The Bearded Screenwriter

From Tuesday of last week through yesterday I managed to write a 98 page screenplay.

And I want to do it again.

This is the second feature length screenplay I have written. The first was written during Script Frenzy 2007. The most recent one was written during my self imposed Bearded Screenwriter Challenge.

The "Challenge", as I participated in it, goes as follows:

The mission: To write a screenplay for a feature film (min. 90 pages).
The caveat: Until that screenplay is finished you cannot shave.
The punishment: Should you shave before completing the screenplay, you must make an appropriately sized donation (in my case, $10) to charity.

And now I'm off to shave before round 2. I have a feeling this screenplay will end not unlike the last one.

"And then the world blew up. Fin."
(pro-tip: not a direct quote.)

Six of Ten

Quote of the day, courtesy of Charles M. Blow of the New York Times:

"A Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll released last Friday found that 28 percent of Republicans don’t believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States and another 30 percent are still “not sure.” That’s nearly 6 out of 10 Republicans refusing to accept a basic truth. Then again, this shouldn’t surprise me. According to a Gallup poll released last summer, 6 in 10 Republicans also said they thought that humans were created, in their present form, 10,000 years ago."

From here.

Paco - Not just a nickname for Francisco anymore

...it's also a compelling argument for drug legalization.

I first read about paco a few days ago in the International Herald Tribune/New York Times. For those who (like me a few days ago) have no idea what the hell paco is, it's "a cheaper[, smokable] alternative to snortable cocaine" made up of the chemical byproducts of cocaine production mixed with a plethora of goodies, ranging from rat poison to crushed glass.

Now my initial reaction is to doubt the veracity of the second half of that, as both 'ingredients' are a common part of drug war mythology and a pretty surefire way to make sure you don't have repeat customers (because they'll be dead). But the New York Times is reputable, and maybe when you smoke (vs. snort or inject) crushed glass or rat poison you actually don't die (you know, for a week or two at least). I'm willing to accept it, unless or until new information comes to the fore.

But I digress. Whatever exactly is in paco it is evidently bad news, as the growing number of unfortunate addicts in Argentina, as well as their families and the physicians which are treating them, can attest. Apparently it is roughly analogous to crack cocaine. Except, you know, worse.

The kicker? If cocaine was legal, paco wouldn't exist. That was my first thought when I read about paco. It's just as much a byproduct of prohibition as it is a byproduct of cocaine. Why, you ask? Because if cocaine was produced legally, those producers wouldn't be able to cut it with crushed glass and rat poison.

Tim Worstall put it nicely, if a little overstated:

"[T]he harm from paco comes not from the cocaine part of it, but from the cutting part of it: that rat poison for example. If cocaine itself were legal and available in pure form, then no one would be smoking the paco, the sweepings from the laboratory floor.

However, we know that cocaine is not going to be made legal: among other things there are a series of treaties under the auspices of the UN to make sure that no one does indeed do that. So, sadly, paco taking will eventually reduce, but for much the same sad reason that PJ O'Rourke pointed out crack cocaine use would reduce. Because those who smoke it will die." (from here)

If that's not a sad and frightening sentiment for change, then I don't know what is.

Scientific Data/Political Agenda

Not too long ago, Obama said, “It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda, and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

(Presented out of context, after being originally found here, an article which is worth a read)

But back to Obama. The above is, I hope we can all agree, an admirable sentiment.

As I blogged a few days ago Gil Kerlikowske, the US drug czar, has some strong views on the potential legalization of marijuana. Specifically, he views legalization as having no potential. No chance. Not going to happen.

Among the multitude of no doubt well thought out and carefully reasoned arguments that have lead to and maintain Kerlikowske's beliefs on marijuana legalization, is this little gem, "Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit."

Dangerous? Yes. Sure. In as much as pretty much every drug or pretty much anything you could possibly do (including nothing) has potential dangers, yes marijuana is dangerous. Not as dangerous as, oh, I don't know, let's say... driving a car 2 km. But yeah, okay. Dangerous. I'm willing to accept that.

Has no medical benefit? No. Why not? Because that is an absolute. That is: marijuana has absolutely zero medical benefit. Which is not true. Not at all true. If he'd said little medical benefit or perhaps even redundant medical benefit then we could have talked. But no medical benefit? Untrue. Flat out untrue. And that, sir, is no good.

