I can see we are getting political again. I finished
my poem which I will eventually compose into a song
which will be a little different in structure.
Anyhow, I sent it here for you. If you want topost this
e-mail on the site feel free, but I can understand if
you wish not to, since it is your forum.
I wish we were able to impeach Bush.
RESOLUTIONS AND SOLUTIONS
Hey, Mr. Bush!
Hey, Mr. Blair!
Can't you pull your pants up boys?
We are all standing down here
As you spew a litany of illusion and confusion
While sitting back and reveling in an unjust intrusion
Billions of dollars spent,
Thousands of men and women sent
Two opposing men of power,
One was a tyrant,
One believes he is a martyr
Dreaming he is a cowboy riding into the sunset,
Though the movie hasn't ended yet
The bureaucrats give the orders
To squeeze and discriminate our borders
Like a hungry vulture
Picking away at our culture
The doctrine of our country is lost
And oh what a cost!
Amongst jeers and fears
Denying a union for the queers
Our neighbors in the world fret
While you keep pretending
And spending, spending, spending.
Declaring a war you cannot win
Until you realize independence comes from within
This is something we have learned from
Jefferson, Mandela, and Min
In the beginning there may have been a doubt
Now we know what it is all about
If oil is the spoil which pollutes our solutions
Then we must find better resolutions.
Instead of being the Aggressor
Why can't we be the proggressor?
We need a leader
Not a feeder of the big MACHINE
Using its power to control the masses
which kills our seas, trees, and grasses
The greatest weapon is in your heart
And that is where it has all begun to fall apart.
Shrouded under the disguise of freedom and peace
It's about securing that precious lease in the land
called the Middle East.
Bush should have been impeached already, but let's just
vote the cocksucker out now. I loved last night on the
WI debate, when Al Sharpton was asked, "Did George
Bush lie about Iraq, and if so, why?" Sharpton
replied, "He absolutely lied, and why did he lie?
Because he's a liar. And if he didn't know that he was
lying, that's even worse." I laughed for the next
half an hour.
is that a rap song?
you know any places where my work could be read for
free? Oh and Ball Breaker was sweet, will it ever be
can your work be read for free? Try leaving it a Christian
Science reading room.
I saying that half the country is ashamed to be an American--isn't
that an extremely unverified statement?
Also, I've been hearing a lot of previous quotes from
many democratic politicians--John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill
Clinton, and many others--that Saddam was developing
WMD technology, that he was a threat to the world, that
he must be taken down. If the American public was mislead,
so was our president, and so were Bill Clinton, Al Gore,
John Kerry and the many others. If you want names and
quotes, I can get them.
you watch Bush's State of the Union speech? Half the
people stood and clapped, half sat and crossed their
arms. And, let's face it, more than half didn't vote
for Bush. Saddam was attempting to develop WMDs in the
late 1980s, but the Israelis bombed the crap out of
him and that was the end of it. Iraq was never even
close to developing nuclear weapons. They hadn't even
set up the centrifuges, let alone going any farther.
And let's not forget that when Saddam gassed the Kurds,
he was our ally, we were supplying him with his weapons,
and he had our blessing. But when old Blood & Guts
GW Bush went to war with Iraq the best intelligence
the world had came from the U.N. weapons inspectors
who said there were no WMDs or even any parts or factories
that were attempting to produce WMDs. They couldn't
find anything. Also, the satellite photos that Colin
Powell waved around at the U.N. had been analyzed by
experts at the State Department who have since appeared
on "60 Minutes" and said they saw no evidence
of anything WMD related, and they told the White House
that Saddam was not only not a threat to us, he wasn't
even a threat to his neighbors. Also, the data had been
given to Oakridge Nuclear Laboratories, who said that
there was nothing nuclear-related, particularly the
aluminum tubes. Also, the CIA had said that Iraq was
not getting unranium from Niger. That was the intelligence,
and that's what Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld ignored because
Bush had his own agenda, stated from day-one of his
presidency (as reported by former Secretary of the Treasury
O'Neil) that he was going to bring down Saddam Hussein.
Those are the facts, my friend.
Bush did not go to Congress to get a declaration of
war against Iraq, which, with the scant evidence he
had, he knew he would not have gotten. So, after intentionally
"sexing up" the intelligence, and intentionally
misrepresenting the level of threat to the U.S. (playing
on our fears after 9/11), he went to Congress to get
the emergency ability to send in troops should there
be an imminent threat to our country, which he knew
there wasn't. Saddam is not the issue; Bush's lies are.
He lied and he was caught. He can say that Saddam is
a bad man from now until doomsday, it doesn't make his
lies any less false.
I liked that Franklin bio as well. What a character
he was - wonder if anyone will ever do a decent movie
about him? (There never has been one, has there?)
BTW - I think that Ellis book is called "Founding
Brothers," not "fathers" - if it's the
same one I've read. I actually did a paper on one section
of it for a government class, the part about the "silence"
over the slavery issue. I was much amused by a disgruntled
Quaker's observation of a "thee scratch my back
and I'll scratch thine" atmosphere in the early
Some things never change!
PS - Hey give us an update on "Alien Apocalypse!"
I think a series of "Making Of..." essays
might even be in order. After all, in a way this is
new turf for you, since it's a production of your own
script, but you aren't having to put up the $$ - your
public wants all the details, no matter how boring!
are correct, it's "Founding Brothers" about
the founding fathers. I don't think most people now
realize what a ballsy thing those guys were doing; no
colony of England had ever broken off and declared independence,
and doing so was treason punishable by death. Signing
the Declaration of Independence could well have been
a death warrant for all of them. Then to take on the
British army and navy, the most powerful military in
the world, with basically no army and no navy was tremendously
Stanley H. Hoffman M.D.
concern is one that we share completely..and that democracy(if
it is not already a plutocracy)has never been in jeapordy
as much as it is now, with the extremist presently in
power. Read 'The Founding Fathers and The Brotherhood'
by Joseph Ellis for a peak into American History that
is relevant. I am an 83 year old retired cardiologist,
who took care of a lot of power players in my time,
but concerned about USA
read "Founding Fathers," which was very interesting
on the level of how those guys related to one another.
