In time for the release of independent animator/filmmaker Don Hertzfeldt’s latest short film, World of Tomorrow, Arlill talks about Hertzfeldt’s most famous short films and what effect they had on Arlill's life. Here’s a hint about next week’s episode!
Podcasts are one of the most recent media formats that’s swept the internet landscape. It’s also something that is mocked and called background noise for people who work or something that just fills the emptiness of a room. It’s kind of remarkable how podcasts can get any kind of major following since there are so many podcasts available today, mostly from famous people, which is why I want to put my spotlight on one of my personal favorite podcasts, Laser Time.
Better than bullet time!
What is Laser Time?
Laser Time Network is the podcast network for former GamesRadar employees who have multiple podcasts about video games, wrestling, comic books and other forms of pop culture. Laser Time, the main podcast on their site, is hosted by Chris Antista, with his friends and co-hosts, Brett Elston, Mikel Reparaz, Tyler Wilde, Henry Gilbert, Michael Grimm, and Dave Rudden.
Each episode of Laser Time explores a different aspect of pop culture, going from adult jokes in kids’ cartoons to the worst accents in film, but taking an informally analytical approach to everything. What do I mean by that? Think about any conversation you’ve ever had with one of your friends about why a particular movie/book was worth seeing/reading and never saying “it’s good/bad”? Laser Time also acts like, what Chris Antista calls, “pop culture curators” and we get an in-depth look at the forgotten relics of pop culture AKA things that were relevant years ago. Examples of this include their episode about hotline numbers (immortalized by The Simpsons in Lisa the Greek), failed talk shows, and cartoons that were vanity vehicles for celebrities. The hosts’ rather informal approach to pop culture history make it easier to grasp and I’m amazed by how much random information I’ve been able to retain.
It’s the subtle differences that truly set Laser Time apart. Host Chris Antista does everything he can to entertain his friends (and in essence, the podcasting audience) and he actively uses humorous sound effects to capitalize or punctuate some of the jokes he makes but don’t worry, it’s nothing like an obnoxious radio morning zoo. Chris is also the main editor of Laser Time and he includes both an opening and closing segment in every episode. More amazingly, Chris includes the very faint hint of music playing in the background of every episode, just loud enough that it adds an interesting taste to their already riveting discussions. I can’t imagine how long it must take to do that for every episode, let alone on a weekly basis!
Laser Time’s consistent quality ultimately falls on one thing: the people. Laser Time is both one of the most vulgar and dark podcasts you’ll ever hear, and for me, that’s the type of humor I can cherish dearly. It’s evident in the opening minutes how close the hosts are to each other and that works effectively for establishing the back-and-forth dynamic that keeps their discussions interesting. People reviewing Laser Time on iTunes mention how the podcast is like listening to your best friends talk and that is what endeared me to the Laser Time crew in the end.
Laser Time has released 150+ episodes by this date and yet, I’ve listened to each episode twice and some episodes multiple times. When life becomes truly chaotic and the encouraging words from your friends and family just isn’t enough to brighten up your spirits, Laser Time has always been there to bring everything back to normality through the hosts’ own experiences and interpretations of the truly absurd journey of life. At once just a curiosity of the internet, now a permanent fixture of my daily routine, Laser Time is just the right amount of profanity and intellectual insight to make your day just a little bit brighter than usual.
Chris, Brett, Michael, and Henry talk about the state of video game journalism, specifically game reviews, after the impact of #GamerGate, then discuss and defend their picks of games they awarded 10s to when they worked at GamesRadar.
Without a doubt, an episode I’ve listened to at least a hundred times. The Laser Time crew talk about their favorite WWE wrestlers from the different eras of pro wrestling. This episode has such remarkable pacing to it that I would want to perform it as a live-stage version of it if I could. Even if you don’t like wrestling, this episode might convert you.
Exactly what it says, Chris, who wrote for A Cartoon Christmas for 4 years, brings up the absolute worst X-mas specials ever made that range from the bizarre to the appallingly awful. A must if you’re a fan of obscure animation!
Did I mention that Laser Time is a vulgar program? This episode, however, explores instances of innocent/childhood characters and public personalities saying “naughty” things.
A hilarious episode from beginning to end, Brett names off some of the stranger spam accounts and messages he’s encountered from the spam filter of his website VGMpire.
In the first segment, the Laser Time crew talk about the 2011 movie then reminisce their childhood experiences with the Muppets. In the second segment, Brett quizzes Chris, Henry, and Tyler on which titles are either from Marvel comics or Star Trek episodes.
The Laser Time crew talk about songs that they are kind-of ashamed to admit they like. It contains one of the most hilarious reactions from Michael Grimm that I’ve ever heard.
Chris names his list of the top 5 unaired comedy pilots while the hosts bring up an interesting perspective on the inner workings of television in the 90’s.
A legendary episode that exemplifies the best of Laser Time. Both an engaging look at a time capsule of television, the Very Special Episode, and a hilarious deconstruction of the Very Special Episode format, this episode will make you feel wonderful and guilty for laughing. Warning: gets very uncomfortable in the end.
Props must be given to Chris Antista for editing together this 6 hour epic, celebrating the 100th episode of TalkRadar, his first podcast before Laser Time. This episode includes only the greatest hits TalkRadar reached up to that point. Like I said though, it’s 6-hrs. Break out the confetti and champagne!