Especially under an administration which is ostensibly all "about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda".

Now I get it, Gil. You're the drug czar and it's your job to have a stick so far up your ass that it tickles your brain into making hardline statements about being tough on drugs, and just say no and etc., etc., yada, yadda, blah. That is in your job description. Central to it, in fact. It's not your fault. I'm sure working another job, with the stick removed, you'd be far more reasonable about these things.

But Mr. Obama? Where's the scientific data? Where are the scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology? Where's the change? Because all I'm seeing is more of the same.

Excellent campaigner. Just another President.

Please, sir. Prove me wrong.

Vocabulary Pt. 2

Apparently I was late to the scene with that last post (I studied History, not Journalism):

"Kerlikowske added that other words not in his vocabulary include compassion, pain and suffering, the scientific method, and evidence."

Tongue planted firmly in cheek, The Huffington Post's Don Parker "reports".

Vocabulary

On Wednesday Gil Kerlikowske, director of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy (colloquially the drug czar), informed us that, "Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine."

With all due respect, I suggest Kerlikowske and the President pick up some dictionaries.

The Hurt Locker

This is a statement of my intent to review The Hurt Locker, a film which is probably the best film I have seen this year. Drag me to Hell may be my favourite movie. But The Hurt Locker is still probably the best.

Seriously, it's good, it's getting a wide(r) release tomorrow. Watch it.

You will like it. It's just... good. Really good.

Edit: So... this is just going to be the whole review: "It's good. Go watch it." Bam. Career as a film critic, here I come.

Horrific Pulpy Goodness

So as some or all of you are no doubt aware, I've been making a (mostly) weekly webseries since last Halloween. The concept, initially, was to show a new storyline in four or five parts every month, with new characters but in the same world. Sort of a cross between The Outer Limits or The Twilight Zone and any other episodic television show ever.

I've decided though, that the system is imperfect. The main reason for this imperfection being that I'm asking you, the viewer, to a) come back at least four weeks in a row, without b) giving you any reason inside the episodes (aside from them being awesome) to come back after those four weeks.

So now I'm giving you a reason to come back each and every week for all eternity with a little thing I like to call continuity. Instead of trying to build an entire world through stories about disparate people who probably don't even know of each other's existence, I'm going to try and build a more coherent network of characters and relationships. Basically, I'm going to stop going about trying to create a whole universe backwards.

So starting July 3rd (or whenever the hell after my new camera arrives... we're switching to HD, baby!) you'll get a continuing storyline focusing on characters who will grow and change and become more loved or hated than they could in the four episode arcs that usually ended in death up until this point. Of course people will still die. Just not everyone all the time.

You can expect to see some old faces (Mark Benson as played by Jamie McAllister in Necrotesque and Liam Reiniger as played by Duncan McEachern in The Horror in the Eidolon Apartments being two early candidates) as well as many new ones in the new, continuing story which is just over the horizon. It's going to be fun for me to bring back old characters and finally get to develop everyone a little more, and hopefully it'll be fun for you, the viewer as well.

The first season is going to run from July through September and consist of eight to twelve episodes. That's as far ahead as I'm willing to plan because let's face it: this, like everything that has come before it, is one giant experiment in internet entertainment.

Anyways, to those of you who have been watching thus far, thanks for tuning in. For those of you just joining us (or planning on joining in now that you know we exist) welcome! And to all of you: Enjoy!

If you haven't already, go over and check out the start of things to come.

Hypothetical Double Bill: Terminator Salvation & Drag Me To Hell

So over the last few weeks I've seen quite a few movies in theaters. From the broad selection of review opportunities in front of me, I'm going to pick two: one highlight, and one lowlight.

Terminator Salvation

With a freshness rating of 33% (ie. rotten) on Rotten Tomatoes, and a mere 52 on metacritic, my expectations for Terminator Salvation were low. I was expecting a movie which wasn't good, but wasn't bad either.

Man, was I disappointed.

Terminator Salvation is bad. It is actively bad. It is Star Wars: Episodes I, II & III bad.

I'm going to try and keep this thing spoiler free, but to be honest I don't think spoilers could really make your experience with this movie any worse.