It's one thing to learn about the founding fathers individually,
but they did, amazingly, function as a group. I also
recently read "The First American," an absolutely
wonderful biography of Ben Franklin, who arguably was
the most important member of the group -- the oldest,
anyway. It amused me that Samuel Adams, before the revolution,
lamented that America simply did not have the great
men necessary for the job. Alas, he was wrong. My favorite
president was Teddy Roosevelt, and GW Bush is almost
the anti-TR. Teddy was a Republican from a wealthy family,
but truly did everything within his means to improve
the lives of average Americans, made conservation a
legitimate issue, made serious attempts to improve the
lives of the poor, didn't go to war in seven years,
made both Democrats and Republicans proud of thie country
and their president, was a real war hero, and also did
everything within his means to break up the conglomerates,
which he realized were not in the average American's
best interests. Bush didn't fight in a war, but sent
America to war for false reasons, has undermined many
of the conservation policies (with Orwellian names like
the "Clear Skies Act"), has encouraged giant
conglomerates to become even bigger (with an idiot like
Michael Powell -- Colin's son -- as the head of the
FCC, who says that media conglomerate mergers and buy-outs
will give us "more diversity," one more Orwellian
statement), has made minimally half of the country ashamed
to be American and utterly ashamed of our president.
Ian Michael Drinkwater
a quickie; I've just been reading your reply to my question
about Roy Harryhaussen etc.... Thanks for the clarrification.
I've also just read your reply to the robin williams
film (the one about jesus) though, probably thankfully
I havn't seen it yet. I just wanted to vecture an opinion
that it's probable that in some point in history, most
people of the world spoke the same language and therefore
it is quite possible that all religions originally based
their opinions, rules and beliefs around one set of
beliefs initially. There are many similarities between
different beliefs. Obviously the stories, versions and
differences came about later when people split in to
different groups and their leaders used this power of
credulity to rule their peoples in whichever way they
fancied. I still think though that people should be
allowed to believe whatever they want to believe as
long as it doesn't affect anybody else. Why can't we
just get on together? we're all human beings just trying
to survive after all.
sound like Rodney King, "Can't we all just live
together? Young people, old people . . ." Everybody
clearly has the right to believe whatever they'd like,
and so do I, and I'm with Joseph Campbell. All religions
are mythologies, and all the world's mythologies, from
the tribal religions, the ancient Greeks and their pantheon
of gods, the Romans, the Jews, the Christians, the Zoroastrians,
the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Muslims, the Eskimoes,
to the tribes of New Guinea are all equally as good
and equally as valid as historical references about
how to face life's problems. But to take any of them
literally is completely miss the point. To seriously
believe that any of these old sci-fi books, such as
the Bibles old and new, the Koran, the Baghavad-Gita,
the Book of Zoroaster, or the heiroglyphs on the walls
of the pyramids, is the actual "Word of God"
is stupid. Knuckleheaded. Ridiculous. That's what I
you are a little snooty about American Movie.
True, I hired the video. True I could only take 10 minutes
of the thing before I was leaping for the sick-bag,
but your review takes a tone that implies that those
who didn't graduate film school with honours should
have their fingers smashed with a hammer if they even
think about going within arms-reach of a movie camera.
The reason I'm so prickly about the subject is that
I'm fed up to the tits with the over-produced glossy,
formulaic drivel the rest of the world has to put up
with (yes we have to put up with it unfortunately as
the world is subsumed by the american idiom on just
Give the independent films a decent bit of breathing
room. Sure, they ain't exactly apocolypse now but they
have a tale to tell.
Haven't you ever heard of 'slice of life' films?
You don't have to have a tale to tell at all. That is
an arbitrary distinction you have introduced to your
TO paraphrase Stephen King in his book 'on writing'
he states that to have a clearly delineated story and
plot mapped out before you fill it out with text you
inevitably end up with a tale that is wooden and hollow
(that's the gist anyway, flail me with nettles if I've
taken his advice the wrong way, just remember to buy
me a couple of drinks first).
Viva la difference.
Actually, none of the above was what I wanted to comment
on but I'm nothing if not easily distracted.
Anyway ....... err ...... what was I talking about again????
Oh yeah. I really only wanted to say that having seen
the docco 'demon lover diary' on the ABC (Australian
Broadcasting Corporation) I would just like to correct
you on the matter of the documentary crew buggering
off from Don Jackson and Co.
I don't think you can really call them paranoid, they
were being shot at! You can hear 2 gunshots in the background
as they are leaving, post haste. The shots sound like
a handgun and you don't hear a 'thunk' of them hitting
the car so the person firing could have been either
firing blanks or firing into the air for all we know.
Still, having been on both ends of firearms in the past
myself, I can say with confidence that the first thing
one has the urge to do is vamoose like the roadrunner
and anyone thinking that is paranoid either:
a.) hasn't been shot at or
b.) has the overwhelming urge to join the choir invisible.
Have a nice day (and don't forget to floss)
Love and kisses
poetically, aren't we? Look, I really liked Chris Smith's
documentary, "American Movie," and I've seen
it three times. The dopey subject of the film, Mark
Borschart, was who I was picking on, and since that
film was made in 1999, we haven't heard hide nor hair
from him, even though his kindly old uncle died and
left him the money he needed to finish his film, the
mispronounced "Coven." Ultimately, you can
teach monkies the technical side of filmmaking, it's
all what you do with it. Also, I don't necessarily believe
that the film crew in "Demon Lover Diary"
is actually being shot at. It could very easily have
been a car backfiring, or almost anything, but they're
so paranoid and obnoxious that they declare it to be
a gunshot. When I saw the film at UCLA Don Jackson was
actually there and he said the gunshots were all bullshit
and I believed him. He seemed sincere to me.
am trying to find out who was the male who played their
manager/discover in the Harlem Globtrotters film. probably
done back in the 50's. I can see his face but can't
recall his name. Can you help?
believe you are referring to Thomas Gomez, a character
actor who appeared in many films, including "Force
of Evil" and "Beneath the Planet of the Apes."
have been a fan of yours for some time and I think your
site is great. Your articles on screenplays are very
informative. I can't wait to see your scifi movie. I
was wondering if you will be posting humans in chains
under your screenplay section? Do you find that you
have use a different style for shooting a television
movie than a film, such as more close-ups?
just took "Humans in Chains," AKA "Alien
Apocalyspe," down. It was posted for years. Once
the film is done I will probably put it back up. I shoot
TV a bit differently than features in that I generally
get more coverage, meaning close-ups and over-the-shoulder
shots, so that every scene can be altered in editing.
In my features I often cover scenes in a single shot,
which I find interesting, but it annoys TV producers.
NORMA, XENA WANNABE
you be directing the new Xena movie for the big screen?
NORMA, XENA WANNABE:
is no Xena feature, as far as I know.
First, I want to wish you and Bruce good luck with your
Secondly, I'd like to bring up the subject of ageism
in Hollywood. I was reading a 2001 interview with Robert
Trebor where he said that the big agencies don't want
any actors over 32 unless they are huge names. And I
remember a conversation that I had with Paul Robert
Coyle several years ago at a Xena convention in New
York City. If I recall correctly, he worked on "Streets
of San Francisco", and a couple of other TV ahows
I can't recall at the moment.
