him, even if harming others in general (outside this context) is sometimes necessary and for their own good from his pov.
MENTAL ILLNESS(ES): N/A
PHYSICAL ILLNESS(ES): None. He physically can't get sick or sustain any permanent physical impairment.
WHEN WAS THIS DIAGNOSED? N/A
INTELLECT.
LEVEL OF EDUCATION: educated by Psion curriculum which is pretty rigorous and extensive, kinda like graduate programs, but supercharged to 100x and primarily focused in on what he needs to know to fulfill military functions. So in general, Psions do study several subject areas in great detail to have a more rounded-out basis of knowledge, but then get more intensive education and training that specifically relates to their predetermined role in society.
LEVEL OF SELF-ESTEEM: he has a high degree of confidence in his own abilities (both PSI-based and any other skills that he's honed), but he's very unsure about himself as a person. He's done very heinous things in the past and while he's distanced from a lot of the memories due to the nature of reassembling the fragmented pieces of his mind, whenever he thinks long and hard enough about it? he gets this crushing sense that maybe, just maybe, it's because deep down? he's an evil person, no matter what he does now. That he was fundamentally born as a monster and nothing will ever change that.
GIFTS/TALENTS: Gregory doesn't personally regard himself as such, but he's an actual genius. Very high IQ and extremely high processing power such that he can take in very high amounts of information at once and comprehend it on a fundamental level really quickly. One of the biggest ways in which this manifests is his engineering capabilities. He can literally build practically anything... --he needs only a concept and he can run with it to make something that accomplishes the given purpose.
Beyond that, he's also very good at basically things that hinge on detective work and research pretty much. He's great at pulling up information, making accurate deductions or predictions based off it, and locating really obscure and old items. And in addition to that--sorta along a similar line of logic--he's generally great at long-term scheming and manuveuring pieces into place to make things happen. The guy literally changed the course of fate itself and so in that sense, he's a big problem-solver. Nothing stumps or stops him. 'Impossible' just means 'a problem that I have not yet found a solution to' and that's that lol. He can struggle with something for a bit, but he'll keep at it until he resolves it.
And lastly, apart from being very gifted at PSI, he also has good skill in: activities that hinge on solving puzzles, strategy, and just testing one's mental abilities in general; playing video games; organizing things and creating efficient systems for them; and singing (but that one's a secret so shhhhh).
SHORTCOMINGS: can be insensitive and inconsiderate (not in a cruel or malicious way though); prone to tunnel vision on goals that he feels strongly enough about; and susceptible to self-isolating, especially when under emotional duress.
STYLE OF SPEECH: he speaks at a relatively even pace (can jump up to being a bit too quick if shows enough interest in a Big Interest (TM) of his and he ends up infodumping on them), with a flat (almost bored, which isn't helped by the fact that he speaks softly by default) tone, and in a way that's overall, best described as being overly proper. That is, he uses an overly descriptive manner of speech full of terms that are more technical or perceived as being closest to the 'truest' form of a term and more elaborate sentence structure to get to a point that could have more easily been stated in a super simple way.
It's an odd contradiction to his overall desire and adherence to efficiency, but the core idea behind it is that it more accurately captures the point or concept that he has in mind vs using a more simple manner of speech. He also (notably) doesn't use abbreviations or contractions (and just says the full thing instead), but that's because he just doesn't like such things. It just sounds jarring to him and it drives him nuts.
“LEFT BRAIN” OR “RIGHT BRAIN” THINKER: Left brain
ARTISTIC? a little bit! he used to like drawing as a 4 year old, but has since significantly decreased the amount that he does. At this point in time, he does draw (in a very simple and well, childish way) but only when making more detailed observations in his observation journal.
MATHEMATICAL? he's great at math and actually loves it! Working with numbers and equations (especially when they relate to the universe at large) is one of his favourite things to do.
MAKES DECISIONS BASED MOSTLY ON EMOTIONS, OR ON LOGIC? he makes a vast majority of his decisions based on logic, sometimes to a fault where more emotional nuance is required.
MOST SENSITIVE ABOUT/VULNERABLE TO: anyone that speaks poorly of Maria or disrespects something that was deeply personal to him from her, namely the lullaby; dealing with all those 'ugly' emotions like sadness; ideas surrounding the concept of being 'defective' and being treated as such accordingly; the whole Giygas experience; the idea that fundamentally, everything terrible that happened to Maria was his fault.
OPTIMIST OR PESSIMIST? he might seem pessimistic or harsh, but his overall approach to things is more slanted towards optimism. He has to be optimistic for continuing on as he is even though he has the doubts and fears that he does.
EXTROVERT OR INTROVERT? Introverted.
DETAILS/QUIRKS.
NIGHT OWL OR EARLY BIRD?: neither, this guy doesn't sleep at all to begin with. He thinks that it's a waste of time that could be spent being productive lol.
LIGHT OR HEAVY SLEEPER?: N/A, see the above.
FAVORITE FOOD: trail mix
LEAST FAVORITE FOOD: anything that's super greasy and low in actual nutritional value. He doesn't find such things very enjoyable to eat and usually spits them (alongside any other food he happens to dislike) out immediately after registering the actual taste and texture. Similar rules apply for drinks.
COFFEE OR TEA?: black coffee --no sweeteners or any other additives in it.
CRUNCHY OR SMOOTH PEANUT BUTTER?: crunchy! He likes the texture of it more this way since it reminds him of the raw, dry nuts that he enjoys munching on.
LEFTY OR RIGHTY?: ambidextrous
FAVORITE COLOR?: pink
CUSSER?: nope! he doesn't really use emotional language in general (even when talking about actual emotions --it sounds depersonalized from himself and stilted because to do so any differently = more vulnerability which he is not a fan of) and since he classifies cussing as such (not to mention that he thinks of it as 'crude' and 'messy' manner of speaking anyways), that's more than enough reason for him not to cuss. Unless he does it ironically or is paraphrasing someone else.