But before I get into the meat of the review I would just like to take a moment and acknowledge the surplus of apparent production problems suffered in the making of this movie. I am willing to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt, and dilute the blame for this movie's absolute failure to entertain me in the manner advertised (I don't think they planned to entertain me by giving me something to complain about... if that was the plan then just read this review as is, but with a good rating at the end).

That caveat aside, let's get down to the suckage.

Neither the plot, nor the characters were engaging. Sam Worthington came closest to being a relateable character, but I actually found that problematic. Why? Because the man is a former death row inmate who is on a quest for redemption throughout the movie (get it? Terminater Salvation?). But he is, pretty much from the word "go" the only nice, kind, even remotely likable character in the film. He is maybe unlikable for 30 odd seconds at the beginning, but otherwise he's a pretty ok, really repentant dude. Which makes his attempt at salvation emotionally unsatisfying because... well... you have to hate someone before you can become emotionally attached to their journey of betterment. When he's already the nicest guy around, him trying to get better doesn't inspire anything other than boredom.

To be fair, Anton Yelchin did a great job as Kyle Reese. His first line is classic. Perfectly delivered. Excellent. One of the few high points of the film. But he is ultimately little more than a plot device and/or minor character--just like everyone else in the movie except for Worthington and Christian Bale.

Christian Bale. I was a little disappointed by Bale's decision to play John Connor as Batman. The choice to use the same (or nearly same) coarse voice Bale used for Bruce Wayne's disguised voice in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight struck me as odd. However, I can understand it given the writers' decision to write John Connor as a cold, unemotional, humourless husk of a man. This character--the 'hero'--is completely unlikable. He's a pompous jerk, and I didn't care if he lived or died.

That's not entirely true. By about the half way mark I was chanting "John Connor must die" inside my head. I was rooting for the machines.

I'm not going to really discuss the plot beyond saying that it is thin. Thinner than paper thin. Perhaps even digital paper thin (your monitor does not count).

It is also full of holes, which director McG has tried (and failed, in my opinion) to fill. You can decide for yourself here (thar be spoilers!)

My number one beef with the movie though is the dollops of exposition which are dumped on us repeatedly without so much as a hint of grace. "How so?" you ask.

Well, after a brief character introduction (via flashback, bleh), we are greeted with an opening crawl. Seriously? A god-damned text crawl? Come on people. Star Wars mastered that, and simultaneously made it more or less obsolete unless you are going to be somehow innovative. Otherwise it's just lazy. Like here.

**MARGINAL SPOILER-ISH THINGS SORT OF MIGHT FOLLOW! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED-ISH SO DON'T GET MAD AT ME IF YOU KEEP READING AND FEEL LIKE THIS SOMEHOW RUINED THE MOVIE**

Then, and worse than the above, Sam Worthington meets with SkyNet towards the end of the movie. I think this was supposed to be something of a climax? Except that SkyNet has, in the intervening years, become little more than an exposition machine. Yawn.

Also omniscient apparently. Unless Christian Bale has been shouting "Kyle Reese will be my father!" from the goddamn mountain tops. But if he's been doing that, then frankly he deserves what he's got coming because what the fuck John Connor? Keep that shit a secret! I mean, come on man. Why the hell would you ever think that it was a good idea to tell anyone that some dude you're going to have to send back in time is going to be your father? What could possibly possess you to share that incredibly important piece of information with anyone during a war in which you know the enemy can create really, really convincing machine spies?

Sarah would be disappointed.

And if Sarah is not disappointed then when did SkyNet develop the ability to see the future? And why is it so crappy at it?

But enough about the plot. **SPOILER END**

Just briefly I would also like to complain (let's be honest here) about the absolute lack of vision shown in the design of pretty much everything. SkyNet is an incredibly advanced Artificial Intelligence. With a big base and a bunch of other junk. Which it built. But instead of trying to design things that a machine might design, everything is clearly made by humans, for humans.

Also, Terminators are really pretty wimpy in this movie. Easily sidetracked and/or defeated. By rebels armed with what? Guns. Stop and think about this for a moment. You've been in a 15 year war with machines and the best you can do is pre-war guns? Against friggin' machines?

So let me get this straight. You're fighting against an army of intelligent metal robots. So to beat them you're going to shoot them with lead bullets? Genius!

