hear you about the whole marriage thing. I'm 26 years
old and a vast majority of my friends are preparing
to take the big plunge. The notion that I would meet
someone at my age who I would want to spend the rest
of my life with is just utterly ridiculous. There is
so much pressure for women my age to get married and
it sucks. I have zero interest in getting married any
time soon and when I tell my female friends this they
either think I'm crazy or I'm lying. But they all seem
much more interested in their weddings then they are
in their marriages. The wedding is one day, the marriage
is supposed to be forever! I know a lot of people who
got married right after we graduated from college. Being
married at the age of 22 or 23 just seems like a prison
sentence to me. And now they are all having kids and
they are struggling because they don't make enough money.
They all seem very unhappy to me. Like their youth has
been ripped out from under them. I'm very content with
being able to go where ever I want and do whatever I
want. I would be insane to give that up for the old
ball and chain. I am way too young for that!
on the other hand, it is nice to have someone. Like
you said everyone needs love. I think that most people
hope to find that one person who understands them better
then anyone else. Romantic love seems to fade but an
intimate friendship can last forever. But where is it
etched in stone that you HAVE to get married. If you
think about it marriage is pretty archaic. Marriage
means nothing these days. People get married and divorced
like they are changing their socks! For me, the institution
of marriage has been stripped of any meaning. It's like
"why the hell not get married? If it sucks we can
just get divorced." That attitude is so irresponsible.
don't think it's irresponsible so much as naive. But
society eggs people on to get married as soon as possible.
It calms people down and causes them to act responsibly,
as opposed to being out partying all the time. It's
been said that if you could take all males at the age
of 16 and put them into cryogenic sleep until they were
26, you get rid of at least 80% of all crime. The one
thing that causes rambunctious males to calm down is
marriage, so it really is good for society at large.
The fact that there are so many kids coming from broken
homes, well that's just how it goes, I guess. I think
I would have preferred my parents getting divorced when
I was sixteen as opposed to when I was thirty-six because
they were so damn miserable. The biggest problem with
being single as long as I have been is that solitude
becomes addictive. I do everything when I want, and
anything that gets in the way of that is a distraction.
just read your treatment of "TWO GUN" CROWLEY
and it reminded me a lot of "Badlands" and,
coincidentally, "Breathless" ('59) that I
happened to see last night.
It also had nothing to do with the story of Arthur "Two
Sheds" Jackson, one of the world's leading modern
it's the earlier, 1930s version of "Breathless,"
or "They Live By Night," which was an inspiration
for "Breathless." The disaffected youth of
like to think I have a well-rounded film palate. I enjoy
great films like, well, the only one I can come up with
right now is Star Wars. The original, obviously, not
the new ones. Indiana Jones. Jaws. The Godfather. But
on the other hand, I also love movies that I know are
complete trash, like Jay &Silent Bob Strike Back
or Baseketball. My favorite movie of all time is Ghostbusters,
but it was only when I saw Evolution that I realized
how terrible a director Ivan Reitman is. If I may use
the "movies-as-food" analogy, sure a home-cooked
steak dinner or fresh from the oven loaf of bread at
Grandma's is good, and better for you than some things.
But even so, sometimes I want a twinkie or an extra
value meal from McDonald's. My question, therefore,
is this: Are there any movies that you know are bad,
but you enjoy watching them anyway? If so, please name
a few. Also, have you ever been inspired by a piece
of music (perhaps a musical score from a film, or a
song, or classical music) to write a script? I like
listening to film scores and coming up with my own scenes
to go along with them. I know Spielberg claimed he wrote
Sugarland Express while listening to one of John Williams's
scores, The Reivers, I think. That's all. Thanks!
only glitch in the story is that Spielberg didn't write
"Sugarland Express," Hal Barwood and Matthew
Robbins did. Meanwhile, I've always got music playing
and it inspires me constantly. The title for "Lunatics"
came from listening to Pink Floyd. And need I mention
"If I Had a Hammer"? Regarding twinkie-like
movies, I've seen hundreds of them, but somewhere along
the way I really stopped enjoying bad movies for them
being bad. It was okay to like bad movies when they
still made good ones, I guess. But I think it's a lot
better and more worthwhile to search out the quality
films, of which there are plenty, just not recently.
And has anyone noticed how utterly miserable the summer
line-up of movies looks? Sequels, remakes, and remakes
of sequels. Yikes! Every time I think it can't get any
worse, Hollywood surprises me and goes even farther.
cool that you like that film and Cary Grant. Did you
know one of my friends told me one of the scenes in
it gave the producers for a Bond film an idea for a
helicopter? Except in North By Northwest it was a cropduster.
Have you heard about that? What are your thoughts on
if you don't mind my asking do you like the Rambo films?
What's your favorite? I like them all.
my spelling well I took English in high school (and
a little French) but I think that's some kind of internet
short hand. One of my friends was using it and I thought
it was kind of cool. Sorry if you don't like it.
Lucy, yeah she is a smart person, absolutely. And she's
really gorgeous you know! I pretty much dispensed with
most of the dogma myself. I kind of grew up Catholic.
The idea of God always kind of embarrassed me. It was
usually in moments of absolute fear that I ever thought
about God and prayed, and I was always embarrassed because
I didn't believe and I felt so hypocritical when I prayed
out of fear, kind of like as if in spite of my disbelief
there might be God after all. God who could be fooled
by a hypocrite. When I was a kid, I believed. I certainly
did believe when I was a kid. I forgot how that goes,
that nightly Act of Contrition? Something like that.
I forgot those words, they're unfamiliar now. Oh my
God, I am heartily sorry for...for what...I forgot.
I don't know.
if you don't mind my asking what did you believe when
you were a kid?
believed in movies. Other people went to the church
or synagogue, I went to the movie theater. I was raised
as a half-assed Jew, occasionally attending synagogue
on high holidays, but not always. I started Hebrew school
at the age of eight, and that caused be to begin hating
Judaism. Upon my Bar Mitzvah at thirteen, I vowed to
never enter another synagogue in my life. Well, I have
because of weddings, funerals, and Bar Mitzvahs, but
I never attended services again. Then I grew interested
in religion in general and began reading about many
of them -- I have the holy books from most every religion,
including B'hai and the Janists. Ultimately, some of
the concepts of Buddhism and Hindu have made the most
impact on me, although I certainly would not join either
group. Now, moving on to more important subjects, like
movies, I enjoyed the first half of the first Rambo
film. The moment it cut to a national guard helicopter
and tilted down to hundreds of national guard, they
lost me -- it's obviously a lost cause and now we'll
just have to wait for it to be over because he has no
chance of winning. The second and third films just sucked.
I'll take "Platoon," "Bat 29," or
"Go Tell the Spartans" any day of the week.
It also doesn't surprise in me in the least that "North
By Northwest" was an inspiration for a James Bond
film. Once again, I'll take "North By Northwest"
over ALL the Bond films, which have copmpletely sucked
since Connery left.