SMOKER? DRINKER? DRUG USER?: N/A, not that it'd work on him anyways lol.
PETS?: None unless growing various plants in a spaceship counts?
TAGGED BY: @beinfriends
TAGGING: anyone that has an interest in completing this! You can just say that I tagged you (I'd highly recommend it so that it's easier for me to find your post and read about your muse(s) --I just about adore super detailed stuff like this!)
1 note
·
View note
1024 meaning
We as a whole have a heavenly presence in our lives that is there to look after us. This grand presence is there in our lives to furnish us with direction and help, as well as to safeguard us.
Divine messengers address the superb presence. Our heavenly messengers are generally with us, giving profound insight. They help us, offer help, and caution us of possible risks and difficulties along our life's process.
Your Divine messengers will hear your requests and deal you the entirety of the help and exhortation you've requested, as well as superb direction. Since Divine messengers are grand creatures, they never talk straightforwardly to us.
All things considered, they utilize divine signs, which are fragile and recondite messages. It is our obligation to sort out what eminent signs imply.
The heavenly signs are delicate, inconspicuous, and otherworldly. Certain individuals have more fantastic instinct and can grasp the significance of heavenly signs without assistance.
By and large, the people who think Heavenly messengers is a notion overlook divine signs and excuse them as simple happenstance.
You ought to never disregard the heavenly indications of your Divine messengers, they might appear to be a fortuitous event from the outset, yet assuming that you are cautious, you will observe that they are not.
You ought to constantly give your all to figure out its importance and the message behind it.
Heavenly messengers frequently use numbers as heavenly signs, as each number has its exceptional importance and can be consolidated into a total message.
You will observe that you are given a specific number again and again in your regular routine. It's anything but a simple happenstance, however this number is a heavenly sign normally alluded to as the heavenly messenger number.
Assuming you at any point wind up seeing similar numbers again and again, don't fear this inclination. The rehashing designs you see have a reported importance and message that one can only with significant effort excuse.
Regardless of whether you will generally disregard them, they will return despite everything be a major part of your life. The messages you traverse designs frequently alluded to as heavenly messenger numbers can be basic to your personal satisfaction.
Heavenly messenger Numbers can carry you objectives and should be met, which isn't not difficult to accomplish. One of the fundamental ascribes of holy messenger numbers is learning reason throughout everyday life. The no one but thing can cause you to feel like you've accomplished a ton.
Nonetheless, it isn't straightforward the messages getting through these numbers, so you might find it simpler to acknowledge guidelines making sense of what these numbers mean. You should figure out its tendency and comprehend the recording you see so frequently.
You really want to begin focusing on them to understand what transforms you really want in your life. Each number has a remarkable implying that one can change on the off chance that the numbers are matched distinctively or in a particular request. Along these lines, sorting out the significance of the numbers is troublesome as it changes when the numbers are matched in an unexpected way.
Assuming you continue to see holy messenger number 1024 over and again, this number is your number, and it contains replies to your requests from your Divine messengers. You will track down it in the text underneath assuming you really want assistance finding and seeing all potential implications of holy messenger number 1024.
What Does Holy messenger Number 1024 Mean?
If we have any desire to comprehend everything our heavenly messengers are attempting to say to us through holy messenger number 1024, we first need to figure out the importance of each number that makes up that number.
0 notes
actually u know what there is a difference between toxic positivity (e.g largely unhelpful 'mental health' tips that boil down to 'just stop being sad/anxious/upset'), actual positivity (which helpfully combats Toxic Cynicism) and Toxic Positivity 2 where u get called cringe for talking bluntly abt ur mental illness
4 notes
·
View notes
Representing the Real - Week 2:
Lecture Videos:
Gates of Heaven:
I thought there was good use of setting to give insights into the characters (how one character was surrounded by trophies, another by electronic devices and a third with practically nothing). I also liked the way the camera just held on to the subject and let them speak - evident by the pauses and ums and ers - as opposed to only taking except from the conversations, or covering them up with random clips that would prevent you from seeing the subjects facial expressions and mannerisms as they spoke. Some people might argue that it feels a little flat and boring - just holding on the same person with an unmoving camera - but I thought it gave you time to really get a sense of who that person was.
Biggie and Tupac:
I thought there was an interesting subject in this documentary, and I did like the reflexive approach the documentary took, showing us the process of making the documentary (such as seeing Nick Broomfield on the phone trying to get an interview), but I personally found that the goofy character of Nick Broomfield to be at odds with the topic, which slightly took me out of the documentary. While I enjoyed the comedy of this slightly wacky character, I felt he sometimes overshadowed the actual topic of the documentary. Additionally, while some of the voice over added to our understanding of what was happening, some of it was just describing what was happening on screen or was not too relevant (take a humorous but unnecessary metaphor about how his cameraman seemed to be on a distant island).
Overall, I am in two mindsets about this documentary. Do I think the documentary was entertaining? Yes. Did Broomfield’s actions cause other people to react in ways that revealed more about themselves? Yes. But my issue is it sometimes felt more like a parody, like a less extreme version of “I’m Alan Partridge” or “The Ali G Show”, then anything else, and sometimes I felt entertained for the wrong reasons. I feel my issue is more with Broomfield than anything else, and otherwise I do generally enjoy this type of documentary.
High School:
I liked the rather observational approach of this film and the lack of any voiceover or an interviewer, and how it just observed its subjects going about their lives. I liked the way it captured the largely mundane nature of school life, and found myself relating to the scenes being displayed. I was slightly taken out at points by the examples of continuity editing, which reminded me these scenes weren’t 100% real, but otherwise the film felt very naturalistic.