It might be really hyperbolic to declare that this paper was the one I was born to write. But goddamn it, I was born to write this paper. Woody Allen is one of my heroes despite the many controversies that have surrounded his career, and his constantly entertaining and intellectually stimulating films present a sophisticated approach to comedy, one I can only help to reach in my career. (I’ll now take a break to film myself dancing like an idiot). Okay, I’m back. Oh right, context. I wrote this paper almost a year ago for my Jewish Image in Popular Film class. It’s one of the few papers I’ve written in college that I loved doing from beginning to end, relishing the days I could type up the next page with the enthusiasm that I have filming my silly projects. We were assigned to write about any kind of aspect of Jewish culture in relation to film. The first thought that popped into my head was “Woody Allen”. “Woody Allen.” Originally, this paper was much more ambitious as I wanted to talk about 3 films, but when I remembered I only had to write 10 pages, I stuck to just Annie Hall (1977) and Zelig (1983) as potential films to examine. I was lucky enough that I discussed Zelig the previous semester for a Comic Film class so I had my sources ready. I don’t why it’s taken this long for me to finally post it on the blog, but I’m glad that it’s finally here, after numerous re-edits. Brace yourselves, this is a long one.
Woody Allen is one of the most renowned Jewish filmmakers still working today. Beginning as a comedy director with many very broad Marx Brothers-like parodies, his nearly 40 year long career has seen him delving into different topics and situations that make it difficult to predict what his next film will be. Many agree that Allen's departure from broad comedies and into a more serious kind of comedy led to a development of Allen as a distinguished filmmaker. What Allen cannot completely remove from his reputation is that he was one of the funniest Jewish comedians in the early 60’s. The Woody Allen archetype of the neurotic Jew had been seen in many films since Allen began making comedies like Take the Money and Run but that might be one of the reasons why Allen tried to expand his abilities as a filmmaker and abandon the persona that endeared him to many audiences at the time. Critics note this departure after the release of his Oscar-winning film, Annie Hall, released in 1977 (1). The comedy in Annie Hall is derived from the characters, rather than extraordinary situations, and the grounded reality that the film both displays and takes advantage of due to the amount of times Allen breaks the fourth wall. Allen was aware of the success of Annie Hall but became resentful of it, especially with the amount of critics who claimed it was an autobiographical film. 6 years later, Allen made Zelig, a film which criticizes the culture that made him successful in the first place. Annie Hall's popularity was such that Allen's characterization became a cultural hero amongst the many other classic characters of cinema. This had a two-pronged effect, however, giving audiences another template to perceive Jews, leading to the contemporary variation of the neurotic Jew stereotype. Allen, in both Annie Hall but especially in Zelig, analyzes the culture that both canonized his character and oversimplified it to allow the neurotic Jew stereotype to become a part of the American culture.
Video by MOVIECLIPS Classic Trailers
Annie Hall is considered as Woody Allen's first foray into a more serious form of comedy and this is shown via the characterizations and the more broad vision depicted in Annie Hall. Woody Allen plays Alvy Singer, a middle-aged comedian, who leads the audience through the ins and outs of his relationship with Annie Hall, played by Diane Keaton. Vincent Canby, in his review of the New York Times, details how the experimental format of flashbacks, brief animated segments, and Allen's direct monologues to the audience are parts of "Alvy Singer's freewheeling, self-depreciating, funny and sorrowful search for the truth about his on-again, off-again affair with a beautiful young woman who is as emotionally bent as he is”. (2) Allen, unlike his more bombastic and entertaining comedies, focused himself in Annie Hall. The film goes in excruciating detail over every aspect of Alvy and Annie's relationship but does not detail specifically as to why the relationship eventually ends. The film's success exists in how it treats the relationship as a mature and adult complication that does not reduce itself into a simplistic melodrama. Allen shows the many relationships as they happened and how both sides were at fault to their eventual end. The film's realistic portrayal of relationships was a part of its mass appeal, but the American culture latched onto Allen's inimitable character of Alvy Singer.
Woody Allen's character of Alvy Singer is unabashedly Jewish yet has nuances that makes the character distinctly a Woody Allen character. Alvy, as a comedian, makes many intellectual observances about the world as a whole yet also constantly questions the necessity of life ever since he was a child knowing that the universe would spread apart in billions of years. Alvy's comedy routine is his public forum for his theories and ideas but he does not limit it to only that audience, but also the audience watching the film via his brief monologues to the camera. While Allen does not strictly attach himself personally to Alvy's character, David Galef, in his essay, Getting Even: Literary Posterity and the Case for Woody Allen, notices that "Allen's image, it turns out, is quite carefully cultivated: straddling know-ing and knowledgeable, hapless yet hip-in short…" (3) In this sense, Alvy Singer and Woody Allen are almost inseparable except if its considered that Alvy is a character that Woody Allen plays instead of an autobiographical depiction of himself. According to Don L. F. Nilsen, this is not the case. Nilsen, in his essay, Contemporary Jewish-American Authors, notices the trend Allen constantly portraying himself as " a bumbling Jewish neurotic with thick eyeglasses and a sad expression on his face. He has obsessive worries and guilts, a tentative voice, and various physical mannerisms like shrugs, quivers and hesitant pauses.” (4) The autobiographical aspect is questioned with how similar Alvy's life is similar to Allen's upbringing as a comedian but the audience viewing the film cannot help but have difficulty separating the character of Alvy from Allen himself. Ruth Perlmutter, in her essay, Woody Allen's Zelig: An American Jewish Parody, observes how "[Allen] is forever playing with the tension between star status and his own self-berating position as the typical schlemiel-that is, the bumbling inferior Jew…" (5) Allen begins to challenge the audience's perception of his Jewish characterization via his own character's insecurity with anti-Semitism.