E-mail: not this time
the email I received below is one reason I was always
loath to put my email address in my questions to you,
but I did, cuz you always got mad at those who left
them out...now I'm getting nonsensical spam from some
troll who obviously just picked up email accounts from
your site....do you think in the future you could perhaps
keep email addresses private, or at least not yell at
those who don't put it up? This is what I get for discussing
William Wyler with ya! :(
but spam is just part of the modern world, and I'm certainly
not sending it. I don't have much of a problem with
folks not including their email addresses so much as
folks that won't even use their names, but then rip
me a new asshole. Sorry you got spammed, but I get about
thirty or more a day. And the one you got didn't seem
all that egregious.
is very interesting about Tyndale, I did not know that.
Thanks for enlightening me.
am well aware of the Catholic church's role in Africa.
I volunteer for the Jane Goodall institute and she personally
has been able to effect more change when it comes to
educating people in the region of Tanzania than any
missionary could possibly accomplish.
have been fortunate enough to meet her a couple times
and she is an amazing women. The difference between
her and Diane Fossey (who she is quite often mistaken
for), is that Jane did not seclude herself from the
local people of the area all the while she was studying
the Chimpanzees, were Fossey did when she studied the
was a difficult women and she did not have a balanced
view of protecting the Gorillas and educating the local
people of important issues pertaining to agriculutre
and envrionment. She was too possesive of her cause
and that ultimately was the reason she was killed.
the other hand, Jane Goodall has set up various programs
for the local people around the national park in which
she did her studies, and one of the most successful
of these programs is one that hires local women and
gives them jobs, so they build their self-worth and
has also designed projects educating people about birth
control and the use of condoms to help prevent unwanted
pregnancies and AIDS.
are still treated rather poorly in certain parts of
Africa and remember that monogomy is not the norm in
certain tribes and areas there either.
projects are succesful because she allows people to
still stay true to their culture, yet she also educates
them with respect to real threats which could damage
their lives and their environment.
is a good example of why Catholic missionaries have
the wrong attitude when it comes to the realities of
places like Africa. Imposing Catholic beliefs is one
thing, but not educating people on real issues that
need to be addressed is another.
when I was young, I struggeld with the fact of whether
homosexuality was innate or learned. I found an answer
when I became interested in primates as a teenager and
when I found out my cousin was gay.
and their close cousins Bonobos exhibit homosexual behaviour
which is innate and not learned. I know this is well
documented by Jane and other researchers. Also, in Bonobo
society, females are dominate and sexual experimentation
is normal, including masterbation.
are also different form Chimpanzees in that that are
not as agressive and live fairly peaceful amongst one
another very much like Gorillas. It must be all that
you may know, Chimpanzees are the closest to humanbeings
in the primate family There is only a 1% percent marginal
difference between human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA.
and Chimpanzees are mean, and cannibals, too. They'll
kill and eat baby chimps even when they're not hungry.
And baby chimps are so cute. But getting back to missionaries,
it's like Bruce Beresford's film "Black Robe,"
where a Catholic missionary goes to Quebec in the 1700s
to bring the "word" to the Indians. The one
tribe that takes to Christianity is pretty promptly
massacred by another tribe. The point being, in many
parts of the world Christianity is just a plain old
bad idea. People in rough climates and difficult situations
probably need to be more focused on today rather than
on some unproven sci-fi story about eternity. Christianity
hasn't done the people of Africa the slightest bit of
good. Quite frankly, Christianity and Islam haven't
done black people any good anywhere. This idea was put
forth by the late great black scholar, John Henrik Clarke,
who felt that since all blacks are originally Africans,
it's the African religions that they need to get back
to, not the religions of the whites or the Arabs.
u know I was reading some of the posts and stuff and
I think Lucy Lawless grew up Catholic, so can you be
nice and not say anything bad about Catholics please?
u were talking about His Girl Friday that's a cool movie
u know. We were discussing Cary Grant the other day
he was an awesome actor what do u think? Also what do
u think of North By Northwest? That came out in 1959
it did come out in 1959, good work. I like "North
By Northwest" very much. I think it's one of Hitchcock's
best films. And I like Cary Grant very much, too. So,
John, are you in so big of a hurry that you can't spell
out Y-O-U? Typing the Y and the O is just too time consuming?
You see, we use this thing called the English language
to communicate with one another, that's why we all sort
of stick to the same rules. And as for Lucy being Catholic,
that's her problem. She's a smart person so I have no
doubt that she's dispensed with most of that dogmatic
response to Ben's post about a couple of the same gender
adopting a child. My gay friends who are thinking about
adopting a baby are extremely well-adjusted, loving
and intelligent people. My friend's boyfriend speaks
3 different languages fluently, plays the piano beautifully
and he is working on a masters degree in physics. My
friend is finishing up a degree in architecture and
he is the most well read and creative person I have
ever known. They both make great money and they own
a lovely house. But most importantly they are kind,
generous and understanding human beings. They both come
from wonderful families who except them for who they
are. They both have older sisters and a legion of female
friends who would play an important role in the life
of their child. They are well aware that everyone needs
exposure to both genders during their formative years.
AND to top it all off they have a fantastic relationship
and are very much in love with one another.
why should another child be lost to the foster care
system when these two men have so much to offer as parents?
Because they are gay? That type of thinking makes absolutely
zero sense to me. I'm convinced that they have the capabilities
to raise a decent human being who would grow up to become
a productive member of society. They are in a much better
position to raise children then these people who pump
out a kid every nine months just because they can. But
because of the lack of logical thinking in our society
a child who would thrive in their care will instead
languish in a fucked up system which strips people of
their being and turns them into another statistic.
though kids coming from a broken home and an utterly
screwed-up marriage is preferable to being raised by
two people, of whatever gender, who actually love each
other and get along? Both of my sisters have been married
and divorced, as were my parents. And that's the ideal
situation to raise kids? I see very few happy marriages
out there, and even less happy first marriages. I used
to consider myself sort of backward having never been
married, but now I honestly feel like I just spared
myself an unhappy marriage, screwed-up kids, and a divorce.
It doesn't matter where love comes from as long as you
get some of it.
can you tell me about stylistic elements, narrative,
themes,motivations and morals to MInority report?
Were you assigned to do a report in school and you're
too lazy to think about it yourself? You tell me, because
I don't want to give the crappy film one more second
for being interested--I hope you still are.
say the dogma of the Pope is evil. Funny that, I agree.
Here's the deal. The Church set forth its doctrine with
Christ, and now, since the late 60s, like the rest of
the world, the Church has gone liberal. If anything,
I thought most liberals would consider the acts and
statements of the current Pope to be, at least a little
bit, a step in the right direction. They've pretty much
made the Catholic church just like every other religion
in the world, which, for those of us who have firm beliefs,
do not agree with. Why should the Church change over
the years? Right and wrong do not change. For the fellow
to say that it is ridiculous for the Church to stay
"stuck in its old ways" is, to me, ridiculous.
Don't take it personally, pal. I just don't understand
why people think morals develop.
I'm spewing, I'll mention that the guideline of the
Church is to have children as God gives them to you,
but I can see how, to outsiders, there is nothing more
than an undiscernable line between that and having as
many kids as you possibly can. I can see the rationale,
but I am still convinced there is a difference. Many
couples can't have kids, and many others could have
two and no more.
go back to the scandal of the Church. Again, this is
something that has cropped up more in the new version
of Catholicism, and not among the traditional followers.
You might argue, but I have only known priests who stay
miles away from even the suggestion of scandal. They
won't go into a public bathroom if a child walks in
before them, and it's not because of temptation.