We discussed a story about a woman who couldn't find
work as an actress for almost a decade, who went on
to try writing and lied about her age. Things began
to click for her, and she signed a deal with Disney.
Someone ratted on her, mentioning her true age. When
this happened, offers dried up, and Disney severed the
deal they had with her.
Mr. Coyle understood why this woman did what she did,
but also said that the system now would make things
even harder for her.
I told him-and I mentioned this to Steve Sears too,
at one point a couple of years later-that this attitude
really pissed me off as a writer. One would think that
an older writer, with the chops that come from experience,
would be able to tackle even the most contemporary stories.
To dismiss such a writer just on the basis of their
age would be to dismiss the experience that he or she
would bring to the table.
I do remember hearing/reading someplace that some screenwriters
leave out work they had done 15 to 20 years ago because
it could shoot down their possibility of getting work.
Which brings about a question-has this ageism always
been prevalent in Hollywood, or is this something that
has come up in the last 15 years?
Have a good one.
has always been around for actors, but I'd say it's
a more recent phenomenon for writers and directors.
You can easily date it back to 1977 and "Star Wars,"
when the studios made up their minds that the most important
audience was kids, which has only intensified over the
intervening 27 years. The studios are so desperate for
the youth market that they would happily hire 12-year-olds
to write and direct the films if the insurance companies
would let them.
Dan from joppa
your answer to gena barnabee about the movie requiem
for a dream....that movie was an awsome movie, i don't
know if you've ever done or had to deal drugs...but
if you did you would realize that the movie comes pretty
close to the lives of actual addicts...once you start
doing/dealing those drugs, there is no going up...only
a slow downward spiral till eventually you're either
a bum on the streets with only a few years to live because
of your health, or you die from your addiction. so i've
come to realize that your an overpaid, mr know it all
that has no clue what your talking about
Dan from joppa:
realized all of that from my disliking "Requiem
For a Dream"? Well, I still don't like it, it was
a huge camera-jerk off, an extreme bore, and a grave
disappointment coming from Darren Aronofsky who had
previously made "Pi." "Requiem"
was so bad that I'm not sure his career can recover.
Nice work, im a big fan, I loved Lunatics!
Anyways, Ima 20 year old college student, that is really
interested in filmmaking/writing, and I wanted to write
you to see if you had any Advice for me.
I have completed Edit(thats right, I Editied it) as
well as shot one of the scenes for a completed short
film(shot in on Mini Dv, Edit on Adobe Premiere), its
But anyways any advice or tips, or just comments and/or
ramblings, would be greatly appreciated!
pleased you liked "Lunatics," but you really
need to think of a question.
IM CURRENTLY STUDYING MEDIA AT UNIVERSITY AND I HAVE
BEEN GIVEN THE TASK OF DIRECTING A SHORT 2 MINUTE PIECE
ON ANYTHING WITH IN REASON.. THIS PIECE HAS TO HAVE
A WEIRD WAY OF TELLING A STORY.. IS THERE ANY CHANCE
THAT YOU COULD HELP ME WITH A SHORT BUT WEIRD SCRIPT..
YOUR HELP WOULD BE SO MUCH APPRECIATED.. THANK YOU
the fuck outta here!
don't know whats the matter with some of you people.
HOW COULD YOU NOT LIKE THE MATRIX! Thats an awsome movie.
second one sucked royally and I didnt even want to see
the third. But that first one in my opinion is one of
the best films ever made.
you haven't seen very many movies. I'll give you that
it might possibly be one of the better films of the
past five years, but that's like saying that dog shit
doesn't stink as bad as cow shit. To quote Leonard Maltin,
"The Matrix" has "a high MJQ (Mumbo-Jumbo
Quotient), and a tendency to keep changing it's own
complicated 'rules'." At 136 minutes I found it
to be an exceptional bore, and Keanu Reeves is simply
a dull actor.
I usually agree with most of your reviews and your commentary
on the sad state of what passes for well-made films
anymore. Your essays and reviews are refreshingly real
and well written, and I look forward to visiting your
But I think you missed the mark with the matrix. I was
looking forward to reading your review of this film,
since I think it is one of the better sci-fi films in
recent memory. Not only does the film follow a three
act structure, but it has a great concept with great
motivated characters. stuff
"..By the time the Wachowski Bros. reach the end
of this nonsense they're not even following their own
stupid rules anymore. Whether or not Neo is "the
chosen one," nothing has indicated in any way that
he's immortal and won't die, yet he gets shot five or
six times and it means nothing."
is not thought out enough. It absolutely means something
when he gets shot. He is in a virtual world but it is
still possilbe to die obviously. The mind makes it real.
Neo pulls what the basic theme of the movie is here,
he does a mind over matter thing when trinity reveals
the oracle told her she'd fall in love with the one.
He realizes since he loves trinity, he MUST be the one,
and "resurrects" himself.
I thought it was original, brilliantly visual, storytelling.
He then learns he can overcome physics in the matrix
and goes on to take on Agent Smith in slow motion-it
gave me goose bumps.
Kudos on your site and keep up good the good work.
certainly in the majority on that one. I've managed
to blank almost all of it out of my mind, except Keanu
Reeves running upside down shooting Uzi's, but I figure
if I just smoke a couple more pounds of pot, I'll get
rid of that, too.
i would like to know if you really did a take onOedipus
Rex, and if so, where might i obtain, or screen it...?
did make a version of "Oedipus Rex" in junior
high school, with Bruce Campbell as King Creon, but
it's not available.
what a cool site! here is my question: do non-union
directors get paid substantially lower than those that
are members of the dga, and should a non-union director
demand to be paid as much as a dga member? (sounds like
a stupid question, i know, but i'm having an issue with
a non-union director and just needed clarification.)
non-union directors make far less than DGA directors.
There is no standard rate for non-union, but for a low-budget
feature it's probably about five times less, say $15,000
as opposed to about $75,000, which I think is way too
high. A non-union director can ask for whatever they
want, but they probably won't get it.
am certain that you are very busy but I have always
been taught that it doesn't hurt to ask.
I have written a very original and intriguing film concept
and laid it out into a story format. I know that Hollywood
would love to get it on the big screan; but I don't
know how to go about finding the person or people to
send it to. Now it seems to me, from all the emails
that I read on your web-site that you know alot about
film and thus here is my question. I would like to email
you the summary which is only 1 page and a half. May
I? I am sure you will like it alot, as it is very deep
in concept and ventures into explinations that nobody
has ever thought of or expressed. If that is possible
please tell me how to get the summary to you. I promise
you will not be sorry.