Annie Hall directly acknowledges the American public’s tendency of simplifying Jewish cultural aspects via Alvy Singer's observations of the culture's perception of Jewish people. Alvy constantly tells his movie-star friend Rob, played by Tony Roberts, about how the culture sees him first as a Jew then as a person. Alexandra Heller-Nichols, in her essay, If Life Were Only Like This: Truth, Love and Annie Hall, details Alvy's perception of himself when he speaks to Rob as they walk over to the tennis courts: "Alvy has no illusions about the city, and even jokes about its perceived difference from the rest of America: 'Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers?'...'I think of us that way sometimes and I live here’”. (6) He is aware of the public's perception of himself as a Jew based on his physical traits and behavior. Alvy's anxiety leads him to think that someone, who he has a meeting with, was saying "Jew" instead of "you". Alvy is also guilty of stereotyping someone, specifically his first wife, Allison Portchnik, played by Carol Kane. Alvy meets Allison at a public rally and goes on to describe everything he notices about her in excruciating detail that even he notices that he been rambling on for too long. Allison responds by saying, "That was wonderful. I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype." Here, Allen demonstrates how ridiculous typecasting is and how its constant use makes it difficult to reject its effect and, in Allison’s case, relish it as well. In another blink-or-you-will-miss-it moment, Alvy has dinner with Annie's relatives, including Annie's anti-Semitic grandmother, who briefly pictures Alvy as a Hassidic Jew. This depiction of Alvy is a very ignorant and fear-mongering portrayal of all Jews with the impression that they do not change with time. Allen's choice in depicting himself this way is an aspect of self-depreciating humor that's regularly recognized as a Jewish trait.
Alvy Singer can be described as an inherently Jewish character although this perception of his humor is also perpetuating the stereotype of the neurotic Jew. Woody Allen's character has been considered as a Jewish character because of the many jokes he makes about himself. Allen, as understood by his birth name of Allen Stuart Konigsberg, was born a Jewish person and the characters he portrays are similar to the schlemiel. Nilsen describes the schlemiel as " vulnerable and inept...not saintly or pure, just weak. But he is highly symbolic of Jewish culture. The Jew, like the schlemiel, has traditionally not been in a position of strength, but has allowed humor to turn his weakness into strength”. (7) Alvy Singer does make up a lot of the traits as described by Nilsen but this limits Alvy's character into a template that ignores other aspects of Alvy's character like his diffidence in terms of sex. Joseph Mintz, in his essay, Stereotypes of Traditional Jewish Humor, perceives that "the 'uniquely Jewish' psyche is a fallacy of the same order as those that allow...the proliferation of Jewish stereotypes. It is generally agreed upon that there is no biological basis for the idea of race, and the idea of a "Jewish mind" is certainly a racist idea”. (8) In every subsequent characterization of a Jewish male, each of them follows the same template of the schlemiel as depicted with Alvy Singer's character. With this type of simplification, the culture latches onto Alvy Singer as the go-to portrayal for most Jewish males and hence, another simplified way the culture can observe the Jewish people. As Mintz mentions, "...the notion that Jewish humor is a uniquely self-deprecating tradition is itself a cultural stereotype". After Annie Hall, it would be 6 years until Allen directly referenced the nature of the American culture in his mockumentary, Zelig.
Video by Laura Ranzani
The film, Zelig, released in 1983, has a documentary-style and that also applies to the performances depicted in the film. (9) The film alternates from black and white archival footage to color interviews of people who either knew Leonard Zelig, played by Woody Allen, or discuss Zelig's cultural and historical relevance. Allen's performance of Zelig is very restrained in comparison to Alvy Singer who gets the majority of attention in Annie Hall. This allows the film to construct an idealized vision of who Zelig really is. Leonard Zelig becomes a more enigmatic character via the countless amounts of black and white photography showing Zelig metamorphosing into the people he is around. Perlmutter notes that Zelig "can change color, time, space, and dialect, thus personifying the comic's ability to defy natural and physical laws with his body distortions. Zelig can swell, dislocate, and forever adapt”. (10) The only fully formed character is Eudora Fletcher played by Mia Farrow. Farrow plays a determined psychiatrist who is the only one who sees Zelig as a human being and wants to cure him of his unusual condition. Eudora's involvement with Leonard humanizes her from every other character including the narrator, voiced by Patrick Harris, whose narration involves him in Zelig's exploitation as much as anyone else caught in the Zelig craze. Zelig details Leonard's life in an approachable format that is easy for the public to digest but, at the same time, disguising it to portray what the public wants to see.
The film Zelig knowingly chooses certain aspects of Leonard's life to highlight and expunge the culture's approach to glorifying its heroes. Leonard Zelig is a major departure from Allen's other characters. In his review for Film Quarterly, Robert Greenhut notices that, though" the title character takes his place among the neurotically self-deprecating comic-romantic protagonists of Allen's films, Zelig is perhaps the most distanced figure in that group”. (11) Discussion about Zelig begins with other intellectuals talking about his cultural relevance and impact and the film deliberately waits until a few minutes in before Leonard is allowed to speak and even then, he believes that he is a psychologist so the audience is delayed even further to Zelig's actual personality. The film is not only about Zelig; it also follows the struggles of Eudora Fletcher who is seen smoking by herself in some brief camera shots that are voyeuristic in nature considering how Eudora's private moment is now exposed to the audience against her wishes. The documentary begins tracing the growing relationship between Leonard Zelig and Eudora Fletcher as a way of understanding the fantastical scenario of a human chameleon. Perlmutter notes that "Zelig's uncanny ubiquity challenges the foolish consistency of trapping a central figure within a single-line discourse. The film thus interrogates the classical method of wooing the audience with the logic of sequential flow, progress toward closure, and other structures that propel invested characters along a narrative trajectory”. (12) Nevertheless, the film is about Zelig's extraordinary ability although Allen makes constant allusions to how Leonard Zelig is an allegory for the American Jew.