I would like to present some questions for you and the
readers. If a priest gets horny, why would he necessarily
seek out a young boy? If it was just a plain old burning
in the loins, he'd be better off finding a hooker in
a busy city. I guess that doesn't really prove the point
that celibacy causes pedophilia, but I just think that
there are sick people in the world, and many of them
are construction workers, or lawyers, or someone who
could take advantage of peoples' trust, like a psychiatrist--even
priests. If we consider the number of cases of abuse
against children, and think of it in terms of priests
and not priests, then naturally, it will sound bad.
I'll admit that I haven't done a whole lot of research
on the subject, but most of the cases I heard of were
teenage boys. The law gives us the hardline of 18 as
being the age of consentual sex, but doesn't a 13 or
15 year old have the ability to consent or not? Do you
think that with the arrogance, pride, strength, and
support that a youth would get, wouldn't it be easier
to resist? I shouldn't get too involved without looking
(and I will), but I'm guessing that the cases where
a 7 year old is molested is few and far between. No,
it's not good to molest a teenager. Along with my other
beliefs, I'm convinced that molesting anyone is bad
(lousy joke). But when these incidents come up, the
modern media can't portray them as anything but pedophilia.
If they admitted that it's more frequently reported
by teenagers, then it would be too close to homosexuality,
which is the very thing they're trying to defend.
real shame is that the boys, whatever age, don't have
the balls of most girls these days. The two groups most
frightened of accusations of sexual abuse are priests
and men. And while I don't doubt the prevelance of date-rape
perpetrated by morally-bankrupt individuals, I also
don't doubt that many of the cases are not exactly what
yes, there were bad people in the Church. Some wars
were fought for good reasons, others bad. People died,
innocent and guilty alike. But just like I haven't written
off filmed entertainment as being intrinsically evil
because of many of the bad people involved, I'm not
going to abondon the Church.
I don't have any technical movie questions for you.
I'm sure this whole discussion is getting pretty tired.
I hope I haven't bored you yet.
that I've probably offended everyone on this board (or
at least generated sympathy to the tune of "Oh,
that poor, misguided, silly person"), I'll close
nothing wrong with you defending your beliefs. The fact
that we don't agree doesn't mean anything, I don't agree
with a lot of people on many topics. As a little historical
point, the Catholic church used female choirs for many
years, but the priests were consistently getting into
trouble sexually fooling around them, which really pissed
off their husbands. So just after the turn of the century,
in the early 1900s, the Pope banned female choirs and
changed it to young boys, and that's when priests began
sexually fooling around with young boys. And over the
years you can just bet it's been with boys of all ages.
The point being, celibacy is one of the worst perversions
that can be foisted on a person, and just like normal
human beings priests don't handle it very well. Celibacy
for priests is an ancient tradition that never functioned,
but it works even worse in the modern world. It's simply
one more example of how the Catholic church does not
do what's best for people, priests, young boys, the
population of the world, or having women bear too many
children which is physically no good for them. The Catholic
church is an anachronism and it really ought to wither
up and blow away, just like all organized religions.
suspect that ostracism has a reat deal to do with the
prominent role of homosexuals in the arts, and in creative
fields (such as physics, math) in general. Jews are
also over-represented in those fields and they know
a little bit about being outsiders. Outsiders cannot
think and relate along normal channels, by definition,
and so must from the earliest age learn to to think
and relate creatively.
is also interesting to me how so many people who reject
religion, or approach it with extreme caution, are so
willing to embrace spiritualism. My impression is that
you, yourself, would attribute spirituality to an misplaced
desire for the profound. I also wonder if you accept
the idea of a "True Seeker". I have found
that, in all of the world's religions, there is a notion
of the True Seeker; someone who may or may not hold
the same set of beliefs but is to be respected for the
integrity of their search for truth. "Kim"
by Rudyard Kipling concerns itself extensively with
mention all of this, in a round-about way, in the context
of "Warpath". I think that if the female lead
(whose name escapes me at the moment) had strict religious
mores, making any relationship with the Bruce Campbell
character an impossibility, it would make the story
more interesting. It might also justify her desire to
seek out her husband, a desire I think is poorly justified
as the story stands. Religious adherents may make lousy
neighbors but I think they make great stories.
question about your writing and directing in general;
I have noticed that the conversations in your work tend
to happen one at a time, always. I have always loved
scenes where several characters are carrying on several
conversations at once. I think about "The Thing",
"His Girl Friday" and "The Searchers"
just off the top of my head. Each of these movies have
moments where the audience has to follow several threads
at the same time. Not for an extended period, mind,
but usually as a way of establishing characters, or
as transitional scenes. I could see this sort of a scene
in "Biological Clock", for instance.
been saving up thoughts. Thanks as always.
interesting point. That's really Robert Altman's trademark,
having everyone talk at once, and I must say honestly
it annoys the piss out of me. It always makes me think
that the director doesn't like the script and is trying
to cover it up by not letting me hear what anyone's
saying. I think that's partly why Hawks had everyone
talk so fast in "His Girl Friday," he was
trying to cover up a slow, stodgy play, and I think
it helps (that's certainly the best of the three film
versions of "The Front Page"). But, for the
most part, I'd much rather hear the dialog clearly,
particularly if I wrote it.
have touched upon an excellent and sensitive subject.
I do not agree with Ben's feelings about gays adopting
children, since I too have a few gay friends and I also
have a cousin who is gay and he was adopted when he
was a baby.
aunt and uncle are in their 70's and my cousin is in
his 30's and it thad taken sometime before my cousin
could openly express his life with my relatives.
aunt is a pretty progressive person, however, she is
also a little relgious, but it was my cousin's idea
that my aunt would not except his lifestyle, when in
fact, she is quite ok with it.
time I spoke to her, I told her that my cousin seems
much more relaxed, and she said that "she just
hopes he finds peace with himself, and that she was
happy that he has come to terms with his sexuality".
are also right on the mark when you state that gays
can turn around a shabby area of a city and make it
good example of this is South Beach Miami which used
to be very run down for years in the 80's and early
90's up until 1993 when the gay community started to
open resturants, shops, galleries etc... It is now one
of the most thriving community in Florida.
worked with a fashion photographer twice down there
in 1993 and 1994. There was such a dramatic change in
one year that it was like the place turned around over
night. I see this happen time and time again.
for religion, I was raised Catholic, and I always tell
people that I am a recovering Catholic.
don't believe any other institution could exist today
like the Catholic church. Staying stuck in old ways
which were adopted centuries ago is ridiculous.
world is constantly changing and this goes for the natural
world too, however, organized religion undermines this
by having oudated modes of thinking, as we have witnessed
with the sexual problems and priests. I think to still
have a rule where priests are not allowed to have sex
is not only outdated, it goes against all natural law.
do we expect? They are humanbeings. Somehow, I don't
believe this is God's will.
also know many good people who are religous. I have
a friend who struggled with his faith for years, and
he left a very good job he had and worked at missions
for nothing. he gave up a great deal of his maerial
possesions (not that he had many), and he has embraced
the Catholic religion with all of his heart and I repect
him for that.
he is not blind to the problems of the church either
and his biggest criticism is the role money plays in
all of it which is like just about everything else.
if you look at the Catholic church in history, you will
find what an oppressive and dangerous entity it was
at one time. This is God's will? Come on!