Sincerely, God Bless
I don't want to read your "screan" story.
just watched the film Casablanca in its entirety for
my film class. I was surprised at how good the photography/editing
was. It seems that in several older movies that the
scene will be seen from just one angle for most of the
scene, then suddenly and without apparent purpose will
cut to a different angle for a few seconds, then just
as unexpectedly will cut back to the original angle
for the rest of the scene. But Casablanca did not have
that problem. And of course, the characters were all
well developed and well acted. And the story, while
simple and straightforward, is no worse because of how
simple and straightforward it is. The cool thing about
the whole experience was that I was sitting next to
a bunch of guys who kept saying that they knew it was
going to be horrible because it's an old movie, and
why can't we watch something more modern, etc. But I
would swear that I heard all of them snickering at all
the jokes in the film. I know that doesn't mean they
liked the film, but at least they liked the funny parts.
Why don't they make movies like this anymore?
some level that's as good as movies get. Certainly everybody
that worked on "Casablanca" was surprised
at how well it turned out, not that Warner Brothers
system wasn't working pretty darn well there in the
1930s and '40s. But I do think that "Casablanca"
is the ultimate Warners film, where everything worked
right, and everybody had the right job. If, for instance,
it had been Ann Sheridan instead of Ingrid Bergman,
who they originally considered, it might well have not
worked. Say if Archie Mayo or William Keighley or Vincent
Sherman, all Warners contract directors, had done the
film instead of Michael Curtiz, I'm sure it wouldn't
have been anything special. If it had been George Raft
instead of Bogart, it wouldn't have worked. All the
stars lined up on that one. You even buy the cheesy
miniatures of the airplane landing, and that wacky rear-screen
shot of the miniature plane taking off with Rick and
Louie seated in the foreground -- I mean, is Rick's
Cafe directly next to the airport?
thought I was the only one who kept a list of all the
films I'd seen.....Good, this makes me feel a little
less obsessive. I started mine at age 15, when I first
discovered that movies could be nearly as rewarding
as books. Now 25, my list sits at 2097, so I have a
way to go to catch up to you.
I've been talking up If I Had a Hammer since I got my
copy (back when you were still accepting personal checks).
It's clearly your most accomplished film, and I like
the fact that, should one watch all four of your completed
feature films in a row, you can clearly see the progression
of your filmcraft.
Hammer also has an unrelenting, though playful, cynicism
that I really like. The observations on behavior resonate
beyond just that time. It could easily be set during
the rise of punk and no wave, the start of the jazz
age, etc. etc. The archetypes are the same. This story
is a cycle that repeats with every new generation. Friends
of mine call it depressing, but I think it's refreshing.
One needn't be discouraged; in many ways one can easily
identify with similar archetypal characters, and gain
fresh perspective on their own social dynamics.
Humor-wise, you have great timing. There's one scene
in particular where Terry explains to Phil how attending
folky protests occasionally results in "getting
laid," Phil snickers, and you cut back to Terry's
reaction shot for a few seconds longer and catch the
grin and nod, it's honestly one of the funniest moments
I can recall ever seeing.
I continue to hold great respect for your filmmaking,
your independence, and your refusal to kiss ass and
compromise. It's refreshing to know someone bears the
cross. Best of luck with the Humans in Chains adaptation
for Sci-Fi. I don't have television, but I hope to see
of today, I've seen 3,826 films. Nobody can say I've
wasted my life. Thanks for the nice review of "Hammer."
I'm utterly ashamed of myself that I haven't gotten
that film released.
response to the fellows comments on birth of a nation...
i watched the film for the first time in a history of
film class about five years ago at the beginning of
my film school experience. I'm surprised your teacher
seems to have brushed over it, if you will, more as
if it was part of the curriculum an not the innovative
film that it was. Society was different, and DW covered
alot of things in that film besides just slavery, like
the brother against brother aingst of the civil war,
and the assasination in moive house. anyway i hate for
the film to just be recognized as racist. gosh i don't
wanna go crazy, but women weren't aloud in theater in
shakespearean times right? so should we brush over those
plays because of the way they were presented back then?
i also read that DW recut his film when he heard the
kkk made it recruitment/initition viewing.
wonder what all those extras thought when they were
running on the battle field or in that theater? "man
this is never gonna work, what the hell is that guy
racist yes, innovative and changed the way films were
shot forever, hell yes.
by the way if you are bored by silent films, watch some
of the "talkies" that came about at the dawn
of the coming of sound if film. so excited by what they
could do they did it to death, much like cg in modern
sorry about whatever spelling, dustin
love those early sound films from 1927-1933, but they're
certainly not the same experience as watching silents,
particularly the ones from 1924-28, when they reached
their pinnacle. There are those that believe that movies
never got better than the late silents, when directors
had reached a high point of visual storytelling. The
early sound films are so non-visual and clunky it's
painful, but historically fascinating. The directors
who understood the possibilities of sound the earliest,
I believe, were: Frank Capra, Alfred Hitchcock, and
Howard Hawks. Hitchcock's first sound film, "Blackmail
(which was also the first sound film in England), does
some absolutely wonderful things with sound (which nobody
bothers with anymore). The girl, who was almost raped
and killed by the guy with a knife, walks home in a
daze. She looks up at a lighted billboard of a hand
raising a cup of coffee, which magically becomes a hand
weilding a knife. She gets home to the boarding house
where she lives and everybody is talking about this
murder with a knife. As they all keep talking their
words become garbled, except the word "knife,"
which keeps being repeated and repeated until all they're
saying is, "Knife, knife, knife," and the
girl wigs out.
I think you are right about the challenges of drama
versus comedy. I would say, though, that in my own experience
comedy is easier to write in short pieces and harder
to sustain, while drama is easier to make convincing
in a longer piece, but more difficult in a shorter one.
I find it harder to create an emotional investment in
a short piece and that is crucial to drama.
I just read through "Spawn
of Hell". For the most part I think the story
is a great, straight-ahead horror story. I do wonder
at the connection between the mass deaths of marine
creatures and the events in Michigan. I don't understand
why the Doctor's interest in mass animal suicides would
lead him to a cemetary infested with aliens.
Beyond that, however, I think it would make a great
horror movie. I recently read an article by an evolutionary
psychologist who feels that bigfoot-type creatures are
an essential part of the human psyche. He claimed that
humans need to believe in such creatures, that this
belief somehow assisted in our development, though I
can't remember the reason he gave. Tapping into such
a common myth seems a great idea and is, I think, "Frankenstein"
and "The Thing" and such-like work so well.
Mix in cemetaries and tunnels and some good pyrotechnics
and I would say you've got a winner. I especially appreciate
that the people don't just hang around waiting to be
eaten. They intelligently decide to take a course of
action which would be plausibly open to them. I really
hate scenes with bugs, though.
You were right about "I married a Witch".