Man with a Movie Camera:
I thought this was quite an unconventional documentary, that seemed more interested in creating a sense of place and an energetic feeling than telling a story. I enjoyed the stylistic flourishes (for example, when the man is standing on top of the movie camera) and the rapid editing, and particularly likely the shots of the train rushing past. I think it created a good sense of this particular town, and touched on issues like the rising industries in Russia, the different classes and the movie making process itself. Ultimately, I’m not completely sure what this movie means, but I thought it was a very unique and thought-provoking work.
Nanook of the North:
I enjoyed the clip I watched of this movie, although it sometimes felt more like a how-to guide for building an igloo than a real reflection on that kind of lifestyle. Despite knowing the film was staged, I didn't feel this too much. Sometimes the camera felt too conveniently placed as opposed to capturing the action by chance, and sometimes it seemed like the subjects were playing up for the camera, but if I didn't know it was staged I doubt I would have suspected. I also thought the music helped to create a lighthearted, whimsical tone, which I liked.
Our Documentary (Ideas, Roles and Style):
After discussing our reservations with last week's idea, we came up with two new ones, one of which we feel very strongly about.
Idea 1:
The first idea is to do a documentary about Eden Court Theatre, a creative arts centre in Inverness, which is very significant to the local community but has been struggling during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The positives of this idea are:
With regards to filming, it is accessible to Ben and Jack
Ben and Jack already have a personal connection to this place, making them good choices to tell a story about this place (of course, I don't have this connection, but I think it's good to have one person to provide an outsider's perspective)
With lots of people having ties to this location, and my two colleagues knowing a number of these people, we would likely be able to find someone who would be willing to star in this documentary
However there is one main shortcoming: our idea is about the importance of this building in the community, but the brief states we have to focus this on a person, not a building. Of course, we can choose a particular person to focus on (someone at the top, someone who works there, or just someone like Ben or Jack who has gone there in the past), but there is the worry that, through using this person as a way to investigate this building and its significance, it may feel like the subject isn't actually the focus and we are not doing proper justice to their character, only touching on the aspects related to Eden Court. This could be avoided by generally trying to cover all of their characteristics but is still a risk. There is also the worry that our potential subjects, while being lovely people, aren't the most interesting subjects.
Idea 2:
The second idea is to do a documentary on Jack’s long time friend, Hunter.
The positives are:
With regards to filming, Hunter is accessible by both Jack and Ben.
Apparently, he is a very unique character, which is ideal for any documentary. According to Jack, he is quite a wild character with a considerable reputation in his home town of Tain, but he is also a very likable and down to earth guy, so hopefully the audience should be both entertained by him and find him to be a likable presence
Jack has approached him about the idea and Hunter responded by saying he would be up for starring in our documentary.
Jack has been friends with Hunter for over a decade, so Jack would know what is most interesting for the audience to find out about Hunter. Additionally, Hunter would likely feel more comfortable doing this documentary and would be more open around his friend. This may not be the case with our potential subject for Eden Court Theatre - while they may know Ben and/or Jack, they‘re bond wouldn't be as strong as Jack and Hunter’s is, and they likely wouldn't be as open
Hunter is well known in the community, so we would be able to get various different opinions on him
Jack has access to lots of archive footage of Hunter, which could be a nice addition to the film
Our current thinking is, since Hunter has said he will be happy to star in our documentary, and it is easier to go with him then have to find someone interesting who has been impacted by Eden Court, that is the direction we will go.
We have thought a little about roles. The thinking is Ben would be the cameraman (as he owns a good quality camera and knows how to use it), Jack would be the director and the interviewer, and I would be the editor (seeing as I wouldn’t be able to physically be there). As for the research and producing roles, these would all be shared. This isn't set in stone, but is our current thinking based on everyone's skills and where they would be in the world.
Style and Group Roles:
As for what style we would be going for, our current thinking is a mix of an observational and participatory approach. Our thinking is we would follow Hunter around over the course of his day, letting him do his own thing, with Jack accompanying him and engaging him in casual dialogue that will cause him to reveal certain things about himself (in essence, Jack is the interviewer, but is never presented as much, instead just being himself and talking to his friend). I imagine we would avoid the use of voiceover, or formally sitting Hunter down (like in “Same but Different” and “Gates of Heaven”). I imagine our style will be a mixture of “A Pigeon Game” and “High School”.
Overall, I think we have an achievable idea that everyone is happy with, and I look forward to seeing how the project develops from here!
0 notes
THE IRISHMAN press conference
London Film Festival 2019
London Film Festival Director Tricia Tuttle presents The Irishman’s Director Martin Scorsese with producers Emma Tillinger and Jane Rosenthal. And the actors Robert De Niro and Al Pacino.
Il film è incentrato sulla memoria e stilisticamente offre all’occhio del osservatore una quantità innumerevole di elementi visivi accattivanti. Questa opera fa dispiegare lo sguardo in modo drammatico sugli avvenimenti che storicamente si susseguono, inoltre allo stesso tempo ci fa fluttuare come in una sorta di distillazione del tempo e del luogo in cui è ambientato. L’uso degli effetti speciali è straordinario e come per quasi tutti i film di Scorsese ci troviamo di fronte a un capolavoro di genere.
The film is focused on memory and stylistically offers the eye of the observer an innumerable amount of captivating visual elements. This work makes the viewer's gaze unfold dramatically on the events that historically follow one another, and at the same time makes us float as if in a sort of distillation of the time and place where it is set. The use of special effects is extraordinary and like almost all Scorsese's films we are faced with a genre masterpiece.