Luther had to go into hiding for the rest of his life
or be hanged by the Catholic church for his belief that
prayer and religion were personal and that it was not
necessary for the church to control these aspects of
man was one of the most spiritual humans of his time,
and how was he rewarded? By being hunted by the church
for the rest of his life.
I agree with you that any extremely religious family
has far too many children and that is definitely not
a good thing for the planet and the future of it.
the late 1500s a man named William Tyndale translated
the bible from Latin into English (Martin Luther had
already translated the bible into German). The Catholic
church was outraged, declared that Tyndale was a heretic,
hunted him down and burned him at the stake. A few years
later the Catholic church then decided that the bible
needed to be translated into English, since most people
could no longer speak or read Latin, and the translators
used most of Tyndale's translation, which became the
1611 King James version of the bible, and is considered
one of the great, poetic translations ever done. They
also have missionaries and priests all over Africa telling
people that it's a sin to use condoms in an area with
the worst epidemic of AIDS anywhere in the world. And
in a world of over six billion people, they're still
extolling the saintliness and virtue of having as many
kids as humanly possible. That's the Catholic church.
been trying to obtain information about the legal issues
involved with making a film based upon the lives of
real people, but the numerous books and articles I've
consulted contain conflicting or unclear information
and I am now more confused than ever.
you know of a good source for this kind of "story
order to make a movie based upon the highly publicized
exploits of criminals who are currently in prison, does
one need to obtain permission from those individuals?
It seems the obvious answer would be "yes"
(especially when the criminals have families and are
expected to be released in the near future), but I keep
thinking about the way in which those awful, exploitative
tv shows like AMERICA'S MOST WANTED air dopey re-enactments
of crime stories and get away with it under the guise
of being "news programs" and it seems unlikely
that they have the permission of their subjects.
some hack "journalist" can publish a cheap,
unathorized biography about a celebrity and earn money
in the process, do the same "fair game" rules
apply to regular citizens who have been elevated to
celebrity status because of their crimes?
the movie I'm working on, I plan to consult court transcripts,
which are available to the public, but I have yet to
locate written confirmation that says it's legally okay
to use such material in a screenplay.
I'm planning to make a short film (which usually means
tiny profits and even tinier public attention) I'm hopeful
that all legal barriers can be either overcome or ducked.
you're making a non-documentary film about real people,
you must get their permission and get signed release
form. Or you can change their names. If you're making
a documentary then you need their permission and a release
form to film them. If you make a feature film about
real people's whose permission you didn't get, you'll
never get it released to the theaters or shown on TV.
good to hear that amidst all of the huge issues, you
would still point out the pronunciation of "nuclear."
It bothers me, too.
far as two people of the same gender adopting a child,
I firmly believe that there is an ideal structure in
everything, and the more deviant a situation is from
the ideal, then the more problems arise. If I worked
for an adoption agency, would I do it? No. And I'd probably
get fired. Men and women are not only different in body,
but in mind, soul, and spirit, and it's those different
things that they contribute to the family that makes
it work so well. I'm trying to be civil, so I'll limit
my sarcasm to one remark: If they want a kid, why don't
they just have one together? Maybe it has something
to do with the fact that men can't make babies without
not just tailoring my beliefs to a religion at random.
I can only speak from experience (as I'm sure you and
everyone else is), and consistently, when I see a family
practicing the Catholic faith properly and selflessly,
all I see are well-adjusted, happy, dependable, and
caring people. When I look at the rest of the world,
I see a lot of sadness. I'm sticking with it.
specifics aside, it seems that the worst sin that can
be commited in the modern world is to tell someone that
they are wrong. The fact is that truth exists, and once
I've seen it, then I'll cling to what brought it.
not an activist. I don't stand on the streetcorner and
try to rouse anti-anything sentiments in my town. And
I wouldn't hurt anyone because of what they did or believe,
unless they did it to my family or friends, and even
then, I'd be acting irrationally and unjustly. But I
will speak my mind. And why am I spouting in? I'm not
sure--no one asked my opinion. It's clear that no one
on this board would be interested, but I had some time
for it. I was interested in what you had to say. My
problem with Catholics is that they generally have too
many kids, as do religious Jews, and that's not good
for the future of the planet. Catholics can be good
people just like anybody else, but the Pope's dogma
for the lack of planning, but after I sent in a message,
I re-read one of your comments. You say that gays are
an important part of the arts. Do you think that most
of the good work in any medium comes from gay people?
I just mean that you've already stated that your opinion
on movies today isn't limited to movies. With the growing
mentality of liberalism, more people are breaking the
rules in novels, poems, paintings, music, and sculpture,
and developing a legacy of stupidity for the future
generations. Every bit of art these days, it seems,
is based on feeling, and not a bit of thought. Have
you noticed gays, blacks, whites, or any other demographic
to be more attuned to making decent art? Or was "gays
are important to the arts" just a throw-away comment
in defense of your beliefs?
don't necessarily mean today, I mean in general. Gay
people are an inordinately large part of any art form,
whether it's movies, TV, writing, painting, music, or
whatever. As a gay friend of mine once said about me,
"You know too much about movies to not be gay."
Cynthia E. Jones
a long time gay rights advocate, and someone who has
lost too many compassionate, caring friends to AIDS,
I must applaud you for your essay
on Political "Orientation." You have said
everything that I have been saying since hearing the
Senator's appalling statements. Thank you.
had a harrowing personal experience with 'right wing
conservatives' a few years back at my friend's funeral.
20 years ago, when he came out to his (very religious)
family, they kicked him out of the house and said they
didn't want anything to do with him. A friend of mine
took him in, they became close, and she became his new
family. He went on to have a prosperous life in the
theater community, doing acting, singing (in church
even!), and costume work, as well as having several
gallery shows of his maskmaking. He was immensely talented,
and one of the kindest people I have ever known.
discovering that he had AIDS, he contacted his family
in an attempt to reconcile. His mother and sister decided
to become close to him as he was approaching death--but
only if he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour,
and asked forgiveness for what he had done. Since he
was dying, and needed to be close to his family, he
said he accepted God, and actually apologized for hurting
his family (!) even though they were the ones who hurt
him. At his funeral, his brother-in-law, a Baptist minister,
gave the eulogy. He stated that "Although he was
a worthless object, like the pine needles he used for
his art" he had "found God" in his final
hours, "And was a beautiful angel now, despite
his having gone astray and denying Him for so long."
As if the only way my friend was validated was in death.
As if 20 years of his life, where he discovered who
he was, found a new family, and loved better and more
gently than anyone I know, and loved a God that he believed
was accepting of him, was a waste.
one friend of his talked to his family after the service.
We all went to the bar for a wake (which went all night),
and they drove home in their shiny cars, pious and correct.
if I hear one more person telling the homosexual community
that what they do is wrong, I'll scream.
glad you liked the essay. I too had a very good friend
die of AIDS, and his mother, father or one of his two
sisters (all of whom are born-again Christians) would
not even come see him in the hospital or the hospice.
I'm still convinced that the most religious people are
in fact the most evil thing on our planet. They're against
unity, against brotherhood, and against equality. They
simply want to believe that they are superior to all
others. And I don't really care what religion it is.
