A certain "Smith," I just learned, asked me what do I suppose is the answer to my questions from the stuff I had written the last time I was here on this website. Coincidentally, I came back here to expand on the stuff that I posted about four months ago and to clarify or correct some things that I wrote which I think should be done. Being an individual who has an interest in both the fields of philosophy and the arts and entertainment, has learned a great deal in these two fields, and wants to pursue the continued broadening of my horizon(s) in these two fields, I should say that the mind is a part of your soul. Four months ago, I had mistakenly written in a manner that sounds as if the soul is separate from the mind. Next, I would like to talk about acting. I had written that I wasn't sure to call what individuals are doing, when in adherence to the "Method," as acting or living. Well, I think it can be concluded that a method actor is someone who does live or become his character(s). I wanted to write this because I didn't want to keep anything potentially distorted or have people kept confused. When reflecting on the stuff I had written about four months ago, I suppose I had written that certain stuff about method acting in that manner to illustrate a point on the virtues that are in American cinema. I find it also important to say that acting is something that is not only done within the cinematic frame and on the theater stage. It is something that we also do in real life. I learned this from the great Marlon Brando. The first "cinematic book," if you will, that I read was Richard Schickel's Conversations With Scorsese. I am now still reading Brando's autobiography titled Brando: Songs My Mother Taught Me. I am on chapter 59 and read it whenever I am at the Des Plaines Public Library. That book does contain an account/description of acting. Anyway, in 1994, when Marlon was a guest on the program Larry King Live in which this book was promoted, he gave Larry a thorough explanation with an example of acting being done in real life when he was asked why he chose acting as a career. I would recommend people to watch that whole interview on Youtube and perhaps read the book for an opportunity to learn. I should say that the first place where I saw the term "illusion of reality" was his book. That term can also be heard in Part Two of A Personal Journey With Martin Scorsese Through American Movies (1995) which I haven't finished watching yet. I think Martin Scorsese can be seen as another contributing source to help individuals reach the highest condition of the soul when in relation to the arts and entertainment. Now, I'm not sure, but I think Indian Parallel Cinema could have realism. Correction: I can't say I'm not sure. Instead, I should say I don't know. I haven't seen any of those type of Indian movies. When thinking about it now, I don't think I am hesitant to watch a Satyajit Ray movie but I'm wondering if he can give me realism like Sidney Lumet or Francis Ford Coppola. I first became acquainted with the term "Indian Parallel Cinema" when reading an article about Italian Neorealism movies from Wikipedia. I clicked on the term Indian Parallel Cinema and read maybe about a paragraph about it. The Italian neorealism could have been a inspiration for the birth of Indian Parallel Cinema. Next, I want to talk about Frank Capra. I have only seen one film, as of now, of Howard Hawks which is Scarface (1932) and I have seen four of Elia Kazan's pictures in completion with America America (1963) seen only partially, but I have not seen any Frank Capra pictures yet. Hawks, I think, had a devotion to creating the illusion of reality, Kazan did, but I don't know about Capra. I'm only having a feeling that he did. I'm thinking that I probably shouldn't have included his name in the list of potential inspirations for the birth of Indian Parallel Cinema if I haven't seen any of his films. I want to share a quote that I read of Sidney Lumet from Wikipedia since Wikipedia is the closest at my disposal of accessibility at home to learning about great people's lives and I can't really go to the library at any second I want to. It goes like this: "While the goal of all movies is to entertain, the kind of film in which I believe goes one step further. It compels the spectator to examine one facet or another of his own conscience. It stimulates thought and sets the mental juices flowing." Before reading this, I assumed that the terms "art" and "entertainment" are synonyms. But now, I'm not sure that they are. Perhaps I should go to a dictionary to find out if there is any difference in definitions of these two terms. Maybe entertainment may merely be the stimulation of, perhaps, just the senses. Finally, in response to "Smith's" question, all I can think of is that in mainstream Indian cinema, particularly Malayalam cinema which is the majority of Indian movies I have seen, I don't see the beauty of Constantin Stanislavsky's system in full bloom.

Before I had become acquainted with this website, I was on Wikipedia because I was curious for some information about Mr. Scorsese's upcoming projects. I think Wikipedia requires you to use a judgment call at times to ultimately determine if the information set forth on that site is completely true. I scrolled down through his filmography and it looked alright. At the end of the list, I read the name of an upcoming film that is in its pre-production stage titled Xtreme City. I clicked on that title for it was a link that navigated me to another Wikipedia article that contained a description of that film. It is a film anticipating for either a 2013 or a 2014 release and it is set in the Mumbai underworld. Paul Schrader is the director and Martin Scorsese is the producer. The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Shahrukh Khan. I'm an Indian American and I do have knowledge of Indian cinema to a certain degree. In India, there is a film industry ascertained specifically for each language of India, with Bollywood being the biggest. For me, in particular, mainstream Indian cinema, no matter what language it is spoken in, disgusts me. The term "Bollywood" itself can expose how awful Indian cinema is because in one way or another, the Indians are being copycats of Hollywood. If you do not agree with what I am saying, then I suggest for a partaking of research by which you might find a certain number of Indian remakes of American films or other information to support my claim. I do not wish to set forth my opinions. Rather, I wish to set forth the conclusions of my continuing analyses/observations. Indian Parallel Cinema may have substance which has been personified with people like Satyajit Ray and Bimal Roy. But I don't think there would have been a Satyajit Ray or a Bimal Roy if there wasn't a Howard Hawks, a Frank Capra, an Elia Kazan, a Roberto Rossellini, a Luchino Visconti, a Vittorio De Sica, or any other individual of similar stature. I hesitate to watch a film of Satyajit Ray or Bimal Roy for the question of whether the film will be truly genuine and have realism or not. And that's the thing: genuineness and realism. Every filmmaker and actor must have an objective of creating the illusion of reality in their films. Method acting truly is the best system of acting. It is genuine acting. Maybe I shouldn't use the term "acting" because the actors live the characters. I learned things like this from American cinema and the people/work that constitute it. American cinema has opened my eyes; it has enlightened me. It enriches/nourishes my mind, body, and soul. It has taught me what is genuine cinema; what is genuine art. I don't see this same genuineness in Indian movies where Shahrukh Khan is from. To let you know, I have seen more South Indian films as compared to Bollywood films, where I know there is virtually only artificiality, but I don't think there is much of a difference. There are so many thoughts in my mind but I think the question I should ask is: When these Indian actors act in American movies, do they learn or already know the method and do they ultimately understand what a genuine film is?