Regia: Martin Scorsese
Interpreti: Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, Romano Bobby Cannavale Anna Paquin, Stephen Grahm, Harvey Keitel
Paese: USA
Anno: 2019
Durata: 209′
di seguito l’intervista ==>
Q:
Why did it take so long? You've known each other for decades. I know this project it has been in your mind for a while...
Bob De Niro: Yeah... he said, I just read it, it just had come out, I got to read that book... That was about three years earlier.. Marty was starting to show me ..
Martin Scorsese:
Some special work that Bob and I'm involved in for twenty somewhat years. that we were trying to get another project film, based on... Hollywood in the 70s 80s.. that developed into something else, about something else. We never quite settled on the project. The last time we worked together was in 1995: 'Casino'. So from that point on we would check on each other what we were doing, whether I could fit into his plan or vice versa. Ultimately we did, I think, in the winter of Frankie Machine... We decided we had to do something... maybe in 2010, no, 2008.. We thought this might be a project with possibilities... I was really looking for something that would enrich more or less where we had gone in the 70s and the 80s and early 90s.. to just replicate or trying to do the beginning of our careers wouldn't be anything enriching. So, you were about to direct the 'Good Shepard' - Eric ... was writing that... And Eric, knowing that we were trying to do something called 'Frankie Machine' about a hitman who retired... Eric gave you a book called 'I heard you paint houses' by Charles Bran for research
MS:
Jean Gabin film like 'Touches pas gris be'??? Matfields too low (Toulaux) Le deuxiËme circle...pictures like that... Gabin character...
By the time you're doing 'Casino', I felt that presence was similar
Bob:
And then I survived to read this book that I 've been always wanted to read called 'I heard you paint houses'. I read it just as research character . When I had read it I got together with Marty and said: you gotta look at this ... So that was it.
MS:
You had the story about (on the telephone) Brad Brit?? right?
Lady:
So you were ready to comit to making Frankie Machine, financed by Paramount, we were all on call together to get the green light and in the middle of this conversation Bob said: Well, this other book that we are thinking about, maybe we could combine these two movies . And Brad said: So you want to take a go with it and turn it into a development project?... That was 2007 ... Then we brought Steve Zillion on and Steve delivered (Steven, Marty and Bob worked together and did option 'I heard you paint houses' and Frankie Machine went away and Steve delivered the script in 2009..
MS:
The point is that we were trying to find something that we could ride /write with (I don't know how you define ride/write... it's ambiguous... kind of we felt comfortable in a way.. something we could not articulate and once he described this character to me, I felt that he had a good sense of it so I said: this is maybe where we could really try to explore and see what we could come up with, that it might really be of value ultimately or as a creative point which is what he cared getting out.. to impress the cast ... so we took a chance... Steve pulled together a wonderful script, and it took a number of years...
Bob:
Steve wrote the script which is terrific, wonderful as Marty says, and it was a matter of getting everybody's schedules to line up. Marty was doing ... coming over here.. I don't know when you was doing Euro.. 2009/ 2010.. We would talk about what we were going to do, if there was availability, you wanted to do 'Silence'... I said to Marty I wanted to make sure he was okay if we would just let it out there.. usually I am very superstitious about that it usually doesn't happen... I felt maybe in this case since we got no backers, no people really interested in the idea that we were doing it with Al and Joe... if they were okay with mentioning that they were on board.. So we did that and then we had a reading of the script..
Lady:
the reading of the script January right before you left to go to 'Silence'. That was this one opportunity to get everyone together, and we taped the reading 2012... I thought that that would be all we would have of the Irishman, since it would be difficult to get financing. Then when everybody heard it , there was a new energy, but Marty and Emma went back to shoot 'Silence', so we had another delay.. A good one.
Al Pacino:
I've known Marty and Bob for very long time..Anthony called me about it, it sounded really interesting...The opportunity to work with them was very important for me. For years we always spoke together, Marty and I, about different things.. and of course Bob and I worked together we had known each other since we were young actors
MS:
The first meeting we had about this, we talked about it in a hotel in LA
AP:
That's right! The hotel! It's all coming back to me now...
MS:
After all the discussions he looked at me and said, is this gonna happen, because... the complications and schedules and then of course, no real enthusiasm to say the least about financing, really made it something that is a nice dream and you said: that maybe the reading was going to be the only time you've heard it or seen it... we knew that from the beginning
AP:
I think that reading was very well orchestrated 09.06.72
Very effective...
MS:
Bob arranged it so there were the right kind of people there
Yeah, they got excited about it but still didn't raise the money
I remember, it was you, Al, Bob, ... Bobby Carneval, pauly Herman??? Joe pesci, Stefanie...
AL:
You can feel it that there was a live wire there.. I always thought it wouldn't happen...
Bob:
I got a call from Al...is it gonna happen..?
don't worry, they'll work it out...
Lady:
Thank goddness you did, because there were these fantastic time sugressions?? ..
Journalist:
Hello, Catherine Dreyer from Free Cinema... I just saw the film ', of course mind blowing.. one of those old epic things that make you like it to be in the cinema and watching it.. So thank you so much already for that. The question is... this is obviously a Netflix production, it's coming out very shortly after running in the cinemas. It seems to be a very good collaboration between TV / internet companies with the film industry.. Will we have at some point to redefine perhaps what is cinema?