I've absolutely known more good gay people than right-wing
conservatives, that's for sure.
is a very, very cool idea. Something that I think people
would be interested in seeing. I actually had a very
lengthy discussion with my father a few months back
about all of the false information that the news media
spews out on a daily basis. My ex-boyfriend is in the
midst of making a documentary about federal taxes and
how the constitution applies to the subject. He has
gotten some pretty interesting stuff so far.
read your essay about Santorum. What a ridiculous and
miss-guided man. I live in West Hollywood which is a
predominantly gay neighborhood. All of my gay neighbors
are lovely, kind wonderful people who would give you
the shirt off their backs. They seem to value friendship
much more then some other folks that I have run into.
I think it's because they spend a lot of their lives
getting shit on by douche bags like Santorum. I'm so
sick of these fundamentalist, religious people saying
that homosexuality is a choice. My best friend whom
I have know since childhood is gay and he had a crush
on a male teacher when he was 11 years old. So he pretty
much always knew that he was gay especially when we
hit high school and he had no interest in girls in a
sexual manner. He has been with the same man for 5 years
and they recently bought a house together. And now they
are thinking about adopting a child. They are 2 of the
best people I know and I'm convinced that they would
make excellent parents. I wonder what Sen. Santorum
would think of that!? I'm sure he would advocate denying
a child 2 loving parents because of what they do in
their own bedroom. Mind your own fucking business for
I've said, I believe that gays are an important part
of any population, and probably add more to society
for their size than any other group. There can be nothing
better for a neighborhood, particularly a run-down neighborhood,
than to have gay people move in. They fix up the houses
and generally have very good taste. They are also a
very important part of all the arts. I'd most definitely
rather live around and be friends with gay people than
conservative right-wing Republicans who are utterly
intolerant, demeaning and degrading in the name of freedom.
In my humble opinion, the right-wing conservatives are
the least understanding, the least accepting, the most
aggressive and blood-thirsty, and the least patriotic
group in the country. They believe that being oppressive
to other people in their same country is patriotic,
whereas I think it's anti-American, against the Constitution,
against the Bill of Rights, and completely against what
America stands for, which is tolerance. Plus, most of
them seem to mispronounce the word nuclear, which drives
me insane. It's not "nuc-u-lar," and anyone
who says that is a moron, particularly George Bush,
last anonymous correspondent (actually, I think he signed
his name as "cmonjosh") cracked me up. As
I was reading what he wrote, I was thinking "You
know, I bet he's thinking that he's insulting the hell
out of you, when in reality you've been saying the very
same thing ever since I've been coming to this site!"
mean, sheesh - shooting slow films like John Ford makes
you a loser? A good story alone is cinematic masturbation?
Umm..... I'd call a good story alone ...a novel. I'd
think that jazzy stuff (not that I'm opposed to jazzy
stuff) is the masturbation. In fact, I caught about
15 minutes of the Charlie's Angels movie on TV last
night, and found myself thinking "Gee - if it only
had a good plot like the old TV series." And then
laughed out loud when I realized what an idiotic thing
I'd just said.
I was watching "The Searchers" on TCM last
week, and had a similar thought - Ford was making a
slower, 1930's style movie with 1950's technology and
color and budget.
tell us more about this film you got fired from. Is
this the one that morphed into that Jan Michael Vincent
film? Or is there one last untold directing horror story
you haven't written about? Either way, I think that
would make for another good essay topic, the MTV thing
of which was why I was going to write. I was actually
going to ask you if you caught the most recent rerun
of "The Men Who Made the Movies." It turns
up on TCM frequently, and is really quite remarkable.
So many of your fans discuss Ford, Hawks, Walsh, etc.
with you, and I wonder if everyone is aware of this
only seen one episode recently, but I saw the whole
thing when it was first aired in the '70s. I thought
it was very good, and that Richard Schickel did a very
intelligent job making it. Yeah, anyone that wants to
insult me by calling me John Ford-like can go right
ahead. However, I do sort of stand on a soapbox and
holler a lot. My good friend and producer, Jane Goe,
after reading one of my essays said that my tone was
"slightly hysterical, like a crazy man screaming
on the corner." Yet, on the other hand, "cmonjosh"
said my writing was both "bland" and "blah."
I'm a man of many facets. The MTV pilot was a different
deal than the Jan Michael Vincent film, which was "Hit
List." The MTV pilot was called "Shotgun Love
Dolls," if you can believe that, and not only redefined
the word "bad," but was written in entirely
the wrong style for a TV show, was neither a half-hour
nor an hour, and had no act breaks. I turned it down,
but apparently one of the other Xena directors, T.J.
Scott, ended up directing it. I don't think it was ever
off the soapbox already. I truly respect your filmmaking
abilities and opinions, but seriously, if someone offered
you financing to make a shitty film, yours or someone
elses, you'd do it in a heartbeat and you know it. Why
else would you have directed crappy tv, Thou shalt...,
and Lunatics. I think your main problem is that you
try to make slow paced, low-budget John Ford films in
an independent film arena which is dominated by stuff
for the MTV generation. You're simply 30 years too late.
Sure, a good story is a good story in any time, but
you know by now that a good story without a vibrant
hook to grab attention is just cinematic masturbation.
Know one is going to jump on your stuff just because
you may be a filmmaking genius who has memorized every
celluloid fact to date. You can still tell a great story
today, but just jazz it up a bit to get some buzz behind
you. "Boys Don't Cry" is an excellent example
of what I'm trying to recommend. You write great, well-rounded
stories, but most of them are really blah. "If
I Had a Hammer" is well-written, but bland. No
real conflict or excitement. I hope you don't feel like
I'm trying to insult or put you down because I'm not.
I'd love to see more of your filmmaking prowess. I honestly
think you are a hell of great director. Good luck to
don't even feel that you can reveal your name? I'd certainly
be more apt to take you seriously if you did. Look,
if my stuff is blah, then that's what it is. I don't
care about the MTV generation and I will never intentionally
pander to them. I hate pointless, shaky, hand-held camerawork,
meaningless jump cuts, too many cuts in general, and
intercutting black and white and color for no reason.
That which is presently considered hip or cutting-edge
is just a series of overused cliches, which can be seen
in half the TV shows and commercials. I believe that
I have my own style, and as blah and bland as it may
be, I don't think my films are like anyone else's. Meanwhile,
the only directorially stylish thing in "Boys Don't
Cry" was the time-lapse shots of the city, and
I did the same thing in "Lunatics" ten years
earlier. If you legitimately think "Hammer"
is bland, tell me why. I'm listening.
you're darn right I'm up on a soapbox. I don't hear
anybody else bitching about the things that I am, so
I'm basically all alone (except for the folks that write
in and agree with me). As Harlan Ellison said, "A
good writer needs to go to bed angry and wake up angry."