Now I'll admit there is an innovation with mines, which is clever, and maybe one other creative solution (and jury-rigged... I believed it!) to the whole killing terminators thing. But I wish there has been more advances like that. Weapons designed with killing machines in mind. Because after 15 years if they hadn't innovated at all, I don't think anyone would be alive period. Especially when you consider the raw firepower leveled at Terminators in the earlier films... to little or no effect.

All that said, the movie is probably not as bad as my viewing of it was. And in part that is because this film is following in the footsteps of great films. But it is also because almost every frame is filled to the brim with so much lost potential. And that's too bad. The film these people made could have been great. And if you watch close enough you can see the greatness just over the horizon.

Hopefully we'll reach that horizon for T5. But if nothing else, my expectations for that film will be even lower.

0/3 - Yes. It really was that bad. If you're thinking of going, I'd recommend doing something else with your $10. Like lighting it on fire.

Now that we've all hypothetically sat through Terminator Salvation, let's take a quick break to dry our tears, before moving on to the second film in our double bill:

Drag Me To Hell

It's been a long time since Sam Raimi has tried his hand at directing a horror film, although you can see the influence slipping through in his producer credits and, more significantly, Spiderman 2.

Of course, as anyone who has watched so much as the trailer knows, this film is not straight up horror. Like Raimi's Evil Dead Trilogy, Drag Me To Hell has more than a little bit of comedy in it. It's not an obvious combination and it's an even harder one to do well, but if anyone could pull it off it's Sam Raimi.

The way I see it, the Evil Dead Trilogy can be viewed as a spectrum from pure horror (The Evil Dead) to pure comedy (Army of Darkness). Drag Me To Hell falls just slightly to the right of The Evil Dead, but closer to that film than Evil Dead 2.

And it works. It works so god damn well. It is the greatest film I didn't know I wanted to see until I saw it. It works so well, in fact, that it may be my favourite film ever. And this is coming from someone who has never before been able to pick a single favourite film.

Of course, that will require a second viewing to confirm (and likely a retrospective revisit here), but enough gushing, let's get down to it.

While watching the film I was slightly annoyed by its too often reliance upon cheap scare tactics (ie. jump scares). I generally am not a fan of this type of scare when it is over relied upon as I felt it was at the time. However, my opinion changed towards the second half of the movie when Raimi started backing the jumps with something a little more genuinely scary, rather than startling.

The kitten is brilliant. When you know, you'll know. Until then I can't say any more without ruining it. But seriously--brilliant.

From there the movie gradually moves towards creepy comedy, in a move which is frankly awesome, until ultimately pulling a 180 back to straight up, horrifying horror.

And that is why the movie is awesome. That is why is succeeds. It starts by scaring you, then lulls you into a false sense of security before leaving you feeling creeped the hell out. It pulls it off like no other film I have ever seen. And it works.

Which is why I forgive the jump scares. They are cheap here only when viewed outside of the context of the whole film. In context, they are a primer for the third act. Without them, the movie would not be nearly as effective. With them, it is nearly perfect.

Bear in mind that prior to seeing Drag Me To Hell, The Evil Dead was a close contender for my favourite movie (still easily in my top 5). The way I see it, Drag Me To Hell is The Evil Dead honed to perfection. This, like all film viewership, is highly subjective. But if you liked The Evil Dead, and are not a completely humourless husk of a human being (you know, like John Connor) I can't see why you would not love this film.

Well, I can see it, but I don't fully understand it. What I can see is that the horror/comedy medley Raimi has prepared is not obvious. It is not normal. And it is not what anyone expects (like, is it a horror movie, or is it a comedy, geeze?). I certainly didn't expect it. But if you can set all that aside and just go along for the ride, there is a lot to love about this film.

As a final thought, as much as I am satisfied with this film, and as much as Terminator Salvation has demonstrated the mixed blessing which sequels represent, I cannot help but think of the possibility of Justin Long as Clay Dalton being a spiritual successor to Bruce Campbell as Ash Williams. His comedy is pitch perfect in this film, including a hilarious performance in the background during Alison Lohman's first visit to the psychic played by Dileep Rao.

Anyway, this film is not for everyone, as demonstrated by the mostly empty theater I watched it in (on opening night) and the prevailing tone of the comments made by other viewers. But if it is for you? Then it is really for you.