Zelig’s ability to morph into a different character is very similar to the actual dilemma of Jews trying to assimilate in America. Throughout the film, the audience learns of Zelig's motivations for trying to change into a different person. Zelig first gains his ability after he is startled by someone and transforms into that person to make himself feel more comfortable. Perlmutter notes how Zelig's eagerness "to be absorbed into the dominant culture...epitomizes the dilemma of the American Jew who wants to change his or her ethnic envelope in order to be socially integrated”. (13) This idea is highlighted further when Zelig can successfully transform into a black person and, as the narrator states, as an "Oriental". Seeing Allen in blackface immediately recalls the difficulties Jewish people had in the early 20th century trying to succeed in the entertainment industry and the only way they could ever get any work is by performing in blackface. As Greenhut notices, "the conformist impulse leads Zelig to become a Nazi in Hitler's Germany: as such he is not only "the ultimate conform-ist" but also a bitterly ironic comment on the Jew who, in the words of one of the film's Reds-like "witnesses," "wanted to assimilate like crazy”. (14) Zelig's success could not have happened if it was not for the wanton desire of the culture to cash in the Zelig craze.
Zelig becomes an unusual mockumentary when the audiences notes just how charged American culture became with its rampant obsession with Leonard Zelig. The brief interview from academic intellectuals only hints at the impact that Leonard had in America during the apex of his popularity. Not long after, the film's narrator talks about the immense amount of products and advertisements that plastered Zelig's image almost everywhere. This was the result of Zelig's uncle manipulating Leonard from the beginning of his life, including keeping Zelig in a cage in a carnival where he could seen along with the other “freaks”. Perlmutter discusses how "[t]his character hybridization–Zelig as both a freak (societal deviant, exceptional man with a unique identity) and a conformist (loser of identity) fed to the consuming public–reinforces a view of parody as a modal barometer of the social self”. (15) The public puts both Zelig’s achievements and his failures into view. Zelig's personal life becomes the source of scandal and the public's shifting views of him as a hero or as a scoundrel depend entirely on what their moral viewpoints are. For example, Leonard is forced into exile once allegations of women he slept with begin to turn up and the public vilifies Zelig’s adultery. Simply put, Zelig is at the mercy of the public's view and his survival is dependent on what their opinions are of him. Greenhut states that "...Zelig is also the bewildered and dehumanized victim of a society in which he is alternately glamorized and vilified, glorified and institutionalized, celebrated and commercialized, liberated and "fine-tuned," commemorated and forgotten”. (16)
Throughout Zelig, Allen finds many opportunities to put the culture's values into question into understanding why they misused Leonard Zelig. The documentary itself is guilty of exploiting Zelig. During one of the interview segments, a TV personality interviews Eudora Fletcher's mother. Every one of his questions has a positive inflection to it but Eudora's mother could not care less about her daughter's notoriety and tells the interviewer how much she hates her daughter much to the interviewer's chagrin who cuts the interview short. Here, the film details the culture's obsession to only wanting to observe a digestible aspect of the story and ignoring the most humane ideas that flesh out Zelig as a character but does not reduce him to a novelty. Perlmutter notices that "[Allen's] mockery of the movies' promotion of fandom, imitation, and fantasy and a preoccupation with his status as an American Jew [is] inserted into and engulfed by a problematic culture”. (17) Allen, throughout the film, pinpoints the viewers to Zelig's reputation and public image existing only because of his ability to transform into other people, a remarkable yet simplistic feat. Allen also chose to have his spoken character reduced to only a few short segments as the legend of Leonard Zelig grew. Here, Allen notifies to the audience how the public's view of ideas is the only one that matters, no matter how general it is. Allen is aware of his neurotic Jew personality that lead to stardom but also notes how the public chose to exploit that character in order to simplify the culture's view of male Jews, bringing back into mind how Annie's anti-Semitic grandmother immediately viewed Alvy as a Hassdic Jew and nothing else. Even the film, Zelig, acknowledges this at the very end once Zelig and Eudora are reunited and the camera chooses not to follow them when they stroll behind their house, out of the public's eye and out of the audience’s as well.
Woody Allen has explored many different themes and genres since directing Annie Hall almost 35 years ago, going far beyond his character of Alvy Singer with the interest of exploring different assortments of characters. Allen never completely abandons his schlemiel character, playing a director who falls in love with a TV producer in Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) but his treatment of the character in Zelig demonstrates Allen’s acknowledgement of the character’s effect to the culture yet challenges himself to go beyond the character and the culture’s simplification of the character. Allen, as a Jewish filmmaker, did not hesitate to present aspects of his culture or his insecurities and that alone is an admirable accomplishment considering how, beyond the simplicities of the schlemiel, Allen’s characterization harkens on difficult themes of death, philosophy, and identity. Once the American culture can notice these characteristics, a more intellectual discussion of his films can begin.
Works Cited:
(1) Annie Hall. Dir. Woody Allen. By Woody Allen and Marshall Brickman. Perf. Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, and Tony Roberts. MGM Home Entertainment, 1977. DVD.
(2) Canby, Vincent. "Annie Hall,' Allen at His Best" New York Times (1923-Current file); Apr 21, 1977; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2009) pg. 77. 17 Nov 2013.
(3) Galef, David. "Getting Even: Literary Posterity and the Case for Woody Allen." South Atlantic Review, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Spring, 1999), pp. 146-160. Published by: South Atlantic Modern Language Association. JSTOR. 17 Nov. 2013
(4), (7) Nilsen, Don L. F. "Humorous Contemporary Jewish-American Authors: An Overview of the Criticism.” MELUS, Vol. 21, No. 4, Ethnic Humor (Winter, 1996), pp. 71-101. Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for the Study of the Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States (MELUS). JSTOR. 17 Nov. 2013
(5), (10), (12), (13), (15), (17) Perlmutter, Ruth. (1991). “Woody Allen's Zelig: An American Jewish Parody”. A. Horton (Ed.), Comedy/Cinema/Theory, (206-221). Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
(6) Heller-Nicholas, Alexandra. "If Life Were Only Like This: Truth, Love And Annie Hall." Screen Education 70 (2013): 94-97. Film &Television Literature Index with Full Text. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.