I thought I had seen that one before but apparently
not. I should keep notes. Thanks,
glad you enjoyed "Spawn of Hell," even if
I barely remember it. I keep a list of all the movies
I've ever seen. I began the list in 1979 when I was
21 by going through all the movie books, like Maltin's,
as well as the Academy Award reminder lists going back
to 1927. Since then I just add the newest film onto
the end. It's actually very easy once you've started
it. I won't put any movie on the list I didn't sit all
the way through, that's my criteria. The list actually
inspires me to finish watching many films I would have
otherwise bailed out on just to put them on the list.
It's nice to see someone who actually cares what's going
on. I think if everyone could read your article, it
would AT LEAST strike up some curiosity and concern.
Just thought I would tell you nice job, and keep up
What are you referring to?
started taking a class this semester called "The
Art Of Film" and in it we will be watching several
classic films. The first one will be Casablanca, and
I know Citizen Kane and, I believe, Psycho (the original
version, obviously) are also on the menu. We watched
part of Birth of a Nation, which I found profoundly
ridiculous. I wonder if I've been so jaded by film with
sound that I just don't have the patience for silent
films. I know that at the time it was released, Birth
of a Nation was controversial, and also quite an achievement,
but looking at it through modern eyes, I wonder how
anyone could take it or its message seriously. But then,
it was a different time, and perhaps after a lifetime
of seeing and hearing films with sound, I just can't
handle seeing a silent movie. Plus, I'm not, and never
have been a racist. What do you think?
I get older I like silent films more and more. I admit
that I didn't have much patience for them when I was
young. Now, getting to see any part of life from 1890-1927
is just amazing to me. I particularly enjoy seeing the
development of the cinematic language, and "Birth
of a Nation" is possibly the most crucial and all-pervasive
leap in the cinematic language that ever occurred. Previous
to that film, for the most part, a scene was a shot
and a shot was a scene, there were no intercuts. You
actually do see the occasional example of intercutting
in films between 1911-1915, but never consistently,
and never with a clear understanding of how film goes
together. It wasn't until D.W. Griffith figured the
whole thing out and displayed it in "Birth of Nation"
that everybody else suddenly understood. The great old
director, Allan Dwan, who was making films before 1915,
said that every filmmaker went and saw "Birth of
a Nation" and it was like going to film school.
"Birth of a Nation" is the major demarkation
in the history of filmmaking so far. All films before
it are one thing, and films after it are another. No
other film has had that much impact on every other film
that came after it. I think that the scene of John Wilkes
Booth (played by the future great director, Raoul Walsh)
assassinating Lincoln is the first fully-realized scene
of montage in motion picture history. Griffith was the
first director to integrate close-ups, tracking shots,
inserts, and to compress time within scenes. The irony
is that the film is politically a nightmare, the horrible
KKK are the heroes, and the use of white people in black
face is painfully ridiculous. But none of that diminishes
Griffith's importance to the development and history
I just wanted to make a clarification from my last post,
there was a typo. I left out the word "only"
before disrespectful. I meant say not only is it disrespectful
to the people of this country.
Leaving only out made the sentence quite different.
Yes, I know all good writing is quite difficult. I have
been working on two songs lately and they are coming
together, but I am hitting a little writers block.
guess what I was saying, and folks can certainly dispute
me, is that for me comedy and drama are equally as difficult,
or conversely, I find one no harder than the other.
It's a piece of common wisdom that comedy is more difficult,
but I don't find it so. When writing drama, it's hard
to know if it's coming anywhere close to working, whereas
with comedy, ostensibly you know where the laughs are
supposed to be, so if it's working or not is a clearer
issue. With drama you may never know.
I agree with what you said, and I too feel it is difficult
to be funny on stage for 90 minutes. I also feel that
comedy is one of the most difficult things to write
for films and theatre. I am not sure how you feel about
To me it is like creating and singing a song. It has
a great deal to do with timing, and if you are off,
the whole piece will suffer.
I am not sure if you are aware of this organization
or not MoveOn.org, but they recently held a contest
called "Bush in 30 Seconds" where people sent
in 30 second commercial spots relating to Bush's antics.
The winner was supposed to be aired on network TV. The
organization purchased time during the Superbowl for
today, however, CBS is refusing to air the spot. Surprise!
I thought the spot was done very well. Here is the link
to the site and quicktime movies of the winners: http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
The issue was even brought up in Congress by congressmen
Senator Durbin from Illinois:
His discussion to Congress is very eye opening about
our media giants and the Republican party.
The spot is airing on CNN between 8:10-8:35 this evening.
The ironic thing to me about the Bush administration
is that they are doing what they are doing under the
shroud of Democracy, yet what they are accomplishing
is taking all the bad concepts of Socialism and turning
into a totalitarian idea. It's my way or the highway
attitude is not disrespectful to the people of this
country and the world, but it is very dangerous to he
welfare of this country as a democracy.
I saw Moby on Bill Maher's show discussing Moveon.org.
I watched all of the anti-Bush spots, too, and many
of them are quite creative. As to writing comedy, yes
it's certainly difficult, but so is writing anything
good, comedy or drama.
to storytelling and/or the lack of it. I just bought
the 45th anniversary dvd release of Singin' in the Rain.
It's a wonderful collection of outtakes, original footage
of the music (as it was previously performed in other
movies) and a 96 minute documentary about Arthur Freed's
"unit" at MGM. There's even a feature where
a reel comes up and when you click on it, it shows the
possible/probable source of inspiration for that scene.
I noticed that this movie is on your favorites list
and I wonder if it "holds up" over time. The
songs (except for one or two) used were all previously
written and the plot was structured around this collection
of music. I think it's a cute little story and has a
lot more meat to it, than many other musicals. Some
of the dance numbers are a bit long (esp. "Gotta
Dance") but the filming of them is great and something
we don't see anymore. Too often we get close ups of
the waist up or the feet-probably because the "stars"
aren't really dancing.
The only other issue I have with the movie is that Debbie
Reynolds (barely 20) had no chemistry with Gene Kelly
(about 40) at all, in fact looked more suited with Donald
Any thoughts on this style of writing? If you haven't
seen the documentary, it supports everything you have
said about the studio system as it was in the "Golden
Age" where producers were given a lot of freedom
and $$$ to make the movies they wanted. They, in turn,
gave their directors and writers a lot of freedom and
clout to do their job.
in the Rain" was Gene Kelly and Arthur Freed's
follow-up to "An American in Paris," which
was a very similar situation -- all of the songs were
previously written by George and Ira Gershwin, and the
finale orchestral piece was written in 1928. Alan Jay
Lerner whipped up a fluffy little souffle of a story
that tied all of the songs together, and everybody won
Oscars. So, two years later they tried again, only this
time using producer, Arthur Freed (and Nacio Herb Borwn's)
songs, a number of which were written for the early
sound musical "Broadway Melody" (Best Picture
1928-29). This time they got Betty Comden and Adolph
Green to whip up a connecting story, which is a good
one about the first talking pictures, and an ordeal
that Arthur Freed had lived through and dealt with 25
years earlier. The modern version of this sort of melange
would be "Moulin Rouge," except that there's
no connection between the songs, they don't fit the
period, and the connecting story is utter shit. So no,
Hollywood can't even come close to making pictures like
those Arthur Freed/Gene Kelly films. Not to mention
that there's no one in films now who comes close to
Gene Kelly's talent. Now we get "Chicago,"
where the best you can say is that the musically untalented
actors gave it the old college try.