MS:
...I think it's not just an evolving sort of thing, it's a revolution, even bigger a revolution that sound was for cinema, it's the revolution of cinema itself. A new technology, bringing things that are unimaginable... is it something extraordinarily good for narrative films, or stories told in motion pictures... it opens up the original conception of what a film is and where it's to be seen has now changed so radically that we may have to say, okay, this is a certain kind of film, it's made here... there might be a virtual reality films that have holograms, all sorts of things that are coming that we don't even know... Something that should always be protected as much as possible and that I think will always be there, is a comunal experience. I think that's best in the theater... Now, homes have become theaters, too... It's a major change... just keep an open mind... there is no doubt that seeing film with an audience is.... there is a problem though.. you have to make the film.. we ran out of room in a sense... there was no room for us to make this picture... for many different reasons, ultimately there was financial issue, too in terms of the CGI that we did and the reason why, the CGI is kind of complicated...because at a certain point if I made the film earlier they could have played younger and then at a certain point we missed that, and then they said, use younger actors who play them younger, and I said, well, what's the point of that... I want to find a CGI... let's see what they experiment, open it up... I mean CGI to that extend is really an evolution of make up... you'll accept certain make up, you know that she is not that old, she's not that young. You accept that as a norm. I mean you accept the illusion so to speak. Taking that and having the backing of a company that says, you have no interference, you can make this picture as you want, the trade off is its streams with the attribule distribution prior to that. That's the chance we take on this particular project. What streaming means and how that's going to define a new form of cinema, I'm not sure. I thought for a while maybe long form TV cinema- it's not! It simply isn't. It's a different viewing experience. You're going to get three episodes, two, four-ten... one one week, second episode the second week... that's not ... it's a different kind of thing, so there's got to be still what has to be protected is the singular experience... experiencing a picture, ideally with an audience... But there's room for so many others now, and so many other ways. There's gonna be cross overs... Value..? the value of a film that's like a theme park film for example, where the theme is becoming amusement parks... that's a different experience, it's not cinema, it's something else.. and it shouldn't be rated ?? by it.. That's a big issue.. We need the theater (audience?) to step up to that, to allow to show films that are narrative films. A narrative film could be one long take for three hours, too, you know. It doesn't have to be a conventional 120 minute film.
What Marty said, it will be in theaters and even when it goes on plate-work??? it still will continue to be in theaters, so audiences have their choice of whether we're going to watch it in theater and have an amazing cinema comunity experience or whether they want to watch it on the platform. Roma, for example, is still in theater around the world. So the audience has the choice of how they want to use something...
LADY:
Cinema has reached a point where changing has the option of having streaming as it were in this case...???
Journalist from AUSTRALIA:
Sergio Leone's 'Once upon a time in America', started de Niro, a film had small similar to this one,... do you think there are any references to that film here?... It's a long film, not as action packed as your early gangster films, I think they are very different to this.
But how is it different to your early gangster films?
MARTY:
Well, this underworld milieu... I guess the similarity is that it's very long and Bobby de Niro is in it.... I guess the two of us made a movie, when we were trying to get the finances, I know how to do this... I know how to follow it through.. I just went with that..
What did you feel looking at yourselves younger for the first time when you're looking back at the movie. Was it a bit crazy?
MS:
How does it relate to them? Well, back in 1973 we're 29, 30 years old, now we're much older and so we hope that maybe the... over time... that something has evolved, maybe deepened to a certain extend of our life... in a back it can be conveyed in a story, performances, in the way a film is put together, that would be some sort of an advancement, rather then just replicating what we have done in the past
New technology and all that... does it open a brand new world for everyone?
AP:
Considering everything is crazy. It was crazy. I don't know quite what you mean though, I'm sorry... what were you saying?
AP:
I don't feel that way, personally... this is a technique that is barely on? It's what they have said, it's a form of make up.. It could change things... But I don't think you feel that way -- as an actor -- I think you feel that as an actor, you're playing a role,... a role that more then likely hopefully you're suited for... so when you do that... it doesn't matter what you look like.. It is sort of true in a way... because, when I saw the film.. he showed it to me without anything... I just went with it and I didn't think anymore that.... this was a story... it was handled / delivered in such a way, alectorially, visually, costumage.. everything. And also the acting. I think that was what was taking me up... the story... I wasn't thinking about anything else after a while, I mean I didn't even think about when we first started.. Of course it was me ... I wasn't thinking about the wines, our faces or anything... this was accepting these people.. they existed, too, this is another thing. This was an interesting thing... because it's a story about real things that happened. people really lived.. Maybe that had something to do with my reaction. This whole thing can be innovative, of course, but at the same time it tells a story... I'm a little more concerned about that...
As I say, I did see the film without any work... and it was fine.. as a matter of fact, I'm the only one who felt that way
MS:
I think it is really good that we have that potential, it is stating what it's stating: the old days... some actor that we all knew and love and they put grey hair on him, we say, oh, he got older, but you accept it, because this is in the story
Bob:
I always joked that my career will be extended another thirty years... No, it's a whole industry... where / how it will evolve... I was just thinking about copyrights... likeness, and who gets it long after we're all gone, families and stuff like that. We even have that now in some way, using famous actors from years ago, commercial... to represent that product... I don't know, I'm just happy we're at the beginning stages of really being ... God knows where it goes... what excited me about it was that pablo helman was doing this thing and wanted to make it state of the art, the best it could be to date. That was an ambition for this movie, which was ambitious always... it fit the whole enterprise
MS:
It's also how you move... these are the little things
AP:
You're walking along looking... pretty and then you got to get up... (grimace)... hey, man, what are you doing, you're 39! 25.22.23
Question from German Journalist :
What was the biggest challenge for each one of you on this movie (directing - acting
MS:
Making (movies?) is a big challenge.. in terms of realm... the guys are performing.. so I cannot speak for them, but for me it's cutting through all the issues of how you perceive a story, the sweep of a story, what's essential, what isn't essential, making those editing choices right there, on the set. First of all even before set, before shooting begins, make those editing choices, and in shooting even top around those editing choices because it's very complex.. in terms of technology... and staying on point, staying on what's essential to the story. Those are the characters, particularly Frank's character, and eliminating everything else around that was getting in the way. And this I think was a 108 day shoot. So this is one thing. And then the editing, too. So it's wrangling the picture, in a way.. always threatening to run a little bit out of control, but grabbing it again, and using Frank Sharon as the anchor. The whole picture took finally to wind up with him alone. That's what all film is about. That's just general of how you make a movie. Otherwise you sometimes make a movie you don't know what you're going to do when you get there on the set... I tried that once, it didn't work... for me it didn't work... I usually like planning and fighting my way through the whole process.. until we get, the best we can, to the end... resolve with the character...