(8) Mintz, Joseph. “Stereotypes of Traditional Jewish Humor”. Case Jewish Studies E-journal, Vol. 2, No. 2 (December 2009), pp. 3-4. Published by: Judaic Studies at CWRU. PDF. 17 Nov. 2013
(9) Zelig. Dir. Woody Allen. By Woody Allen. Perf. Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. Orion Pictures/Warner Bros, 1984. DVD.
(11), (14), (16) Greenhut, Robert. "Zelig by Woody Allen; Review by: Peter Hogue and Marion Bronson". Film Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 28-31. Published by: University of California Press. JSTOR. 17 Nov. 2013
The Rodriguez brothers turn to the silver [digital] screen for their next episode. In the first segment, Arlill talks about behind-the-scenes experiences working as a part-time director for IgniteTV. In the second segment, the brothers talk about movies [and live shows] they’ve seen over the summer. Spoilers ahead! DOWNLOAD [36:09]
We are constantly tweaking the podcast format so if you have any suggestions or questions, feel free to post them in the comments.
Airplane Interruptions this week: 36
Technical info:
Recorded with Garageband '14 and Adobe Audition CC by Arlill and Gary Rodriguez
Edited with Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 and Adobe Audition CC by Arlill Rodriguez
"Random Chatterings Theme Song (piano and orchestrated versions)" composed by Sergiy Turchyn
"Piano Concerto #2 In C Minor, Op. 18 - 2. Adagio Sostenuto" composed by Rachmaninov
"Gojira [1954] Main Theme" composed by Akira Ifukube
It's been a while since I've updated the blog so it should be fair to let you guys know exactly what's going on. First of all, the blog is going through some massive changes. As you can tell on the tabs, some things have been changed. For one, "short films" has its own tab now since the blog will become a focus on video-related projects from now on. What this also means is that there will be more periodic posts detailing the process of film-making (that I know at this point in my career). This means behind-the-scenes photos of short films I'm working on, and maybe even some commentaries if I can figure out how to do that. This is because I've realized that in my three years of maintaining the blog that I enjoy writing anything if it's related to film. If I ever do write a short story/poem, I will post it on the blog but expect more film-related posts from now on. I feel like I've said the same thing three times so I will move on. The "Other Things" tab includes both Presenters posts and Now What? posts. I think this will make the blog more interesting to read and for me, at least, it'll make the blog worth investing in. I look forward to update you all on progress on The College Student: Nutrition and any other projects I'll work on in the near future. I will also try to diversify the blog with occasional reviews, recommendations, academic papers, and unearthing certain..."works of art" from my past. You've been warned.
And with that, what the hell is the Comedy Journal? Well, my dear reader, I will tell you. I took a class last semester on comedy films. One of the assignments we had was to keep a journal of moments that we personally found very humorous. The catch was that we could only write down humorous observances, not situations that happened to us. We could also write about comical things that we found on the internet. So this is the comedy journal I turned in for the class. Iz purty gud. (groans)
Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2013 I was walking by Adelbert, walking to my next class, and watched the many other "faceless" students also walking hastily to their next objective. A van waited to turn right on Euclid. Across the street, a student stood very still as he called someone. I thought about a white van full of pranksters that see the student. Their friend, Emily, has been talking with them and the van door is open. The driver says, "We're gonna get him good! Grab her!" Emily says, "What?!" The guys grab and pull her into the van, leaving the student shocked by what he's just seen. The driver laughs heartily until he looks in his side mirror and sees the panicked student struggling to dial his phone. The van swerves into traffic and stops in front of the student, with the guilty driver trying to explain himself. The student does not think that the prank was very funny and it doesn't help that Emily continues to play the role of the captured woman to further incriminate her boyfriend, the van driver. Friday, August 30, 2013 A student grimaced when he sees a wet floor sign used as a doorstop right at the entrance of a bathroom, not wanting to think about why the floor is wet. It didn't help that he walked toward the urinal and made squeaking noises at every step. A student gets a hot dog from the dining room. He gets the brilliant idea to put a slice of cheese in his hot dog. He waits until he gets back to his seat. He wraps the cheese around the sausage and is puzzled when the cheese unwraps itself. He keeps trying to wrap it again and again but the cheese will not bend to his will. Wednesday, September 5, 2013 I was eating in the dining hall and noticed that younger students tend to go sit with people they already know. As they sit in their chairs, satisfied that they have found their common group of friends, I reminded myself that I have my own group of friends, the table and chairs at the corner of the dining halls. They are always in the same place and every time, they look forward to seeing me as I assure them that I will never abandon them. Never, ever. Wednesday, September 12, 2013 On the left side of the bridge, there’s a serviceably sized parking structure for students, faculty, and the sort. The building isn’t completely rectangular; in fact, the roof slants downward but the rest of the building is perfectly rectangular. It looks like there’s a large, invisible weight sitting on top of the building, literally bending the roof into a curve. Thursday, September 19, 2013 I have a fairly good view of downtown Cleveland from my building/residential house/dorm. Directly across from my window, there is a tall building with bright, clear lights blaring out from the window. The window looks like an adorable, confused, round ghost straight out of Pac-Man and at night, its eyes light up in the midst of the somewhat dreary Cleveland skyline. Tuesday, September 24, 2013 A long yet beautiful day was approaching its end. The bright, yellowy glow from the sun's dying rays crossed paths with the tall, glass windows until landing on some exhausted student's face. The young student was reading a complicated book on Philosophy with an even more complicated title. Suddenly, President Obama awoke the young student and told him that he was taking his seat. The student jumped up and landed on his bum. His glasses falling to the floor, he quickly looked around hastily to see if the president was still there. Alas, upon seeing the potted plants placed on the opposite ends of the windows, he remembered he was not at the White House, but at the marshmallow-y chairs found at Kelvin Smith Library. Friday, September 27, 2013 The windmill: a proof of Case's commitment to the future to renewed