As much as I enjoy Maher, I disagree with Jim that he
sees both sides. He really doesn't even though he would
like people to believe that.
There was one episode of Maher's show last season where
he almost lost me. The skit was not politically incorrect,
it was just in really bad taste and not funny at all.
He compared the Paparazzi shot of Lara Flynn Boyle looking
anorexic in a bikini on a beach with the famous black
and white photo of the Vietnamese child running down
a road burning from Napalm.
I can always handle on the edge humor, but this was
just plain stupid.
I grew up listening to George Carlin albums. I had them
all. I love George and he is the king when it comes
to stand up, but no sitcoms.
I hope Chris Rock's new stand up routine is funny, I
think he is one of the best things to happen to stand
up comedy in a long time.
agree that comparison is in bad taste, but if you want
to do cutting-edge humor you'll probably drop over into
the realm of bad taste occasionally. Better that than
sticking to what's PC. And one person's bad taste is
another person's big laugh. Humor is frequently at someone's
expense. In a world of PC it's very difficult to be
funny. In George Carlin's last HBO special there was
a fairly long stretch in the middle that was both in
bad taste and not funny, but I don't hold it against
him, it's got to be incredibly tough getting up there
and being funny for 90-minutes. It's a very fine line
between what's in bad taste and is funny, and what's
in bad taste and not funny, and if that's a lne you're
treading regularly, you're going to step over it. I
also agree with you that Bill Maher is not even-handed,
he's definitely on the side of the liberals, and I like
him for it. Fuck the Republicans and their war-mongering,
hyper-spending, tax-cutting for the wealthy, giant deficit,
lying to the American public ways.
I just saw a little film that I thought was absolutely
brilliant. Have you seen Guy Maddin's six-minute short
"The Heart of the World,"? It was made for
the 2000 Toronto Film Festival and according to most
who attended was the single best film that played. It
won numerous awards, was given a theatrical release,
and was even selected as one of the years 10 best films
by the New York Times and the Village Voice, a very
rare feat for any short film. It's truely an exceptional
work. I want to see more from Maddin, an independent
Canadian filmmaker who's been around since the mid 80's.
Had never heard of him before, but he's made half a
dozen features or so.
Have a good one.
for the info. I've never heard of him or the film.
E-mail: upon request
caught Mahar's episode last night, and I could be mistaken,
but I recall Sean Astin saying that he was a long voting
Mahar's site does not have that transcript up yet to
don't recall him saying that, but he's certainly a Republican
now, and is on some committee of Bush's, and certainly
talks like a brain-washed right-winger. I spoke with
a friend of mine yesterday who absolutely agrees and
defends Bush's actions, and when I said, "But he
lied to us to go into war," my friend replied,
"Oh, presidents lie to the people all the time."
Yeah, but when they get caught they get fired. And just
because it's been done before doesn't make it right.
My friend went on to say that "Saddam was a destabilizing
force in the mid-east." So the mid-east is a more
stable place now? Al Quaeda has found a new home in
Iraq where they can kill several Americans a day, so
that's better? And this knee-jerk response of Republicans,
that Saddam is a bad man who gassed the Kurds. Of course
that was back in the 1980s when Saddam was our ally
and we were supplying him with weapons, and probably
gave him the gas he used on the Kurds, as well as a
big thumbs-up to go do it. Bush senior went into Panama
and killed 5,000 Panamanians (the worst disaster in
their entire history) for absolutely no reason, doesn't
that make him a bad man? Nixon and Kissinger supplied
the weapons and the okay for the ethnic cleansing of
East Timor, where over 300,000 people were slaughtered,
so doesn't that make them both equally as bad as Saddam
Hussein? We live in a glass house and we shouldn't be
Chris Rock is a really funny comedian and his stuff
is intelligent too! I was able to see his stand up routine
live here in NYC and it was great!
I have to catch the new special. The last one was really
funny. I loved his routine on Blacks being afraid of
Whites reversing the stereotype scenario.
It was classic. I think he is the best comedian we have
to offer these days.
still hope so, but it's been a while since he's done
a stand-up routine, with several years of that awful
talk show, and several crappy movies in between. The
NY Times review of the act was good, but not great.
It didn't say it would be on HBO, but I believe it will
be. Fame and fortune usually doesn't help a comedian
keep their edge. Ellen DeGeneres' most recent stand-up
routine was pretty good. Not screamingly funny, but
consistently amusing. She said, "If I had a hammer,
I'd hammer in the morning. I'd hammer in the evening.
All over this land. Then you get a hammer, and surprising
you don't use it all that much."
am a big fan of your films and enjoy your commentary
on other filmmakers. You are rather politically incorrect
which I find most refreshing. The only thing I must
take exception to is your editorial on religion and
you version of the Jewish perspective of "we're
the chosen people, so screw you all anyway." That
is incorrect. Judaism is one of the few religions that
firmly believe that you don't have to be a Jew to go
to Heaven. We are slightly separatist, yes, but not
hostile or elitist about the afterlife and such. I thought
I read somewhere that you were Jewish? Anyway, keep
up the good work.
am Jewish, and I still firmly believe that Judaism is
utterly elitist, which in some way I admire about it.
At least Jews don't go around proselytizing. You're
either in or you're out. But certainly the orthodox
and the Hassids don't believe that anyone but them are
going to heaven, certainly not Muslims or Christians.
I'm sorry, but heaven's a load of shit anyway. You think
there's really a place where people hang around all
day and all night for all of eternity floating on clouds?
Come on. There is no heaven and there is no hell --
this is the whole deal. You can make heaven or hell
out of it, but when you're dead, you're dead. And it
doesn't matter if you were a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu,
or a Buddhist, dead is the same for everybody and everything.
Humans are so painfully insecure that they're pissing
their lives away that they demand that there simply
must be something beyond this vale of tears. This reminds
me of "The Decline of Western Civilization, Part
II: The Metal Years," where all of these talentless
young heavy-metal "musicians" keep telling
you that they'll be famous, no question, they have faith,
they believe, so it's inevitable. Except in every single
case time has proven them wrong. That's what having
blind faith in something (like heaven) gets you -- nothing.
