There's A New Sheriff In Town...

"It's one thing to want someone out of your life, but it's another thing to serve them a wake-up cup full of liquid drainer."

"How very."

The moral of Michael Lehmann's 1988 indie masterpiece "Heathers" must be 'be careful what you wish for'.


In the film, Winona Ryder's "Veronica" hates her bitchy, controlling high school friends, and when she teams up with new bad-boy in town J.D., he presents her with a solution: Kill your friends, make it look like suicide.


I LOVE THIS FILM. One of my all-time favourites. It hits the nail on the head with its depiction of school life, but presents the story with a fairy-tale sheen that, somehow, makes you believe that two teenagers CAN murder their friends/enemies, make it look like suicide and get away with it. CSI it is not. It operates in an exaggerated reality which hits home its valid points because it doesn't have to get hung up on the details.

Corn nuts!

I recently entered a script of mine into a new screenwriting initiative which is searching for fresh new female characters that don't resort to the usual roles like housewife, prostitute, kick-ass babe or whatever. Fantastic! Anything that seeks to broaden the horizons of film makers in order to create less-obvious fare will always get my vote. 


My screenplay depicts a female lead character who wants the perfect lifestyle. The big house. The handsome rich husband - mostly in order to appease her judgmental parents and friends. She achieves these things early on in the story, but when her relationship with her fiance falls apart, her closest friends move in with her in order to pay the rent. Then her fiance turns up dead in the house. The story then progresses with how far the friends will cover up murders in order to sustain their 'perfect existence'.

Chaos killed the dinosaurs, darling!

The essence of the story is - be careful what you wish for. The lead character is many things - good and bad. She knows what she wants, she's sharp, witty, determined, but also manipulative, shallow at times, and looks after number one first. 


The script initially received good feedback - the first 10 pages described at 'entertaining' and 'intriguing', which is always great to hear. The second round of (more detailed) feedback - not good. Flatly rejected, seemingly due to the main character 'relying on male love interests for attention and support', and 'she often goes along with what other people want'. "A passive character" was the conclusion. The point that she was actually manipulating most, if not all of the men seemed to be missed. As for being passive, the main thrust of the story and character is 'How far do you go before you sell your soul to get what you want'. Eventually, she realises what she THOUGHT she wanted was not going to bring her any happiness (i.e. what her parents/friends wanted for her). The supporting characters are all living a lie; wanting a particular thing in order to achieve their perception of happiness.

Teenage suicide: Don't do it.

So the negative feedback got me thinking about the films that I like, and most of all, what female characters do I like. Which brings us to "Heathers".


I know for a lot of people, 'Veronica Sawyer' is an anti-hero icon. But if you take a good look at the choices she makes in the film, it all begins to look, well, a bit flimsy. 


1) She hangs out with the top 3 girls in the school whom she hates, but goes along with it because to achieve anything in life, you have to be top dog. Seemingly the 'Heathers' only hang out with her because she can copy other people's hand-writing. *This implies she is shallow and easily led.


2) Her psycho new boyfriend is the one that plants the seed to kill her friends. She rejects the idea initially, but ends up being implicated in the murders. *Fooled/easily led by a teenage boy, but goes along with more of his 'plans'.


3) When she realises the truth behind J.D.'s plotting i.e. to blow up the school, she doesn't tell her parents or go to the police - she tries, albeit successfully, to stop J.D. herself. *Self-preservation? 


4) Ultimately, J.D. 'wipes the slate clean', removing any personal responsibility for Veronica. *Her 'freedom' is given to her by J.D. taking the fall.


Now this may not seem like I like 'Heathers', but I do. I really, truly do. Why? Because Veronica is far from perfect. She makes bad choices. She isn't all-knowing and consistently strong. She sells out her childhood best friend in order to hang out with a nasty, vindictive clique. The genius of her character is - she IS imperfect. She is contrary. You can relate to her.

Lick it up, baby! Lick-it-up!

I've been inspired to check out a few feminist movie websites, to try and understand what, in their mind, makes a good female character. A large percentage of what I read was negative opinion. Yes, I agree 100% that the female roles in 'Inception' were bland and nothing (so was the film itself, why break tradition?); it is wrong that women should be side-lined into housewife roles, forever agreeing with the dominant husband.