energy and flying cars. The old medical building with a single smokestack sticking from the top: the image Case Photoshops out of every pamphlet when they mention their progressive environmentally friendly agenda. Practically standing across the street from each other, these two titans are ready to wage war against each other, a battle no one will pay attention to due to the urgent examinations that must be taken care of first. Tuesday, October 1, 2013 An old house right behind my dorm building was torn down recently. It had been boarded up and it was a matter of time before the bulldozers finally brought it down. The walls and debris were swept away, leaving behind the trails that look suspiciously like crop circles. It's only a matter of time before the UFO's are redirected from Roswell and land instead in University Circle. Tuesday, October 8, 2013 Brawl In the Family comic strip: Sonic's Eyes Sonic is a video game character with a rather unusual design. His eyes aren't separated like other characters/humans but are instead placed together. It doesn't make sense without some kind of image. Anyway, this humorous and cute comic strip makes three jokes at Sonic's expense about his unusual design, one where his pupils intersect at the center, one where he loses his contact lenses which look like goggles, and the last one where Sonic looks cross-eyed much to his friend's dismay who runs away frightened by what he's just seen. Sonic removes his sleep mask and prompts two bugs to fly away. Thursday, October 16, 2013 I'm talking with a friend and the topic of humor comes up. She talks about how she is not completely sure why she laughs or chuckles at certain things. Knowing how sensitive she is about certain things, I try to explain my sense of humor. I have difficulty explaining my morbid and cynical sense of humor to her until I try to make an example of it. In a single breath, I explain to her how, in a few billion years, the human race as we know it will be extinct. Shortly after, in astronomy scale, Earth will be swallowed up by the Sun with the rest of the Solar System to follow. The Sun will blow up and then the universe will continue to spin around until it expands forever and eventually freeze into place forever and ever. We're laughing as hard as we ever had at the sheer absurdity of this reality that we will never see. Tuesday, October 29, 2013 We watch the film Borat in my Jewish Image in Popular Film class. Despite the film's offensive nature, it's one of my favorite satirical comedies of the past few years. Curiously, I looked up the Wikipedia article about the film and read the "Controversy" section. The amount of lawsuits levied against the film was astounding. In connection with the Carnivalesque, it was understandable that most people who made fools of themselves on camera would find it difficult to laugh at themselves. But the fact people's first reaction was to sue and try to win some money for the misuse of their public image shows how little they learned from the film in the first place, a film made to expose hypocrisy in the US in the most daring way possible. Saturday, November 9, 2013 My suite-mate and I talk for a very long time about nonsense. At some point, he stumbles over and almost falls down as I reach out to catch him. He plants his feet on the ground and says, "I decided to fall down but then I decided not to." It took me a while to compose myself after laughing really hard at his comment. It took a while longer to explain why the moment was hysterical in the first place. Tuesday, November 15, 2013 Nature reared its ugly head again and blew away every single leaf on the tree in front of my building. Every branch looked a thin and crooked line that would have been drawn by a kindergartener. I also couldn't stop but think about how each branch also looked laundry being wrung clean especially by how much it flickered and waved around in the wind.
Before we begin, I should mention that the previous essay on Early Summer was a similar assignment in format and content. Basically, we had to examine a continuous 3-5 minute scene and, using the film as evidence, formulate an argument about the entire film that the scene represents. I took a class on the Horror Film, hence why the trailer above is for The Exorcist, the "scariest film of all time." Before watching this movie, I did hesitate in watching it (again and again) for the purposes of a paper, mostly because of the infamous maze game (not the actual video) that rewarded its players with an extreme closeup of the possessed child. To me, The Exorcist was basically this image for 75 minutes. After finally watching the film, I found it to be one of the more forgiving horror films I've seen. Let me explain. Unlike the original 1974 release of the Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which from beginning to end, induced a relentless mood of dread and grotesqueness, The Exorcist frightened you for one minute then had 5 minutes of exposition, allowing the viewer to process the previous scenes more easily. During the brainstorming process for this essay, I thought about interpreting the film as a metaphor for puberty, but upon realizing how little I know about pre-teen girls in that age, I thought about how the film relegates the "monster"(Linda Blair), if we wish to call her that, into a single location that the other characters, specifically the mother (Ellen Bursytn), has to constantly return to throughout the film, making me consider the film's subtle critique about the security of the household. Without a doubt, however, The Exorcist is one of the most disturbing films ever made and if you can look beyond that creepy face, you might enjoy this horror classic.
The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973) in the guise of being a typical horror film, is also a reinterpretation of the creature, established in early horror cinema, as a contained beast. In the film, a young 12-year old girl suddenly becomes more aggressive, violent and profane much to the concern of her distressed mother. The film introduces a conflicting dynamic with the mother locking her daughter in her room, always coming to her daughter's aid when she desperately needs it but becoming more and more horrified at what her daughter is becoming. The issue of security in the household is demonstrated in The Exorcist via from the film's display of the safe home.
The scene [10:27-12:25] opens with an extreme long shot of the city of Georgetown and the sound of a plane flying overhead. The camera zooms in to one of the many buildings in Georgetown as we hear car honks and kids playing nearby. We then cut to Chris's room where she has turned on her lamp and hears a noise. Chris puts on her orange robe over her white nightgown and walks to the banister. She hears the noise again, and a low angle shot shows Chris assuming the noise is from the attic. She opens the door to her daughter Regan's room and from a POV shot, we see Regan sleeping and the window open. The camera then slowly tracks Chris as she closes the window, approaches Regan's bed, and kisses her daughter on the forehead, telling Regan that she loves her.