Regarding me taking a big budget movie were it offered
to me, you're undoubtedly correct that I would take
it. But I'd also try my damndest to whip the script
into proper (bland?) shape, which could well get me
fired before I'd ever get to shoot. This already happened
to me once. But would I take anything that was offered
to me no matter what it is? No. I've turned down a few
projects over the course of the years just because I
was certain I wouldn't be allowed to fix them. I turned
down a pilot for MTV because the script was so bad it
could never be fixed and I didn't want to try. If I
actually do shoot like John Ford in a David Fincher
world, then I'm very pleased.
of the points you made are dead-on, especially your
comment about giving up your artistic vision. But that
movie did make enough money (I'm not sure the exact
amount), but it only reached DVD audiences and since
there are a lot of gore junkies who go crazy for this
stuff, I'm sure it sold a lot of copies. About the comment
about big Hollywood filmmakers making their own artistic,
personal movies for themselves, Gus Van Sant returned
to his independent roots to make a film called "Gerry,"
as a homage to Bela Tarr. I'm sure there's a few more.
film stars Matt Damon and Ben Affleck's brother, it's
not like it's a tiny indie. Australian directors Bruce
Beresford and Fred Schepisi have both gone back to Oz
to make smaller, more personal films, but for the most
part it's just not done. And just because you're sure
that gore film sold a lot, doesn't mean that it did,
or that the filmmaker got a good enough deal to even
pay back for the production costs. For a DVD release
without a theatrical release, distribution companies
don't pay very much, generally nowhere near what the
film cost to make. But thanks for thinking about how
I'll get ahead.
Dear Josh Becker,
know you said that you're not a very big horror fan,
but I have some advice (you're probably not gonna go
for it, but what the hell, I'm curious to what you think
about this idea): make a film that you KNOW is going
to make a lot of money, so you can finance a personal
film in the future. That's what Eric Stanze did. If
you haven't heard of him, Stanze is one of the most
talented and original low-budget independent filmmakers
out there, and he made this movie called "I Piss
on Your Corpse, I Spit on Your Grave." It's one
of the sickest, most disgusting pieces of exploitation
I have ever seen, and it's an awful movie, too. But
Stanze didn't make it for himself, he made it so sick
and graphic because the distributors and it was bound
to gross a lot of money, attracting gore junkies and
horror fans in general.
so did it make money? I doubt it. The bottom-line is
that you never KNOW what's going to sell. As a friend
of mine once said, "If kung-fu movies ALWAYS made
money, that's all Hollywood would ever make." And
I have news for you, if you make shit, no matter what
your reasons, you're a shit-maker. It's like the utterly
bogus reasoning I've heard many times of just bend over
backwards, kiss every ass in sight, and make some pandering
piece of crap for the money, then take the money and
make your own "artistic" film. The problem
is, once you've become a pandering ass-kisser, you've
given up your artistic vision. And once it's gone it's
gone. You don't see any big-shot Hollywood filmmakers
sneaking off and making little artistic films, do you?
Once you've joined the establishment, you're part of
it. And once you start making shit, you're nothing but
caught a very interesting documentary called "Crank:
Made in America" last night on HBO. The doc focused
on 3 Iowa families that have been affected by crystal
meth abuse. I found it to be a very straight forward
look at addicts and how they live their day to day lives.
All of the junkies that were featured had been on the
stuff for at least 5 years. One guy had been using crystal
meth since 1978. Only 6% of meth addicts are able to
kick the habit for good. It was disturbing stuff but
a pretty well-made documentary.
of documentaries, have you ever thought about making
one? If so, what subject would you choose? One more
question: When are you going to make another film?
Meth is a nasty drug, and it always made me feel terrible.
As I mentioned yesterday, I have made a full-length
documentary called "Battle the Big Tuna,"
about a nine-day big-game fishing trip, which I did
in 1989. It's certainly not a particularly provocative
subject -- unless you're against fishing -- but it was
a bitch and half to make. Producing a full-length documentary
is as a big a commitment as a feature film, although
probably not as expensive. The one subject that's been
rattling around my head recently for a doc is the mis-
and dis-information we're given in the U.S. news media.
To do something like that would take a lot of rights
clearance for the use of the news clips you'd need to
make the point. A perfect example right now would be
the utterly lying, bogus speech Colin Powell made before
the U.N. Security Council a few weeks before the war.
He kept showing aerial photos of sandbags and saying,
"This is absolutely a chemical weapons factory.
It's indisputable." Yeah? So why weren't they pointed
out to the U.N. weapons inspectors? Why haven't "coalition"
forces found them? Because it was all crap, that's why.
Or when we were shown drums of chemicals found in an
agricultural area, in a shed where pesticides were kept,
and we were told that these chemicals could be used
for chemical weapons, or as pesticides, but it's difficult
to to tell which. Then they showed three Iraqi RPGs
set up on the floor, undoubtedly confiscated by "coalition"
forces, so they could say, "Chemicals. Weapons.
Chemicals. Weapons. See, they must have chemical weapons."
Anyway, I'd take this all as far back as I could go
with it, which would probably be back to the 1950s,
when TV news really came into being. Every president
since then, including Eisenhower, has felt no qualms
about getting on TV and lying straight into the face
of everyone. Over the course of time these lies become
more and more apparent, and the intercutting between
the lies and the truth would probably be quite illuminating.
see you are really watching a lot of documentaries.
I think that is great! I have always loved the medium
and I agree with you that they are the best thing going
in film now!
has definitely helped documentaries. You really can
make a feature-length, professional-looking documentary
for $20,000 or less. I made a 60-minute doc in 1989
called "Battle the Big Tuna," about a nine-day
big-game fishing trip 300 miles off the coast of Cabo
San Lucas, Mexico and it cost about $50,000 to get it
finished in a professional-looking manner. Life's improving
and actually getting cheaper in the documentary field.
And cameras are tiny, will hold an hour of tape, and
you can shoot in almost no light whatsoever. And people
are used to little DV cameras being around and will
act normal in front of them. Then all you need is a
subject you care about.
would just like to offer a few comments in regards to
your most recent essay entitled "My Patriotic "Orientation".
am a twenty-two year old white male atheist Republican
who currently lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
I certainly disagree with Sen. Santorum's stance on
homosexuality (and I am in fact in favor of legalizing
same-sex marriages) I can appreciate the larger point
he was trying to make in regards to the supreme court.
Namely that if the supreme court does not allow individual
states to pass laws against sodomy, then the legal justification
for this stance might not allow states to pass laws
against incest, polygamy, bigamy etc. This could prove
to be an important as the supreme court has long held
that laws controlling sexual acts are left to the states
to decide as no specific part of the US Constitution
address the "right" to a sexual act.
I have a question on the issue of tolerance. In this
case it appears that many are criticizing Santorum because
he is intolerant, and has spoken out against, others
(namely those of other sexual orientations). If in fact
his opinion on homosexuality is derived from his religious
beliefs shouldn't we all be more tolerant of him? I
just think there is a double standard. He is supposed
to keep his religious beliefs silent but those who are
criticizing his religious beliefs can speak as freely
as they want without fear of being referred to as "intolerant."
for reading my email. As always I look forward to reading
very reasonable, intelligent response, but here's why
I disagree. No one is trying to deny Rick Santorum any
of his rights or marginalize him, but that's what he's
suggesting for others. I'll defend his right to be wrong,
but I won't defend his intention of denying someone
else their rights. And my Libertarian view is that the
governement should not be involved in proscribing morality
in any way, shape or form. It has the right to protect
the underaged, but as far as I'm concerned, morally
speaking, that's it. If Mormons want to have more than
one wife, God bless them. If the folks in Kentucky want
to marry their sisters, go for it, dudes. It's neither
of our business. That's what I think, but I could be
if u don't remember the episode that much. That would
be really nice if u could look at that outline but u
don't have to do that. I don't want to give you any
extra trouble or anything since I know ur busy. There
was this research project some other fans recommended
me to do and we were talking about it on the Xenaville
I was with my friends the other day and we were discussing
Chariots of War again (cuz its gonna come on DVD soon
I think). And that scene where Xena rips her dress and
starts kicking the bad guys with those beautiful long
sexy legs of hers was totally awesome, we were thinking
that's gotta be one of the sexiest scenes in history
u know. Plus the arrow scene and the blue dress and
sorry to keep asking u about Chariots of War. Please
let me know if u can look at the outline, and if not
(if ur too busy) please let me know if there's anybody
else u know that might remember that I could ask.
it will be on DVD soon. I was interviewed for the DVD
release, which will be on a seperate disc, I believe.