But then I read negatives about the likes of 'Wall-E', slating 'Eve' for looking sleek and appealing; a man's depiction of a 'pretty robot', and that she is only in the story to help the male robot i.e. Wall-e.


And so it goes on. Now if we're to believe and agree with all of this, you would never see a film in which "a boy meets a girl/boy falls for girl..." OR "Girl meets boy/girl falls for boy.." because it is either objectifying the girl as something to be 'won', or she believes her happiness lies in falling in love with the boy of her dreams.


There would never be another love story ever again.

Veronica: Wholesome teen and accomplice to murder...

Now I'm not looking for a war on feminism, nor is this sour grapes. But looking at the DVD's on my shelf, I would have to throw out half of my dvd's. Groundhog Day, Splash, Pretty In Pink, Say Anything, The Breakfast Club, Big, The Truman Show, Heathers, Ghost World, Roxanne, Eternal Sunshine, Amelie... Are these poor excuses for films? I like them a lot, I enjoy watching them and they are entertaining because I can relate to them on an emotional level. Is 'The Thing' sexist because there are no female roles? (Admittedly unsuccessfully 'rectified' by the recent prequel). Again, I read a review criticising 'The Hurt Locker' (directed by Kathryn Bigelow) because the only female role was 'the wife/mother back home in the U.S.'. 


When I think about great female roles, I think of Pam Grier in "Jackie Brown": She's edging towards a lonely, penniless life and she chooses to do something about it. Sigourney Weaver in "Alien": The reason why she survives is because SHE IS NOT STUPID. Kane is too eager, Brett's an idiot, Dallas is foolish, Ash is a robot, Parker and Lambert sod about staring instead of running. Both characters are flawed - Jackie Brown seems to be screwed over by life at the start of the film, and Ripley is presented as somewhat hard-nosed and not well-liked.
Are these characters somehow better because they are women? I would argue that a good character is a good character - be it male or female - and that whether they are male or female doesn't make their character better or worse. Of course there are instances where you have 'woman in a man's world' or even 'man in a woman's world', but they make their points respectively (if successfully done).

The Heathers. And a Veronica.

Ultimately, I've been left wondering what the screenwriting initiative wanted. Did they want a flawless female character that always leads the way and comes out on top? Upon reflection, it would have been helpful to have an idea of what they wanted, as opposed to what they didn't want, and perhaps seize this great opportunity to inform and dare I say it, educate writers in creating these elusive, rounded female characters. We all want to write interesting, complex characters, but is this achieved at the expense of any realism or simply wanting to entertain?

"Y'know what I want? Cool guys like you out of my life!"

"He could BE one of those THINGS!"

Note to Thing: Trim nails in future.

John Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of my all-time favourite films. It was the film that made me want a career in special effects (Okay, that dazzling career never quite happened, but it was enough to really inspire me). To this day, the effects hold up and have yet to be bettered. That might seem like a rose-tinted opinion, but to me, it's true. The sheer imagination on show is dazzling. But in some cases, it's also very subtle (Blair vs. Garry, for example). Carpenter's direction has never been better, and the cast is exceptional. As for Morricone's theme music... classic.

Adam and Kate: Winners of 'Most fanciable scientists 2011'.

Palmer, Fuchs and Norris: Ladies, please...

So here's a belated opinion on the 'prequel' to John Carpenter's "The Thing".

SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! VERY BIG SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!

Deep breath.

Kate: Watching the skies...

Garry: Bennings was his friend.

Here we go:

Right. If we forget JC's version existed, this new version is very entertaining. It's got a great cast - some very talented actors on show, just a pity they don't get enough screen time. It's a 'respectful' attempt i.e. the film makers actually bothered to tie-in the prequel with JC's Thing. I left the cinema thinking 'That could have been a WHOLE lot worse'. See, this is a film that I used to dream of seeing, one day. Ever since I saw JC's version, I wanted more. I know, I know, be careful what you wish for...

The problem with the 2011 version is: The trailer.

Oh, so THAT guy's a thing...

Yep. Definitely a thing.

As any good fanboy does these days, I dissected the trailer. I simply could not wait to see this film. But it's fair to say, the trailer made no attempt to disguise who the thing was. So we see clear images of characters 'thinging out'. The whole point of these movies are - You don't know who the thing is.