BN:
Yeah, I mean, certain things.. like Marty, every so often, I would come in to narrate pieces that Marty figured that had to voice over to give information or whatever... That's a novel part of making a movie...
MS:
You went into the audio tracks... the voice stories and setting and then we'd go... tell me something
Interesting... and then try to find time to shoot it.. in the film, like give it to Emma and tell her to find some production time, please
Emma:
I'd say yes
Q:
So was that your biggest challenge...
Emma:
.. helping Marty realize everything?... yeah...
(laughter)
We want all of them to have the time...time to create and the environment, a quite / safe space for them to do. You wanna wrab that at all... it's a challenge, but we are phenomenal partners, the best, we carved out that time in stakes, I hope
Q:
Why do you think we are constantly pulled back into talking about films about pain and trauma as in the Irishman, there's a lot on the macro level with the asasination section, but it really does go into personal individual pain
MS:
I think pain is an important story to everybody, pain, suffering... that idea what makes an interesting story... what do you think?
Bob:
Well I think, this was a simple story. It was about a guy who was caught between two people... powerful people.. One of them disappeared - we never knew what happened really to this day - the other one was also -- Joe Galler (?).. for him.. you still don't know who did that to him... it had that to hang on someway... this political, this grand story with these historical (if you want) type of characters... a simple story
MS:
... and not so far - in terms of that - of what we were talking about these guys.. and on the other level you have JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King... all this going on.. and nobody knows really what happened there... I always say, would it make any difference now if we knew exactly who, when, how, and where..
... the dark course of it take over (???)... that are always present... these guys are right in the middle of it, in a way... they just walk by a TV and there is missles coming from Cuba... and that's your afternoon lunch... when we say a simple story is because the rest is so complicated
Q:
For me in many ways this is about reflection. I was wondering as you have amazing careers... do you guys ever sit back and reflect or do you always look to what's the next project
And I was wondering... do you think you could have made this ...now, cause you have lived and are still alive ..so that now that you're in a kind of position to understand better the texture of this narrative
MS:
you mean, if we had made this film earlier it would have been different
Q:
Yeah
MS:
Absolutely, I mean... I don't think we got together and said, let's make a movie and reflect... as I say, it's intuitive
1 note
·
View note
The Observer - May 17 1964
THE BEATLE BACKER
BRIAN EPSTEIN talks to KENNETH HARRIS
HARRIS: How much have you made out of the Beatles, Mr Epstein?
EPSTEIN: Well, I honestly couldn't tell you at the moment.
I wouldn't mind telling you a bit - after all, I have to tell my accountants and the income tax collector. But at the moment I couldn't. You see, I managed them at quite a loss in the first year.
I remember putting them on four successive Mondays at Widnes, and the most I grossed was £18. And it was a long time before I was making enough to pay them what they ought to have and show a profit myself. Its only in the last accounting period, not the current one, that I show a real profit.
If you want an idea of the scale of the thing, at the moment the Beatles can on occasion make as much as £8000 a week. Of course, they can't work every week - not because I couldn't get contracts for them, but because I mustn't overwork them. My percentage at the moment is 25.
HARRIS: Do you think that might be a bit excessive?
EPSTEIN: No, I don't think it is. If you see it as it really is. When I contract people, I do it on the basis of guaranteeing them a certain return over a certain period. It is the guarantee that attracts them. Having got them on my books I am responsible for giving them that return. I'm backing my judgement of their potentialities, coupled with my capacity - such as it is - of promoting and publicising them.
I may be wrong, after all - they may not catch on, they may flop, in which case I have to pay them the rate just as if they had been a great success, until the period contracted for has expired.
Or, as with the Beatles, they may start off and continue at a loss - while I have to pay them as though they were a success from the start - and then start raking it in much later on.
You see, the stakes are high. There is a great deal of money to be made out of managing artists who become 'Top of the Pops' - not only out of the sale of records, but also out of the radio, television and film shows which go with it. But you have to stake a lot to get it.
I recently signed a contract with a group of artists which means that they do pretty well from the word Go, but I make money only if they if they get to the very top.
At the moment, though you might be showing a considerable profit on one group which has really got going, and made its name, after a period which wasn't anything like so good, you might be bringing on other groups starting from nothing.
I have a large office. I have more than 30 people working in it. Their salaries come out of how much I earn, not out of what the Beatles earn. And I want to introduce a lot of talented young people to the public you haven't heard of yet.
What I've done, and what I'm doing, is to spot people who would record discs that I think from my experience of selling records would sell in a big way. But you need something more than is required to make - or sell - one recording. You need somebody who you can rely on to go on and make several good records.
More than that, you need people who have the personal qualities and colorful character to stand up to - and exploit - the various forms of publicity that are necessary to keep their records before the public.
You have to be a judge of what kind of people teenagers want to hear singing attractive music, and out of those you need to be able to select the ones who are capable of having a kind of continuous folklore built up about them, so that the public wants to go on hearing about them, as well as hearing from them.
HARRIS: How long do you think the Beatles will go on?
EPSTEIN: Indefinitely. They are bound to. There's so much talent there. Each one is a remarkable man. Look at John Lennon, for instance. If he ceased to be a Beatle tomorrow, you'd go on hearing about him. Even if he gave up singing. He's got creative ability as a writer.