Please stop asking about that episode, I honestly don't
care at all. I was glad to sell the story, and that's
the end of it.
saw 4 films yesterday - "Breakfast at Tiffany's",
"Roman Holiday", "Mr Hulot's Holiday"
and "Mon Oncle".
Your man William Wyler directed "Roman Holiday"
and I noticed his brother Robert was an Executive Producer.
As a bit of trivia, I thought I saw William in one scene
where Hepburn, Peck and Albert are looking over the
Coliseum. Were you aware of this?
I did not like "Tiffany's" nearly as much
- I found myself not really caring about Holly Golightly
much. I think my favourite character was "Cat".
I had heard a lot about the films of Jaques Tati and
although I enjoyed both of the ones I saw, I thought
they were a bit untidy and could have been made a little
sounds like a full day of movie-watching. I quite like
"Roman Holiday," although I don't think it's
one of Wyler's very best film. Audrey Hepburn is just
astounding, though. If that was Wyler in the film, I
didn't know it. I got a bit weary, however, of the running
gag of trying to shut up Eddie Albert. As a little note,
"Roman Holiday" was Frank Capra's project
for several years before Wyler bought it from him. I've
never cared for "Breakfast at Tiffanys," the
film means nothing to me beyond Henry Mancini's score,
which is a classic. I like "Mr. Hulot's Holiday"
better than any other Jacques Tati film, but they're
all slow. He did come up with a few terrific gags, though,
like when his car was going to be towed and he went
to step over the cable that suddenly tightened, hit
him in the foot and sent him sailing. Or the whole routine
with the kayak.
I'm becoming a familiar name at all on this board, you
probably are noticing a pattern to my comments regarding
the subjects not relevant to filmmaking or film watching.
If I had even the slimmest hopes of influencing anyone
in the world, I'd explain my positions, but no one cares.
So I'll state a simple opinion and see what your reaction
is: everyone lies.
of course, it's true. Everyone, at one point or another,
has deceived, misled, or obscured the thought process
of another for some reason. But what I'm talking about
is that everyone has their positions, but they come
up with crap to lie about in defense of them.
Santorum said that he has nothing against homosexuality,
but only homosexual acts. What he means is that he has
nothing against homosexuals, but only homosexual acts.
My tendency is to agree, since for many reasons, sodomy
is wrong, but we have no right to condemn people. I'm
sure you've had friends who have done something wrong.
How do you feel about them? Hopefully, it wasn't bad
enough to change that esteem overall, but even though
you love them, you know they did something wrong. Doesn't
that at all translate to "I have nothing against
homosexuals, only homosexual acts?" I suppose the
fact that if someone never commits a homosexual act,
then they can't be considered a homosexual. Again, my
tendency is to agree, but that wouldn't make sense alongside
the contentions of the modern liberal world. They say
that they can't change who they are. They didn't choose
to be gay. And if they chose not to commit such acts,
they would still be gay. Isn't that what they're trying
to get across?
to my original point, everyone lies. I heard on the
radio that male-to-female transgenders, upon autopsy,
were found to have female neurons in their brains. Likewise,
female-to-male transgenders were found to have male
neurons. This is utterly ridiculous, although I'll read
responses if anyone has heard anything more detailed.
Then they had a sound clip of a senator (or some other
politician) saying that transgender discrimination is
the leading cause of HIV, due to the standard of living
and lifestyle that transgenders are forced to succumb
to. And your friend, whose opinion differed to yours,
was wrong in saying that we're overpopulated, and he
painted the case as badly as possible to make heterosexuals
evil and malicious for having children. On a side note,
even though the most traditional Catholic family could
have an average of ten kids, many religious vocations
come from those families. You probably don't need to
comment on that, however, because I already know your
opinion of religion.
think I'll leave it at that for now. I was just wondering
if you agreed that the whole discussion is tainted by
everyone going to false extremes to justify their points.
can't accept that sodomy is wrong or that the world
is not overpopulated. What hole people want to stick
their dick into is absolutely nobody's business but
their own, and is no righter or wronger than sticking
it anywhere else. I flatly disagree that sex is only
about procreation. Sex is an activity that humans enjoy
and take pleasure from, and has a lot more meaning than
plain old procreation. And considering the world passed
the six billion mark over a year ago, and is geometrically
increasing at an alarming rate -- it took the entire
history of humanity up to 1900 to get to one billion,
then a mere 100 years to get to over six billion, which
will double in less than fifty years -- and I believe
that people that have more than two kids are completely
culpable. And I have a big problem with the idea that
people choose to be gay. They don't. And when I told
a gay friend about the essay I'd just written, he said,
"But I knew I was gay when I was twelve, but I
hadn't had sex yet." I replied, "Then you
just suspected that you were gay. It wasn't until you
acted on it that you legitimately were gay." Well,
he was never interested in having sex with women, so
was he supposed to repress all of his sexual urges because
thay weren't "traditional"? And another thing,
gay people are a terrific part of the population (10%
if I'm not mistaken, which neither goes up nor goes
down, that's just what it is), they are, for the most
part, intelligent and creative and really vital to society.
I much prefer gay people to religious people, I can
tell you that.
As requested, this may be the study referred to by whomever
you heard discussing trangendereds' brains on the radio.
dont' you just throw together another evil dead kinda
film. and have bruce in a cabin with gore. a billion
people would buy the hell out of it, anchor bay would
release it every two months with a different cover box,
and you would be set?!
no such thing as throwing together an independent feature
film -- they're all enormous undertakings. There's also
no throwing together projects with Bruce, who is at
a stage where he would prefer not making a film to making
one poorly, and I respect the hell out of that. Beyond
that, I'm not really a horror film fan. I did actually
make an attempt at that sort of thing last year with
the story "Terrified!" but no one jumped at
it, so I guess it wasn't the right story.
agree with you about legalizing drugs. I also know all
our government's blatant mis-dealings with all the situations
you have outlined. I studied the Vietnam conflict a
great deal on my own and in college, and it amazes me
how stupid the Cambodia bombing was and that most people
totally ignored it until much later!
documentary "The Trials of Henry Kissinger"
was based on a book. Have you read the book? I enjiyed
the film, but from what I have read, the book is more
of a personal attack by the author who was in the film
and it is more biased than the film.
am going to be curious as to what will come out later
after the attack on Iraq situation is truly revealed,
if it ever really is revealed.
am thought of as being un-patriotic if I question my
government's actions and that is preciously part of
what our country's checks and balances were based upon
in the first place. Whatever happned to "By the
people, for the people"?
feel a leader should lead by their conscience and that
sometimes they have to go against public opinion, however,
when their personal interests are dubious then their
conscience becomes misguided and that is precisely what
happned has in Iraq.
really makes me mad how the US is treating Hans Blix
and the UN now and this position does not really help
the Bush administration's stance. I have always said
that you will have far different results when you send
50-100 UN inspectors to the country the size of California
than you would sending thousands of troops to bomb the
shit out of the country to do the same job. The numbers
say it all.
our military has thousands of our own inspectors there
looking for the "smoking gun", but they still
haven't found anything and now we are told that it could
take months to find evidence, but I say that is just
the letter you received from the 10 year old Indian
boy is a good example of how kids will surprise you!