E-mail: blah blah
I have to agree with you about Chris Rock. He's got
everything a great comedian needs: he's a smart guy
with a dicsernable <sp?> point of view, a sound
socio-political mind, and he's really fucking funny.
One thing I like about watching his specials is that,
as a black man, he can get away with saying shit that
no white person could ever get away with saying in public,
no matter what.
His bit about Notorious BIG and Tupar Shakur, for example:
"Martin Luther King was assasinated, those two
niggas got shot!" Sums it right up, no?
Rock certainly says what he wants. Like he said, people
don't discuss the good side of crack. On the right day
you can furnish your whole apartment for $25. You can
get a big-screen TV for $10. Or as he said of OJ Simpson,
his ex-wife is living in a condo he paid for, driving
an expensive car he paid for, he's still paying her
alimony, and she's fucking a white waiter. I don't say
that killing them was right, I'm just saying I understand.
But Chris Rock was another comedian that was no good
at hosting a talk show, and I'm glad that went away.
I watched the better part of a movie the other day which
was similar to "Bell, Book and Candle". It
must have been filmed in the late thirties and involved
an engaged wealthy man, perhaps a doctor, who rescues
a young woman from a hotel fire. She turns out to be
a witch and starts working subtle spells on him. I really
enjoyed the bit I watched and was wondering if you could
figure out which film it was.
On a different note, I love those casting ideas. I think
Shatner would be great and would carry a certain audience
with him and pairing Lucy with Bruce would get you five
Nielsen points with the sound turned off. I don't think
Lucy has been on American TV since Xena ended, has she?
I know she's been working but we haven't got to see
anything beyond her cameo in "Spiderman".
was a regular on the recent, short-lived WB "Tarzan"
series. Meanwhile, the film you're referring to could
be "I Married a Witch" (1942) with Veronica
Lake and Fredric March and directed by Rene Clair, although
I could be wrong.
agree, John Stewart just isn't half as good as Maher.
I haven't had a chance to watch much tv in the last
few months (is Maher still on HBO?). But, I think the
problem with Stewart is, for one, he's not nearly as
smart as Maher, and he also goes for the easy jokes.
Maher is actually politically incorrect in the sense
that alot of people hate what he has to say. I don't
think he's really trying to please anybody. Stewart
softens the punch and goes after easier targets. You
don't see Stewart saying fuck the children, or marriage
is a waste, or religion is for morons. Stewart also
seems to stick to one side of an issue. Maher is willing
to hold two things in his head at the same time, to
look at an issue from both sides. I'd also have to throw
Carlin in there. Funnier than Maher and almost as smart.
BTW, back to movies for a moment. Does anyone know if
Twilight Zone is on DVD? I don't have a netflix account,
but I'm working on a short-film script right now that
has alot of dark humor and some sci-fi. Very similar
to a twilight zone episode. I'd like to see some short-subject
versions of this material (which I'm also planning to
shoot in a few months on HD). Outside of Twilight Zone,
there's also the Outer Limits, which I doubt is on DVD.
Anyone else have suggestions for dark/sci-fi/comedy
of the original "Twilight Zone" is out on
DVD, and the original "Outer Limits" is, too.
And I agree that George Carlin is a funnier comedian
than Bill Maher, but he never could run a show (his
sitcom was a disaster). On this week's show, Sean Astin
proved that A.) he should never be on the show again,
and B.) young Republicans are the most deluded people
in America. The rationales that conservatives come up
to defend Bush attacking Iraq are so pathetic it hurts
my head. Astin said that Bush knew in his gut that Saddam
was a bad man, and since Bush knew he only had 4 years
as president, and if he presented the case straight
he wouldn't have gotten a declaration of war, so he
had to do what he knew was right in his gut. So, in
essence, he had to lie so he could accomplish his pure
and honorable goals. And now Bush and Powell are pointing
fingers at the intelligence agencies because they're
such gutless eunuchs they can't even take responsibility
for their own horrible actions. As a TV director you
are never allowed to make excuses. You shoot what's
on the schedule, or you take responsibility for not
getting it. If you point fingers at anyone else, even
if they're to blame, you'll never be hired again. Politicians
need to take the same attitude. Bush got us into this
war under false pretenses and it's entirely his responsibility.
I agree with John Hunt about John Stewart. I was going
to mention him in my last post, but forgot to.
I like Bill Maher, but I think Stewart is much more
funny than Maher and he doesn't take himself so seriously.
I agree with you about Miller before 9/11. I liked some
of his routine and used to like him back in the days
of SNL, however, after I met him in 1997, I began to
dislike him, and now I very rarely think that anything
he says is that funny.
I am not sure what he is afraid of? Maybe he is afraid
that his talk shows will keep failing? Maybe he should
have Saddam on his new show to boost his ratings? Ha!
Stewart doesn't do it for me, I don't know why. I just
read that Chris Rock has a new, full-fledged routine
that just opened in NY, that will probably end up on
HBO. He's funny. They quoted a line from the show about
the tiger that bit Roy Horn, Chris says, "The tiger
didn't go crazy, the tiger went tiger." He says
the reason Krispy Kreme donuts are so good is that they
contain crack (or would that be Krack?). Rock's first
two HBO specials were brilliant.
you comment on who you cast for which part in the "Humans
in Chains" production? Will Bruce be playing the
president? Is sci-fi going to stick you with one of
their usual troop of actors like Dean Cain, the bad
cobra kai guy from karate kid, or David Keith? I don't
know when or who decides those kinds of things, but
I'm sure as heck interested.
On another note, my dad and I were watching the discovery
channels doc. on "Barbarians" the other night,
and the question came up on how this project came to
be. Does someone that works with the discovery channel
pitch the idea, then get it approved, then find a director
and give him a budget, or does someone put the package
together then try to sell it to the channel?
just curious if you knew. Interesting stuff though.
oh yeh, and i guess Bruces "Earwigs" idea
is out for scifi?
"Earwigs" is out. Bruce will be playing the
lead, the astronaut doctor who leads the slaves to freedom.
I've offered the second-lead astronaut to Lucy Lawless,
but she hasn't said yes or no yet. I've suggested a
number of older actors for the president, like William
Shatner or Tony Curtis, but there's no word on that
yet. Sci-Fi hasn't made any casting suggestions. And,
quite frankly, I don't know how shows on Discovery come
What do you think the democrats are afraid of? Do they
fear that the Repblicans will issue a smear campaign
against them? As far as I can see, it's already happening.