You know the Beatles write about 90 per cent of their own material. They can't read music, but they do all their own arrangements. I wouldn't predict that they will go on being as successful as they are now as a group.
But they'll go on. Paul McCartney will go on composing, grow and deepen as a composer. And he may well become a gifted actor. George Harrison is a splendid musician, and he has the talent to develop the business side of it. Ringo is a marvellous actor. Marvellous.
HARRIS: What have the Beatles got that other people haven't?
EPSTEIN: Ah, that's not easy to say. I know what they've got - at least I believe I know what they've got - but I don't know enough about words to be sure I could tell you what it is. Well, to begin with, they've got this astonishing naturalness, this freedom from unnaturalness. In private they are unspoiled, unaffected, sincere - themselves all the time, and to everybody, regardless.
In public this comes over in their performance - freshness, lack of professionalism - well, not that, because they are very professional, really. What I mean is that they don't produce any of the tricks or gimmicks or mannerisms or veneer that you associate with professionalism.
Secondly, they are technically extremely competent. They sing very well, they play very well. Then they have original genius - they have this special sense of rhythm: their lyrics are not only well written - they say what teenagers say and want to hear about.
But over and above all that, they communicate with their public far better than any of their contemporaries. They make a contact that is quicker and deeper than other performers.
The communication they make is very pure. Nothing gets in the way. So many artists have to, or do, act to get their effects, behave like somebody they are not, put on an act. But the Beatles just get up and - are!
All the best art is pure, isn't it? It really comes down to clichés, like honesty and simplicity in art. The Beatles come over direct and strong because they are simple and honest human beings.
HARRIS: How much of their success is due to the fact that they have something that this particular generation of teenagers wants?
EPSTEIN: I'm no theorist, and I can't give you a sociological explanation of anything. Quite frankly, all I really know of teenagers is what they like and don't like - I can't tell you why they like and don't like it. I can tell you, I mean, but its only my own idea.
The performers who go down best with youngsters are people who are young themselves - behave young even if they're not - have the easy-goingness, non-stuffiness, non-pompousness and friendliness that young people have, the opposite qualities from the ones they associate with authority in general and parents in particular.
You see, the Beatles behave themselves very well with their 'elders and betters,' but they don't defer to them. They aren't frightened of them, and they don't behave as if they are.
I think teenagers like the Beatles and their music because it's so gay, and easy, and natural, and moves them so quickly and simply. If teenagers like something, they can afford to buy it these days.
Another thing about the Beatles is that they don't seem to come from any particular class background. You don't need to have been to any particular school, or have any particular salary, to enjoy the Beatles. Anybody can get on their wavelength.
HARRIS: If you hadn't met the Beatles, what would you be doing now?
EPSTEIN: I don't know. I might have been still in the business, selling records. I wasn't really very happy there. I was a bit bored, really. It was a good thing for me when the Beatles came along.
HARRIS: Why were you bored with the business? You said you liked music, and you enjoyed selling records, and that you were successful at it.....
EPSTEIN: Yes, that's true. But I did it because, well..... I only went into it because there it was, the family business, and I was the elder son - you know how it is.
Furniture shops is our business around Liverpool. I was selling gramophone records - we have a big gramophone department. We might be one of the biggest sellers of gramophone records in the country.
My mother comes from a Sheffield family called Hyman - my grandfather set up a very successful furniture manufacturing business there. My father's family were also in furniture, but they were retailers. Naturally, my parents wanted me to go into the family business - as the elder son. I'm 29.
When I met the Beatles I was in charge of our gramophone records section. That's how I heard of them.
I liked selling records, and I liked talking to the people who bought them, and I found I was getting quite a good idea of what records would sell and what would not. I found that a lot of kids were asking about 'The Beatles.'
It struck me that there was more than local patriotism in it. I thought I'd like to hear these boys. So I went to the place where they were singing. As soon as I heard them I thought they had something. I felt they were great.
And I liked them, liked them very much indeed. I liked them even more off the stage than on.
HARRIS: Had you wanted to have a life outside the family business?
EPSTEIN: That's a long story. When I left school I wanted to be a dress designer. I love things that look well - which I think look well, I mean; you may not - and I love the idea of creating and designing them. I believe in taste. I believe in my own taste, and I wanted to embody it in designs.
I don't know whether I'd have been a success - I think I would. But that's what I wanted to do. My father wouldn't hear of it. Of course, I was only a kid, and I couldn't really explain myself to him.
And he thought he was doing it all for my own good, I am sure. So I was apprenticed to the Times Furnishing Company in Liverpool.
I didn't like it much. I didn't like being at home, being dependent. I didn't like the atmosphere of middle-class commercialism.
Nothing wrong with it, I just didn't like it. But I didn't know quite why I didn't like it. When I was 21 I asked my father if I could go to London to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art for a year. He was very nice about it, and said yes. He'd pay, too.
I didn't enjoy it at all. I didn't fit in - I felt a bit like a fish out of water - I didn't do anything that could be made to look like a success. I felt lonely in London.
So I went back to Liverpool and the furniture business, with my tail between my legs, I suppose. I'd had my chance to break out. Now I had to accept the result and - fit in.
HARRIS: Why did you feel lonely in London?
EPSTEIN: I was shy. I am shy. I like people very much - that's what living is about, as far as I am concerned, being with people, and doing things for people, liking and being liked - but it's one thing to want company and to want the feeling of being wanted and another to get it.
And I didn't feel that I'd made any kind of impact on anybody at R.A.D.A., had any kind of success, so my parents' kindness had been wasted, and my initiative hadn't come off. There was a sense of let-down, frustration, and only oneself to blame.
HARRIS: Were you shy at school? Did you mix at school?