Jonas: Give the man a hand...

It harks back to my post a few months ago about how films are marketed. The element of surprise was ruined. There was no mystery to any of it. The trailer simply gave too much away.

That said, the film makes little attempt to play 'guess who' with its cast of characters. Some characters are so thin, you don't even know who has just been killed because you never had time to get to know them. Even Bennings had a couple of scenes that set him up as a bit of a moaner, at least injecting him with some character traits. Simple enough to do without going off-course. Even Fuchs had a tragic element to his character.

Where for art thou, Juliette? Nevermind, I can see you're busy...

The MacReady/Childs relationship had a spark of antagonism. Carter and Jameson are a pale imitation in the prequel. In fact, the way Jameson meets his fate is so... so what, it's like 'was this the best way to kill a character? His death felt like a re-shoot; as if he was meant to do more, but someone changed their mind, too late into the process.

You never get the sense that Mary Elizabeth Winstead could possibly be a 'thing'. With Mac, you were never sure how far JC was going to push it. The story set Mac up as a big, red herring; with suspicion always on him.

This year's Mac.

Mac. Hair almost as nice as Kate's.

One vital ingredient which really beefed up JC's version was the sound effects. The noises emitting from Windows as he burns... the feeble, almost child-like wails added so much to the 'What the HECK is that thing?'... Windows vs. Palmer was a true vision of hell. As JC said in the commentary, if he himself witnessed this scene, he would admit defeat. Game over. The closest the new version comes to this scene is Adam's merging with Edvard-Thing. Other than that, there was no suspense and no surprises.

Adam: Takes good care of his teeth.

Edvard-Thing seeks close friend to join heads with...

Above all, the pacing makes the 2011 version a different beast. 20 mins in, the first thing is revealed. The beast itself never looks 'there'. The CG is good, but as with most CG, looks fake. It 'behaves' differently to JC's monster. But in fairness, the fact that the beast is all-too ready to reveal itself actually expands on JC's Thing-monster. 

The Thing is JC's film now plays like it has learned lessons from its first encounter with mankind; now it plans to takes things a bit slow and steady in order to win the day, rather than the somewhat just-woke-up and a bit pissed off 2011 monster.

Mac blasts Palmer, cos, like, he's a thing.

Bennings-Bar-B is a success.

Having read interviews with the writer, it seems some good ideas were cut. Lars was meant to be set-up as a butterfingered klutz, which in turn explains how he manages to drop a grenade in JC's version. That's actually a very funny and cool idea. Why it wasn't used, I've no idea.

Norris opens up for Doc; Defines 'Special' effects.

The sad thing is, there was so much potential with the 2011 incarnation. A great cast, a competent director... but in comparison, it's a fun joyride rather than a slow-burning classic. The abrupt, shocking, blunt violence is replace by cg tentacles, which is a shame. Having said all that, this is no AvP: Requiem.

Ruddy hell, it's Norris-Thing! 

Sander-Thing. Hmmm... Na. You're alright.

If you haven't seen it, know that it's not going to be anywhere near as good as JC's version, but it is well-worth watching for the performances alone. There are a lot of great character actors on show who deserve to be seen in a lot more bigger roles. And know this much:  JC himself was planning his own sequel a few years ago, still using Mac and Childs. How would he explain their somewhat severe ageing overnight? 'Extreme cold'. Now that would have been a terrible, terrible film... And that's coming from the man who made the classic.

Mac. Nuff said.

Kate. Wishing she had a beard like Mac
for those long winter nights.

Highlights of 2011

"What a year!", to use a cliched expression to summarise a year full of stuff.


Chris Jones featured heavily, or at least events organised by the man himself and his lovely team. My first introduction was 'American Independent's Day', back in April; a day spent listening to the wisdom of film producers Ted Hope and Christine Vachon.


Then in June, I attended the Guerrilla Film Maker's Masterclass weekend, which was an intense baptism of knowledge, which definitely helped me to see where I've been going wrong a lot of the time. Utterly recommend it - the next one is coming up in March, so if you seriously want to make films, be there. No excuses.


In October came the cherry on the cake - the London Screenwriter's Festival. Four days (inc. a pitching workshop day, run by Charles Harris) which included seminars with Edgar Wright, David Reynolds, Joe Cornish, and Stuart Hazeldine, as well as speed pitching to producers and hanging out with 300+ film makers. A fantastic experience; one that I can't wait to do again.