The film presents the ideal of a secure community and establishes the risks present in giving too much confidence in it. In the establishing shot of Georgetown [10:27-10:50] we are introduced to a more pleasant and familiar setting of houses rounding out the block. With this brief glimpse, we get the feeling of how diverse and historical the city is with large mansions peeking out in the background and a tall clock tower that is barely visible from the hazy sky. We also see the cars are traveling at just the right speed, almost as though the drivers were coordinated and in less of a hurry, a casual drive across the way. As the camera zooms in and tracks Chris' apartment, we hear many of the noises associated with urban life: an airplane zooming, cars honking, buses hissing, and children playing nearby. With the camera zooming in as slowly as possible, it lures the viewer into the peaceful nature of the city and assures us that there is nothing wrong. When Chris goes to her daughter's room, [11:40-11:50], she notices that Regan, wearing a bright yellow pajama, sleeps without the covers on her and tightly holds the pillow close to her, unaware that her room is getting colder. With the window open, we get reminded of the noises of the city, but also notice that they are much louder than before. The city noises are a brief reminder of the numerous threats that exists from outside of the window and outside of the home. Regan is left vulnerable to any potential threat and in turn, reminds us of the possibility of intrusion into our own homes. To further validate the idea of false security, Chris, after brushing Regan's hair, appreciatively says, "I sure do love you" and kisses her on the forehead. It is a parental instinct to kiss our loved ones when they get injured or scratched and is an effective placebo although nothing actually changes; the child still has the scratches and the brief trauma of their injury.
The film utilizes the screen space to begin stirring up dubious feelings about the security of the household. The film constantly pairs up scenes that have noticeable size differences to create a startling effect that keeps the viewer alert. One example is how immediately after zooming in to the house, the film cuts to an extreme close up of the lamp pointing away from us. The film also plays around with space, using very stark shapes to orientate the perspective and direction we intend to look at but the following shot contradicts it. This conflict creates a type of unfamiliarity with the space that unbalances the action-taking place. The film, cutting from a less distant shot to a further one [11:17], also emphasizes the distance between Chris and Regan's room. In this case, it makes it appear longer than it really is, increasing the suspense Chris has as she walks toward the noise, and making it clear that there can be doubt and tension from walking a short distance, even from within a familiar place. In the same shot [11:17], the camera is placed right where two bars of the banister, out of focus, enclose Chris within a space until the camera moves up and tracks Chris' movement, giving the impression that Chris is being watched. After hearing the noise again, Chris becomes much more reserved and ties up her robe, anxiously looking in all directions for the source of the noise. Shortly after [12:01-12:04], Chris walks more hastily to her daughter's room where she has a bit of trouble opening the door.
Doors, as a form of security, are shown to be a frightening aspect in the movie when it accomplishes the opposite of its intended purpose. After hearing the noise, we cut to an extreme close up of the doorknob [11:03] then cuts right back to Chris. For a brief moment, the film makes it unclear as to which door the doorknob opens and even creates anxiety when it appears that the doorknob jiggles for a split second before the camera goes back to Chris. This accentuates the uncertainty created from a doorknob delaying the viable danger, as it is made very unclear as to when the doorknob shot was intended for and, in this case, being a literal delay from the film allowing Chris to get up and open the door. The door is the only thing dividing Chris and her daughter after Regan becomes possessed later in the film [44:35]. For Chris, her daughter becoming possessed is no different from discovering a burglar has broken into the room as it is an unexpected breach of her indemnity. The door and the window are both meant to keep the characters safe but the film conditions them as potential hazards.
The window is another example of when security is put into question as to how effective a window can be as a form of protection. The window is meant to protect whoever is inside, but unlike the wooden door, it mostly made of very fragile glass. To the homeowner, the window becomes an illusion of security that is only intended as an aesthetic inclusion that cannot protect the home without reinforcement. In the film, the window is at the opposite side of the door, increasing the tension created from Chris walking across the room to close the window and inspect the room. The moving curtains [12:05] also emphasis another fraudulent form of security as a transparency that appears to make the room more private and disregarding that any stray rock thrown instantly shatters the illusion of a protected house. At the end of the film, Damian, the priest, deliberately dives through the window to stop the devil from possessing him, killing himself in the process [2:01:30-2:02:40].
A horror film is designed to make the viewer dread the unknown or the misunderstood, whether it is a monster or an abandoned cemetery. The Exorcist, however, considers another potential source for fear, the room where your loved one resides, transformed against their own will. As previously mentioned, the door gradually becomes conditioned as a tense hesitation. However, the film also recognizes how an unstable bond or a lack of understanding within the family can also be a horrific element. For any parent in a caring relationship with their child, nothing could be more terrifying than coping with your loved one's sudden transformation without understanding it. Despite Regan's conversion via the devil's possession, a concerned parent would never regard her or their loved one as a "monster", believing wholeheartedly that their child's innocence is still preserved within. The other question is whether it would be better to strictly enforce the house's security by reducing the connection to the outside world to only the front door or believing the illusion of a protected house if only to get a glimpse of something pleasant outside every now and then.
Works cited:
The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen. Dir. William Friedken. Perf. Ellen Burstyn, Max Von Sydow, Linda Blair, Lee J. Cobb. Warner Home Video, 1973. DVD.