EPSTEIN: No, my school days were rather sad days.
HARRIS: Where did you go to school? Boarding school?
EPSTEIN: Yes.
HARRIS: Where?
EPSTEIN: I went to several.
HARRIS: Why?
EPSTEIN: Because I wasn't very happy, so my parents kept on trying other places. I ended up quite happily, so I can't complain.
HARRIS: Why were you unhappy?
EPSTEIN: Well .... I was interested in a lot of things most of the others weren't interested in. I liked games - but I was very keen on music and art. The last school I went to was a much more modern-minded place than the others.
HARRIS: Were you unhappy because you were a Jew?
EPSTEIN: Yes. There was a certain amount of that.
HARRIS: Anti-Semitism?
EPSTEIN: Well, that makes it sound much more serious than it was. You know how things can be at a school. But it did make me unhappy, and I suppose it had the effect of making me withdraw into myself, and making me want to be good at things that gave me pleasure as opposed to being socially acceptable.
HARRIS: Do you have these tensions and feelings of frustration now?
EPSTEIN: No. The past two years have been wonderful.
HARRIS: So the Beatles solved your problem for you?
EPSTEIN: Yes. It's a funny thing, and I've never thought about it that way before. But it's quite true. Everything about the Beatles was right for me. Their kind of attitude to life, the attitude that comes out in their music and their rhythm and their lyrics, and their humor, and their own personal way of behaving - it was all just what I wanted.
They represented the direct unselfconscious, good-natured, uninhibited human relationships which I hadn't found and had wanted and felt deprived of.
And my own sense of inferiority evaporated with the Beatles because I knew I could help them, and that they wanted me to help them, and trusted me to help them.
Then the success I registered in social and money terms was important. It didn't matter much to me in myself, but it mattered to other people.
My parents were impressed that I had shown good judgement and initiative, so I felt I hadn't let them down. So my tensions and frustrations all went. I've got plenty of problems. But I'm not pulled down by them any more.
HARRIS: Does it irk you when some people say they think you aren't a very good agent?
EPSTEIN: Only if it applies that I think I'm a good agent. I'm an amateur as an agent. I don't pretend to be a good one. I don't think of myself as an agent. I don't want to go on being an agent, anyway.
HARRIS: What do you want to do?
EPSTEIN: I want two things. First, I want to go on being in touch with my artists. I don't want to manipulate money.
I want to be able to influence and help personally the people that work for me - I want to help them realise themselves, give the best they can. I believe I can help them, and I want to be near enough to help them.
At the moment I've got eight groups of artists on my books, and I can keep close to them, go across to the States with them for a few television appearances, see that everything is all right - everything. Some of the big agents have 150 artists on their books. The problem there is keeping in touch.
If you've got the gift, you can delegate, but you can't delegate and keep in personal touch. It's impossible. That's why I shan't devote myself to being an agent. And that's the second answer to your question. I want to direct, present and produce straight plays. That would give me the kind of work and the degree of personal contact with artists which is ideal.
I might not be any good at it, but I want to try it. I may lose a lot of money. But I'm not interested in money. I don't need much to meet my needs. As long as the money is coming in, I just don't care about whether I could be making more, whether anybody is getting more out of me than he should.
I get the best deal I can for my artists, of course. That's a different matter. I've got a responsibility towards them to do that.
But so far as I'm concerned personally, I'm not that interested. Some agents are very hot on contracts. I'm not. I never even saw a film contract till the Beatles made a film and had to sign one.
HARRIS: Do you have any sense of mission about the theatre?
EPSTEIN: No. I want to put on the great dramatists, and I would like to try to discover new ones. But I don't feel that the public ought to have good plays. I think the public wants good plays, so I don't see why they shouldn't have them, and it will give me a great sense of satisfaction to direct, present and produce those plays. But there's no 'ought,' so far as I'm concerned.
HARRIS: You don't have any moral feeling about culture?
EPSTEIN: No. Culture is the entertainment of people with good taste, that is to say, people who enjoy beauty and are honest enough not to pretend they are enjoying themselves when they are not. It needn't be classical music. It can be good clowning. Arthur Askey in my view is a great artist. Very witty, too. When I met him for the first time the other day, he said: 'Ah, how do you do, Mr. Epstein. I used to know the other chiseller.'
HARRIS: You aren't worried at the thought that you and your Beatles might be having a bad effect on teenagers?
EPSTEIN: What bad effect? Some people talk of teenager hysteria about the Beatles. I don't see it.
If they break things up, that's bad. Quite different. But what's wrong in a good scream? Their fathers and their grandfathers roar their heads off at football matches on Saturday afternoons.
I saw a girl sitting in the front row the other night. She had her hands to her head and she was screaming - you know, 'Aieeee' -you say screaming, but they're not shouting 'Help!' or 'Murder!'
In the middle of it, her handbag dropped off her lap. She stopped screaming, bent down, picked it up, had a quick inspection to make sure nothing had fallen out or got broken, put it back safely between her thigh and the edge of the seat so it wouldn't fall again, put her hands to her head, and started up again 'Aieeeee!'
That's not hysteria, that's self expression.
HARRIS: A last question then, Mr. Epstein. You say you haven't a sense of mission, though you have a personal ambition, and you say you aren't interested in making money. Are you going to use your money to do anything which hasn't been done already?
EPSTEIN: Yes, I am. At the moment the public is being given too much in the way of entertainment which is in the bill not because it is the best available or because the public wants it, but for reasons of show-business politics. I want to try to use my capital to put on what I think is the best of its kind.
You see, Mr. Harris, even when you're only 29 life is short, you get older every day, and if you are interested in doing things for and with people there just isn't time to hang about looking important. You want to get things done.
22 notes
·
View notes