Elsewhere, trips to the cinema increased! Woooo!

The Chronicles Of Narnia: Voyage Of The Dawn Treader (Best installment yet)
Thor (Loved it, though it lost some of its impact on DVD)
Scream 4 (Better than part 3, but still a missed opportunity. Good haircuts, though.)
Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes (Too many 'of the's in the title. Didn't see any 'planet of apes'. They just took over a bridge. "Bridge Of The Apes.")
Super 8 (Spielberg wannabe, great emotional core, slightly rubbish Cloverfield monster's kid brother)
Tintin (Great old school rollicking adventure)
Arthur Christmas (Lovely kids film. Took my daughter, her first trip to the cinema. Aaaah.)
The Thing (A good attempt, respectful of Carpenter's version, not as good, easy to see why... an in-depth review will follow)

On the DVD front, here's a list of recommended viewing which scored at least 3.5 and above (out of 5!).

Bridesmaids
The Way
The Messenger
X-Men: First Class
The A-Team
Animal Kingdom
Unknown
Tangled
Rabbit Hole
True Grit
127 Hours
Gulliver's Travels
The King's Speech
Chico And Rita
Somewhere
Another Year
Cyrus
The Social Network
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
Toy Story 3

And finally, notable offenders of 2011 (or DVD's released this year): Films which scored 1 out of 5 (or less!)
Larry Crowne
Bad Teacher
Attack The Block
Sucker Punch
Norwegian Wood
Miracle At St. Anna
I Am Number 4
Age Of Heroes
Arthur & The Invisibles 2
The Green Hornet
Skyline
Easy A
I'm Still Here
Bonded By Blood
Jonah Hex
Knight And Day
The Last Airbender

Here's to next year: May it be full of great films, success and financial blessings (to pay for the house extension). Chin-chin!

"Whatever you're gonna do, do it fast!"

PITCHING + SPEED = SPEED PITCHING.

Its as simple as that. Five minutes with a producer, agent or consultant, in which your one and only goal is HOOK. THEM. IN.

Normally, a pitch wouldn't be in a room full of other people doing the same thing, shouting over the top of each other - or would it? You could be in a pub, or at an event - You see Mr. Big-shot producer, and decide to go for it. 

BIG-SHOT: "What's it about?"

YOU: "Er...."

Ten minutes later (if Mr. big-shot hasn't run away screaming), you find yourself saying 'and then this happens, and then that happens...' Not the way to do it. So what does speed pitching teach you? 

Keep it simple. Seriously, don't over complicate it. Sure, have a decent hook, a character flaw, a challenge and a dash of irony, but that's it. If there's one thing I took away from all of this is, "If they want to know more, they will ask."

1st Pitch: Went brilliantly. My project suited them, and they want to know more. Fantastic! On top of this, I actually ENJOYED the conversation! A really warm and friendly producer.

2nd Pitch: I pitched more as a flavour of what I write, as I was pitching tv to a film producer, somewhat unfortunately. Yes, I could have pitched a film, but as I'm looking for a producer to create a new project with, I chanced my pitch. The Pitchee was lovely, but not interested, but tried to be helpful which was nice.

3rd Pitch: Same deal as my 2nd i.e. Film not TV, but he asked me to send some sci-fi pitches to him, which is great! Lovely guy, too.

I found it scary but great - in fact the hardest part for me was the buzz and noise in the room, and trying to remain focused above all that. But good fun, and I'd definitely do it again!

What it has taught me as a screenwriter is to write the pitch first. Then write the one-page pitch. Get all that stuff down first. And again, above all - KEEP IT SIMPLE. 

The biggest success that I had was pitching an idea that even I can readily admit isn't the most original. Certainly, the script content is, but the premise? Not really. But it made for a good pitch, most likely for this very reason. I added the dash of this-and dash of that once the pitch had ended (to pepper it up), playing off the producer's responses and questions, but it did work.

So when you're writing your script, always know the logline. It will keep you on track with your project, and save you having to figure it all out long after the first or tenth draft.

And remember: Its just a conversation.

The stuff that dreams are made of...

Over the past four days, I have been on what can only be described (in Chris Vogler terms) 'A Hero's Journey'.