From the way he was writing, I believe he just may be
telling the truth with regards to his age.
I was this boy's age, I too was interested in things
very similar to him, however, I hated elementary - High
school and I feel that some kids just can't learn well
in a traditional american school. I was a good example
of that and I was shy, so it was difficult for me to
wasn't until I went to college that I was able to use
my intelligence and breakout of my shell. However, I
don't belive that college is for everybody either. It
was good for me, but I learned about making films by
making films and I feel that going to film school is
only useful to gain contacts and schmooze by using the
system for what it is.
never wanted to direct, I love shooting and I love photography
and cinemtography, but being an editor pays the bills
for now. When people ask me what they should do to be
a cinematographer and I usually tell them to learn understand
photography and study paintings for lighting and composition.
also tell them to understand that they will have to
be able to manage people, since their lighting crew
will be taking direction from them and they have to
be able to relate what they want in terms of lighting
and set up to their crew which is ultimatley the vision
of the director
you mentioned that you are not very good at schmoozing
to get your films distributed and that is the reason
that I am trying to help you out with "Hammer".
like getting people to read screenplays and book transcripts,
it is just as difficult to get people to watch films.
The attention span of most people these days is about
5 minutes and that is sad.
still doubt that kid was ten. I think he was pulling
my leg. What can an Indian ten-year-old honestly know
about Elia Kazan or David Lean? Still, I could be wrong
(it's happened plenty of times before). I watched a
1998 documentary last night called "Image of an
Assassination: A New Look at the Zapruder Film,"
that was just fascinating. First it was about Abraham
Zapruder, who he was, and how he went about shooting
the film. Then it showed what he went through with the
CIA and Life Magazine. Then it showed the National Archives
rephotographing every frame (about 481 frames) on 4X5
film (including the area around the sprocket holes,
which contains more image), then digitizing it, cleaning
up the picture and losing a lot of the shaking camera.
Then they showed the film in various screen sizes, with
and without the image around the sprocket holes, then
in slo-mo, then zoomed in on Kennedy in slo-mo. I slowed
it down even farther on the DVD machine and watched
it several times at extreme slo-mo. There is absolutely
no doubt in my mind, and never has been, that the final
head shot is coming from the grassy knoll ahead an to
the right of the limo, not from behind at the book depository.
And these much clearer images make it even more obvious.
It may very well be the most disturbing 22 seconds of
film in existence. Nevertheless, it is absolute proof
of a conspiracy. I'm still of a mind that it was the
mafia and Sam Giancana, who felt completely betrayed
by the Kennedys after giving Joe Kennedy a lot of favors
during the election, like the Teamster vote (and let's
face it, it was a very close election, without that
mob help JFK would never have won), then having the
Kennedys turn on the mafia and the Teamsters as soon
as he got into office. I think JFK was killed due to
I remember that ending in Chariots of War I know what
u mean about that little girl talking all of a sudden
and it looked like her dad already knew she could or
something. Kinda weird. Anyways it would have made more
sense the way u wrote it. But anyways I'm glad I still
liked it too u know.
u don't remember about the arrow scene. It was the scene
where that guy takes the arrow out of Xena, that was
a cool scene and plus we got to see Lucy's hot and sexy
abs that was totally hot and beautiful (I'm still drooling
from that man). I was wondering if in the original script
u wrote that somebody had to take an arrow out of Herc
or if that scene just got added to show off Lucy's hot
and sexy abs.
guess I should dig out that outline and see what's in
it. I barely remember that story, other than the way
the ending was shot. These Xena and Hercules stories
have just leaked out of my mind.
i have heard a rumor that you are going to make Catherine-zeta
Jones the leading actress of the Xena Movie. Is it true?Also
you do know in my heart and everyone else that is a
true xena fan that lucy Lawless is and will always be
the true Xena warrior Princess... and Renee O Connor
is the true gabrielle. i sure hope this rumor is not
true because i am a #1 fan of XWP and some of my friends
are... we are excited about hearing that there may be
a movie coming out. and hopefully it will pick up were
the FIN part 1 and part 2 left off.. thanks for your
time and hope you have a great day... Leslie AKA #1
fan of XWP or Blackshadow
not doing anything with Xena. I was a hired hand on
the show. I've heard no news of a Xena movie with or
without Catherine Zeta-Jones, and since I'm acquainted
with the former executive producer, I suppose I would
have heard were there such a thing. And I agree with
you, were there to be a Xena movie, Lucy has to be Xena
and Renee has to be Gabrielle.
you seen the series The Shield on FX? I think it's really
cool, what Training Day should have been like. It's
got a lot of grey characters, and you really care about
the main guy, even when he's doing bad things. You probably
wouldn't like the "hip" music and camera work
but the writing is so good you should be able to forgive
for the suggestion, but I won't even try. I completely
don't care about cop TV shows and if I never see another
one it will be too soon. I think all these cop shows
just reinforce our living in a police state where far
too much of our population is in jail, where drugs rationalize
the government and the police taking away our personal
freedom. I know it's not PC, but I don't like cops,
they give me the creeps.
you think Sam Raimi has acheived his dreams? Do you
think that he knows how to function in the Hollywood
system better than you? You are obviously just as talented,
but I think he did a couple things better than you with
regards to shmoozing, producing, and having a great
co-creator and partner, Rob Tapert. Do you plan to make
the independent film circuit your final film resting
place, or are you still interested in pursuing Hollywood
films? I wish you all the best whatever you do.
I do think that Sam has achieved his dreams. He wanted
to be a big, successful, A-list Hollywood director and
he is. He certainly knows how to function within the
system much better than I. These were dreams of mine,
too, when I was young. But I'm much more interested
in attempting to do quality work, and potentially make
a film no one has made before, something that might
have some lasting value. That's not what Hollywood is
about anymore, and it hasn't been for a long time. Perhaps
it's just a rationale, but somewhere over the course
of the past ten years I decided that to be a success
in a business that only makes shit, still makes you
a shit-maker. And whether your shit pies sell or not,
they're still shit. I'm not interested in that.
are the book deals coming?
Have you seen or talked to Lucy Lawless or Rob Tapert
lately? What are they up to?
my agent has my filmmaking book out to Simon & Schuster,
but I haven't heard anything, and she's just recently
received my new book, so I'm waiting to hear on that,
too. Take my word for it, it's not easy getting people
to read 300+ page documents. It was a bitch getting
people to read screenplays and they're only 120 pages.
I emailed with Rob yesterday (actually, an email from
him awaits me now). He's in production on a horror film
entitled "The Boogyman" in New Zealand, with
some of the Xena/Herc crew.