3/3 - If it's not for you, then you probably already know that it's not for you. If you don't know, then what are you doing here? Go watch Drag Me To Hell!

On Crime & Hate

I was going to write a longer post on the subject of hate crime, but then I saw this...

Taken from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/:

"Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means. The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion." (emphasis added)

No. Just no. All kinds of no.

So you're writing a movie...

... and you're coming up on the very last scene in Act Three, and you think to yourself, "This would be a nice place for a little concluding narration." Which of the following would you choose to have your protagonist say?

1) "I don't know about heaven, but I do believe in angels."

2) "The final gunshot was an exclamation mark to everything that had led to this point. I released my finger from the trigger. And then it was over."

Am I alone in thinking that the choice is obvious? That one of these chunks of dialogue is far, far superior to the other?

I feel like those responsible were thinking: "I was a Ninja. My Kung Fu was strong."

But the truth is: "I wasn't kidding anyone. At best, I was Superman on Kryptonite."

To those who know, let us all take a moment of silence to remember the lost and the damned. To those situated so blissfully in ignorance, don't go looking for heartbreak. You won't find anything there worth watching.

The television is on in the background

No joke, I'm watching an episode of the animated Star Wars: The Clone Wars television show about a weaponized virus.

There's a comment on the tip of my tongue, but I'm not sure what it is. So in lieu of brilliant insight, I'm just reporting because it struck me as somehow odd.

On Torture

In the interest of consistent treatment of people under the law (you know, rule of law, all that legal nonsense), I really want to see someone (lots of someones, really) taken to court for actions conducted in prisons under U.S. control. Whether you think it constitutes "torture" or not, or whether you think the ends justify the means or not, the actions described by the memos (here is the link I have readily available; it's an op-ed piece which I happen to agree with, but it also contains links to the relevant memos) which the Obama administration recently released to the public are illegal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (...this part is important, especially if you think that their actions did not constitute torture).

For those who are unconvinced check out the Coles Notes version on Wikipedia or the actual text of the Convention.

The United States (government, populace and everyone in between) needs to take those responsible (in my opinion, everyone responsible) to task. If another country did what the United States has admitted to, you can be damn sure the U.S. would insist charges be laid against those who committed, ordered or let happen these acts. Those charged would almost certainly be convicted too - likely of the death penalty - if history is any indication. So if it's illegal, and if anyone and everyone else who acted in such a way would be charged, those in the U.S. should be charged too.

Emotionally, I can understand the justifications for torture ("and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment") but logically it does not stand up to muster. It cannot. Unless we all want to be subject to torture ("and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"). I posit that we do not. I think we all want this convention to stay in effect. Whether the ends are justified, the means are not. They cannot be. And I, for one, don't want them to be.

Anyways, long story short, I want to do something about this whole mess. I would like to get involved. But I feel like I live in the wrong country to do something about it. Unless...

Canada is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, etc. As a signatory we should insist that we, and other nations are compliant to that convention. Is it unreasonable to suggest that we should let the United States know that we demand they do something about their breach of that convention? Is it not all of our responsibility to make sure that our national and international laws are upheld?

Thoughts on getting involved? Or should I just shut up and let the United States sort their own shit out?

Dollhouse

Am I the only one who enjoys this show?

I know there's a continuing story coming (you can see the seeds in the first few episodes) but the concept strikes me as the ultimate episodic television show - every week Eliza Dushku is a new character in a new situation, with action, adventure, drama, comedy, so on and so forth. And the possibilities are endless.

Now some have suggested that those who enjoy Dollhouse, are merely enjoying the promise of future enjoyment. My personal experience with the first three episodes has been different. Although I can see the promise of things to come, I have genuinely enjoyed each of the first three episodes.

Some complaints I've heard? No character to follow episode to episode. My response? Not the lead, no, but each supporting character has a story that I want to know more about. Also, Eliza Dushku provides us with a new, interesting character each episode, which is compelling both narratively and in the performance itself. Putting on a new mask week to week is no mean feat. That's actually the only real complaint I can recall, aside from expressions of general contempt.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone who didn't like the series. Just weighing in with my two cents (and maybe converting some of the undecided masses, if I'm feeling particularly delusional).