I agree with you, Bush should be impeached and convicted
of more crimes than I can count on both hands. Did you
hear the latest? Moveon.org held a contest a while ago
which entailed making an anti-Bush TV spot that would
air during the Super Bowl. Well the contest had a winner,
the only problem is that CBS is refuseing to air it
because it's "disrespectful". This just goes
to show you where this country is headed. A network
will exploit the short comings of a Democrat who receives
a blow job, but won't air a simple 30 second anti Bush
TV spot. Liberal media my ass! 9/11 was the best thing
that ever happened to Bush. Do you remember his first
9 months in office? The country perceived him as the
incompetent boob who stole the election and said the
word "Nucular!" I remember people throwing
eggs at him right before his inauguration, and at thetime,
he was certain to be a one termer. Have you ever thought
about writing a political satire based on our current
state of affairs? I think now is a great time for something
of that nature.
they're going to show a Bush commercial during the Super
Bowl, but not an anti-Bush spot. But don't forget that
all of the media is owned by giant multi-national conglomerates,
and that's who Bush looks out for and gives tax breaks
to, so it's their responsibility to cover his ass. Meanwhile,
I already wrote one political satire, "The President's
Brain is Missing," about a stupid Republican president.
Whoops! My bad, I was talking about "Spellbound"
the documentary which centers around 8 kids on their
way to the national spelling bee in Washington. I found
the film to be pretty engrossing and the fact that these
kids spend 6 to 8 hours a day 7 days a week studying
for the bee blew my mind. The last half of the film
takes place at the bee and it is absolutely nerve wracking!
You should check it out. I think you would find it to
be very interesting. I've been on a documentary kick
for the past few months. Documentaries seem to be the
only films that I can really get into these days.
And yes, I am a silly kid. I have not seen Hitchcock's
"Spellbound" but I will check it out. I remember
watching "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" (one
of my favorites) last year on DVD and I got a little
bummed out because I realized that I will probably never
be able to see it in a theater. When I first moved to
L.A. almost 10 years ago there were a few theaters that
screened classic films but that sort of faded out over
the years. Kind of sad, huh?
I hope you are staying warm in Detroit.
I haven't lived in L.A. now for over two years, I just
bet they still show old films in 35mm at the L.A. County
Museum on Wilshire and Fairfax, where I literally saw
hundreds of films. And I believe the Nuart in Westwood
was still showing new indies and old films, too, when
I left, but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, I did
hear about the spelling bee documentary and that it
was very good. It'll be on TV in no time and I'll watch
I agree with you about both Maher and Miller, but do
you ever catch The Daily Show with John Stewart? I think
his show is both intelligent and entertaining. He slaps
just as well to his right as he does to his left and
the "roving reporter" bits are often hysterical.
In response to your tirade about Bush and the Iraq War,
what really amazes me is the number of times Bush and
his team have been given good advice and ignored it.
For example, Bush tried and miserably failed to link
Saddam Hussein and Al-Quaida. He tried to sell the War
in Iraq an extension of the War on Terror. Though there
was almost certainly no link before we invaded Iraq,
It is true that Islamist terrorists from throughout
the world have converged on the American forces in Iraq.
The manpower and resources which might have been directed
at American Targets in the West are now bottled up in
Iraq. We are essentially attracting flies with honey,
but that line of reasoning is not pursued, probably
because it smacks too much of the US dumping its problems
on the developing world. Not that we mind doing that,
but we hate to be reminded pointedly. It is, at least,
a credible justification for the Iraq Invasion.
You mention the "Mission Accomplished" episode
on the aircraft carrier. If, when that issue came up,
the administration had simply said that the aircraft
carrier's mission in the Gulf had been accomplished,
not the entire US military mission, I think the whole
thing might have blown over. Instead we got a series
of unbelievably lame denials ("Technically, the
Navy put the sign up. We just made it and brought it
along."). The mentality that bespeaks is one of
disdain for the citizenry and I find it profoundly disturbing.
There is something perversely honest about the politician
politician who toadies. At least that politician recognizes
the ultimate power of the electorate. My impression
is that Bush feels himself ordained by God (HIS God)
and the rest of us should either shut up or be shut
As if the Wars weren't enough we have a recovery with
almost zero job growth, which means accumulation of
wealth to the wealthy. We also have record-setting deficits
with no relief in sight. The awarding of massive contracts
to Haliburton felt bad even before they were caught
taking kickbacks and price gouging.
It seems that we are being "governed" ("ruled")
by a Cabal comprised of corporate heads and religious
extremists, among whom G. W. Bush is actually fairly
tame and benign (compared to the Ashcrofts and Rumsfelds
and such-like). Bush at least, I think, believes in
meritocracy. It doesn't matter your race, background
or even your religion; as long as you are an asset and
on-message you can be a member of the "Team".
Being ordained of God, as this Cabal feels it is, means
never having to consider that you might be wrong. I
wonder if there is a democratic candidate who could
actually halt, let alone reverse the separation of administration
from liability. Government tends only to ratchet up.
PS This is a bit long. I will take no offense if it
is not posted or given a response. Thanks.
believe that Bush is the innocent in the bunch is, I
think, a mistake. He's as evil and guilty as the worst
of them, and it's his agenda of trying to right the
old issues of his father's presidency that we're stuck
with now. And if I have to hear one more time that the
war was justified because Saddam is a bad man, I'll
just scream. Whether Saddam is a bad man or not means
nothing. That he gassed Kurds means nothing. Bush bypassed
the Congress by saying that Saddam had WMDs and was
planning on imminently using them on the U.S.A. That's
why we went to war, and it was a blatant lie. Lying
to get us into an unnecessary war is far worse than
getting a blow-job or bugging Democratic headquarters,
and if the Dems had any balls they'd be pushing to impeach
that horrible asshole. So where's Ken Starr when you
I've been very delinquent on checking out your site
lately---sorry about that dude. But I was very excited
to find out that you have another film in the works.
Congratulations Josh! I hope everything with the project
keeps rolling along and that you make a kick-ass flick.
Then maybe you can make "Biological Clock"
and I can stop bugging you about it.
I watched a very interesting film last night called
"Manic". I read the script about 2 years ago
and remember really liking it. I was pleased to see
that the film came through for the most part. It was
shot on digital and it's about a group of teenagers
in a mental hospital. The lead character lands there
after he beats the shit out of another kid with a baseball
bat. The performances were very good and the emotion
felt realistic. Anyway, if you get a chance to check
it out you should do so.
I also had a great time watching "Spellbound"
this weekend. Have you seen it?
I hope all is well with you and I can't wait to hear
more about your project.
to hear from you. Have I seen "Spellbound"?
What sort of movie geek would I be having not seen "Spellbound"?
Unlike you silly kids, I've seen many of these classic
movies in 35mm in a movie theater. I think it's lesser
Hitchcock, but still a lot of fun. It's a great flashback
to the kid sliding down the rail, kicking the other
kid and having him land on the spikes. And of course
the giant hand with the giant pistol aiming back at
the lens, and let's not forget the poorly conceived
Dali dream sequence.