Mr. Joe Cornish talking hoodies and Tintin

1.) The hero is introduced in his/her ORDINARY WORLD
Me, sat in my office, in my own little bubble, writing scripts.

2.) The CALL TO ADVENTURE
Lots of e-mails since last January from Chris Jones.

3.) The hero is reluctant at first. (REFUSAL OF THE CALL.)
"I'm a poor, struggling writer! I can't spend 3 days at a screenwriting festival!"

4.) The hero is encouraged by the Wise Old Man or Woman. (MEET WITH THE MENTOR.)
AKA more e-mails from a very encouraging Chris.

5.)  The hero passes the first threshold.  (CROSSING THE THRESHOLD.)
I arrive at Regent's College, London.

6.) The hero encounters tests and helpers. (TESTS, ALLIES, ENEMIES.)
Meeting lots of new characters and wizened mentors like David Reynolds and Stuart Hazeldine. Plenty of pitching test-runs. Enemies in the form of tiredness and the voice in your head that says 'You will FAIL!'

7.)  The hero reaches the innermost cave.  (APPROACH TO THE INMOST CAVE.)
Sitting in the speed pitching waiting room, listening to 'Touch-a Touch-a Touch Me" from The Rocky Horror soundtrack, chanting to myself 'Its just a conversation, its just a conversation...'

8.) The hero endures the supreme ORDEAL.
Speed pitching!

9.) The hero seizes the sword. (SEIZING THE SWORD, REWARD)
Leaving the pitching room with a result - producers want to see scripts.

10.)  THE ROAD BACK.
Surviving London Underground.

11.) RESURRECTION
A small mountain of work to battle through for all the agents, producers, directors etc...

12.)  RETURN WITH THE ELIXIR
Back to the ordinary world a changed person.

The four days I spent at the London Screenwriter's festival was almost like being in a movie itself - Being introduced to so many different people from all walks of life. Following their journey and hearing their stories and experiences of the festival was fantastic - all this whilst I was experiencing my own unique journey; listening to talks from David 'Nemo Mother Killer' Reynolds (Finding Nemo), Edgar Wright (Shaun Of The Dead), Joe Cornish (Attack The Block), the heads of drama for the BBC, Channel 4 and Sky, Ashley Pharaoh (Life Of Mars), Stuart Hazeldine (The Day The Earth Stood Still)... And that's just the speakers I saw! Talk about spoiled for choice.

On top of this, I had 50 minutes with a script doctor, which was an absolute blast - not to mention a pre-festival day of workshopping our pitches (an extra £15 for the day but a complete BARGAIN!)

Heroes.

So why weren't you there? Okay, fair enough if you've no interest in having a career as a screenwriter, producer or director, but if you do want this - WHY WEREN'T YOU THERE? Money? Next year, sign up sometime in January (probably) and pay about £24 per month until October. Consider it sacrificing a couple of nights out per month. Time? If you haven't got time for opportunity, then ask yourself why. No babysitter? Fair enough, but my wife had to take two days holiday to cover my absence, as I'm a stay-at-home-dad.

The last four days did have a cost for me financially. It took its toll on my wife (our daughter suddenly stopped sleeping at night two weeks leading up to the festival, and was pretty much in a constant state of tiredness, being sick and stressing out my wife completely). I was tired (hardly any sleep leading up to the festival, long days, averaging about 5-6 hours sleep at night) and I missed my family. All hard stuff.

But it was worth it. In fact, its an experience I honestly can't put a monetary value on. The friendships, insight, connections, possibilities, empowerment... Simply put, its a game-changer. Again, if you're serious about what it is that you want to do, you cannot afford to miss this event next year.

Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they aint after you...

Plagiarism: Its the scurge of the creative realm, according to some paranoid folk.

But are they paranoid?

Lucy V Hay believes that no one is stealing your idea . So in a bid to prove her wrong, I'm stealing her idea for a blog post about this very subject - see, plagiarism in action!

Alright, alright... Generally, on the whole, 99.999999999% of ideas are NOT ripped off. Just because you came up with this great idea, it doesn't mean somebody else isn't thinking exactly the same thought right at this very minute.