And with the mixed reviews the series has garnered thus far I can't help but feel like I'm missing something. Exactly what is it that everyone else seems to find so unpleasant?

If you have an opinion on the series, for better or for worse, I'd love to hear it. I'm curious to know your thoughts, especially if you're on the other side of the equation.

And if you haven't seen an episode yet? Well, I hate to sound like an ad, but you can check it out tonight at nine.

Watchmen: Pre-Release Expectations

My suspicion is that Watchmen will be visually stunning but intellectually underwhelming (relative to the graphic novel). I want Zack Snyder to prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. Nothing against Zack Snyder, but I don't trust film adaptations of literary works.

Prove me wrong Zack Snyder. Prove me wrong.

A Letter to my Blog

Hey Blog,

What's up? Sorry we haven't hung out that much lately.

It's not that I don't have things I want to tell you. In fact it's quite the opposite. I have lots that I want to tell you - to discuss with you. Just the other day I was thinking about Tasers - an interesting topic by almost any standard - and wanted desperately to rant for at least a minute. Probably longer.

The thing is, Blog, I just don't have as much free time as I used to. I know you know, but I'm doing a lot right now. I've got my weekly webseries, school work, work work, and preparations for a very full summer.

But I will come back to you, my blog. I'm hoping I'll get to spend a lot more time with you this summer. Even April should see a drastic improvement in our relationship. I'll be in the frenzy, sure, but as screen writing becomes serious work, you will be my refuge. My safe haven. My sole source of true procrastination. And knowing you'll be there comforts me. Perhaps more than you can know.

But for now, I must bid you adieu. Wish you a fond farewell. See you soon. In my absence of indeterminate length I wish you well.

I'll miss you.

Sincerely,

Ian McEachern

Bloopers

Cross-posting this here because a) I'm too lazy to edit html tonight, but I want to share this with you, my very good friends; b) because I enjoy these two videos (which I made) immensely.

Anyways, enjoy:

Film Theory

In the midst of preparing to write a paper for film class I am reminded of why, about two years ago, I threw my hands up in disgust and left university for the promise of a brighter future in the real world. Of course, that future never materialized, so about 7 months ago I threw my hands up in disgust and headed back to school.

I started off with a class in Environmental Ethics, where we sat around and discussed - in a room isolated from the world - issues of arguably global importance. This lulled me into a false sense of actually enjoying university again, luring me back to university for the year to finish my degree.

My Film Studies degree. This bears some resemblance to my summer class - in that it takes place in a room isolated from the world. But to makes things more interesting we're now discussing things which aren't of any importance except inside that classroom.

Without devolving into an overly long, esoteric discussion about my renewed disillusionment with university education, suffice it to say that my disillusionment with university education has been renewed. I am tired of reading self-important tangental tirades about comparable, contrasting and opposed binaries. I am tired of being told by one person how millions of audience members from around the world will and already have responded to very specific details in a given film. I am sick and tired of reading flawed searches for a mathematical formula to film analysis which does not exist. 2 + 2 = 4, but a blue filter and a quick pan do not objectively equal anything. Arguments can be made for authorial intention, and audience interpretation, but it will never be definitive and never can be. And even if it could, should I, or anyone else care?

No film has, to the best of my knowledge, ever had a significant, lasting impact on the world. I would love to be corrected on this. I'm not holding my breath.



Of course, ultimately, these objections don't matter. It's too late for me to drop out without losing $3500. B.A. Film Studies, minors History and Philosophy, here I come.

Only 8 weeks of class left.

I need a new plan.

On the CBC

So I was browsing cbc.ca when I saw this cool looking link on the right-hand sidebar. The link was titled: "Essential Reading: The week in seven stories". So I clicked on it.

And then CBC apologized to me, politely saying, "Sorry, we can't find the page you requested."

My conclusion? There is no essential reading on the cbc.

Necrotesque Time Lapse

Some of you might have seen this on the production blog, but I figure I might as well post it here too (so that this blog doesn't fade entirely into obscurity).

This is a time lapse video of the final day of shooting for Necrotesque. We shot two episodes (11 & 12) over about 8 hours from noon until 8pm, plus an hour on either side for me to set up/break down. Anyways, those of you looking for a peek into my methods and the madness which is no budget web series production, check it out. Those of you not interested, move along, there's nothing to see here.