Many a time have I experienced that pang of 'THAT'S MY RUDDY IDEA!!!!!! THIEF!' whilst watching movies. So far, I can lay claim to being the original creator of such concepts as 'The Usual Suspects',  'In Time' and parts of 'Natural Born Killers'. I can lay claim, but I would be wrong-diddly-wrong. I hit on an idea - so did somebody else.

Avatar: Not Dances With Wolves.

Dances With Wolves: Not Avatar. 

I recently entered the LSF's "Four Nights In August" competition. Whilst my script was heavily critical and political, the ultimate execution of the story (at least, the ending) was apparently similar to a few other submissions. Whilst I did feel a pang of 'I'm utterly unoriginal!', I actually read a couple of the entries with similar endings. Yes, we had a similar 'twist', but the scripts themselves were completely different in tone, style, voice, and commentary.

So how do we stop ourselves from being 'ripped off'? Do we just write for ourselves and refrain from showing the fruits of our labour? Of course not. A wise person once said to me (whilst stealing a quote from Freddie Mercury, I believe), 'Its no good being the greatest piano player if nobody hears you play.'

I do believe that producers, script readers and such like may read a script which subconsciously remains in their memory, only to be 'discovered' at a later point and turned into their own creation. But its in the execution where it really counts. There are plenty of films out there with GREAT ideas, but translated incredibly poorly or in an unsatisfying style.

In fact, if your idea is similar to another film, but the content is completely different, then why not tweak it and use it? I would never suggest serving up re-heated seconds, but there are some strong ideas which will run and run. It all rides on how YOU choose to expand on the idea. If its good enough, it will find its audience. Or simply say 'Fair enough, time to move on'. Use these moments of frustration to drive your desire for originality and creativity!

So send out your scripts, keep a paper trail of your ideas and various drafts, but STOP BEING PARANOID. Got it? Good.

I'll end with a story (true) about my experience with plagiarism. In 1996, I was chummy with a small-time producers who, in turn, was friends with a couple of small-to-medium sized producers. I was invited to pitch some ideas to my producer friend, and I reeled off all I could in a desperate bid to gain employment. He loved all my ideas, and was going to chat about them to his producers friends.

Weeks past, and I received a call to come in and chat. The meeting was the complete opposite of our first upbeat, friendly, excitable meeting. I sat there whilst my producer 'friend' fed-back his friends comments about my ideas. 'Rubbish'. 'Unoriginal' (see?). 'Nobody will EVER make a tv series about zombies! (HA!).

Wondering what just happened, I went home with my tail between my legs.

About a year or so later, I met up with my producer 'friend' again, as I needed to borrow a Mini DV camera for a friend. We chatted about what projects we were involved with, and I asked him about his producer friends. He said they had just made a tv pilot, and then went on to describe the idea in full, which sounded incredibly similar to an idea I had pitched him a year ago.

Even then, I was willing to accept that it could have been a coincidence. So I said to my 'friend' "That sounds very similar to an idea I pitched you a year ago..." I wasn't accusing or criticising him or his friends; simply remarking...

But my 'friend' responded in such a way that I KNEW he had stolen my idea -

"If you even THINK about suing us I will ruin your career before its even begun! Got it?"

And he was being deadly serious. And he used more F-words and a threatening tone of voice that befits a sentence such as that. BUT: The pilot didn't sell. However they chose to adapt the concept didn't work.

So there ya go: Plagiarism doesn't exist. The moral of this story is - Choose your friends wisely, stay away from coke-heads and be certain of whom you are (possibly) working with.

Lets close with two hilarious tales about plagiarism accusations gone made. Ta-Ta!

http://www.booksie.com/all/all/lubusait/steven-stealberg-hollywoods-reigning-king-of-plagiarism/nohead/pdf/ver/8

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-342111-matrix-ripped-off-the-third-eye.html

My Entry for the London Screenwriters Festival Competition 2011

Recently I wrote a one-page script called "What's Really Happening" for a competition run by the London Screenwriters Festival, based upon the riots which took place in London (and other parts of the country) in August.

I plucked for a 'commentary' as opposed to a story with twists and turns (how many can you cram into one page, anyway? Probably loads, but that's not me!), looking at probable causes; what motivated the riots, but also the stereotypes of 'urban youth' served up by the media throughout the riots. 
It makes a few observations which represent how I feel about the riots, as well as community.

Anyway - read it here!  *Filed under 'short films*