Part three of a three-part "weekly" series. This was the paper that convinced me to begin this series as it was the first time I remembered that I was enthusiastic throughout the entire process about writing a paper on a movie I didn't expect to love. We were told in our Intro to Film class not to evaluate the movie directly and only make an argumentative assessment as to what the film ultimately means. I can already mention that this will be a difficult film to watch simply because it is not like many of the contemporary films we see nowadays. I can't explain why that is and even after watching the film twice for the paper, I don't think I explained my reaction understandably and why the film had a profound effect on me on how I will approach my projects in the future, much like my masterpiece, Awkward Arley. I will admit that the other reason I'm posting this is because it was the first essay I wrote and turned on time that received an A-. For that achievement alone, I think it is appropriate to post this although it won't make sense to those who have not seen the film, Early Summer. If you have two hours to spare, please watch the movie and give it a chance. It might just surprise you.
Early Summer (Yasujiro Ozu, 1951) introduces a different interpretation of the household, distancing it from the saccharine fantasy depicted in many US films and instead presenting something that demands interpretation. The film explores the dynamics of the Mamiya family, all living together in the same house for many years. Although it introduces the family as though they are emotionally close, we begin to understand how there is a disconnect in their understanding of the world and in each other. Not only is there emotional distancing between the different family members but also in the film itself within the visible screen space. In the opening sequence [2:31-5:31], a dog runs along the beach just as the waves are rolling in. The waves continue to roll by for a few moments until the film cuts to a bird chirping in a cage. Not long after, the film cuts to birds in two cages, each noticeably distant from the other. Here, we are first introduced to a room of the Mamiya house is devoid of anything except the birdcages and the interior walls. We jump cut to Grandpa making tea in another room and later on to the table where the family is eating breakfast. The film jump cuts to an extreme long shot of the breakfast table, right when Grandpa takes his seat. The beach is a constant theme in Early Summer that refers back to isolation. We refer back to the opening scene "[2:31-2:41] where we see the waves approaching the shore where there is a little dog that wanders back and forth along the shoreline until it walks off-screen." Without any kind of prior knowledge, we are immediately presented with a lone puppy that does not seem to know where it is going. With only the waves rolling by as the only sound we hear, it is an unsettling opening that establishes the tone the rest of the film has with regards to emptying the space and thinking about what is missing. The ocean can also be seen as a meditative device that anchors the viewer into trying to piece together all of the relationships that we are introduced to later on. We get this impression later on when the film shows us "the waves approaching the shore until the film cuts abruptly to a bird in a cage [2:41-2:51]". The ocean becomes an emotional release that simplifies the confusing nature of the film yet also acknowledging how it remains an important element throughout the film. In both ways, the ocean has both observations of isolation: as a potentially dangerous choice or as an occasional necessity. The ocean is represented again "at [1:11:42-1:12:09] when the kids walk along the road, frustrated at their father for not buying their train tracks." The scene makes us focus on how their thought process isolates them from the adults' and how the kids have knowingly endangered themselves by leaving their home. The use of framing in Early Summer is its own unconventional device that further establishes the isolation within the screen space. After the waves, "[3:00-3:08] the film jumps right to the bird cage and has on a match on action shot related to sound as the bird chirping leads to the next shot of the other two bird cages." A striking detail is how one of the cages is shone in the bright light and the other cage is out of focus and covered in darkness. In this brief shot, we notice how the film chooses to keep certain things in and out of focus that at once balances the shot within the frame but also leaves with the impression of a seemingly empty house. The moment is brief but it forces the viewer to look very closely and understand exactly where in the house we currently are. The film repeats this shot only a few moments later when Isamu's brother goes to the hallway to get pickles for Noriko. If it was not for the innocent traditional music that begins playing and establishes the house as a friendly place, this scene would be much more unsettling. As the perspective is shifted at a diagonal perspective and the focus of the frame is on the characters, leaving the defined lines of the entrances and hallways as unusual elements that further distance ourselves from the characters. In the "breakfast scene [4:17-4:30], the camera completely changes direction and opts to have Noriko facing away from the camera", which is a startling moment for a viewer expecting to see both faces. By doing this, we can only imagine what facial expressions Noriko is making even if Noriko's character seems to be a predictably optimistic one from the first sight. What's more unusual is how we do not really know who any of the characters are in the beginning and how we can easily confuse their roles with other characters. Unlike contemporary films of this day and age that overuse closeups and extreme closeups to emphasize character interactions, Early Summer challenges the viewer to make our interpretations as to what the family is thinking and doing. Much like the film's opening, we are instantly dropped into the household with few details other than the ones we can assume at first sight. There's very little camera movement in Early Summer, or at least, very dramatic camera movement such as a tracking shot that follows the characters around. Instead, the film opts for having many cuts of a character entering and leaving rooms but leaving the camera fixed at one point, at a low height and at a straight-on angle. In fact, the camera seems to jump around from room to room and remains fixed in one place although it occasionally moves closer to the characters but only when it seems necessary and does not abuse it as often as contemporary films do nowadays. Likewise, the idea of having separate rooms can be interpreted as individual spaces that further establish the seclusion that is represented in the film. Later on, the camera sits at a low height and begins moving into the room, emphasizing how the film tends to jump around scene to scene once a certain shot has fulfilled its purpose. In each individual shot, we are only given a small glimpse of each room. This further distances us from the characters and we are left only to observe their actions which could be as inconsequential as going from one room to the next to later in the film when Noriko runs up to her room and cries at the thought of leaving her family behind. In a way, the individual shots are secluded thoughts or concepts that the characters seems to jump in and out of them, seeming to casual interact with the space that we pay very close attention to. It’s also interesting to acknowledge how many other moments of story space the film decides to not show us. One such example is after we have learned about the family's desires for Noriko to get married; she casually mentions how she will be going to her friend's wedding. In another film, we would've seen Noriko at the wedding and her emotional response to being at the ceremony and comparing to her situation but in Early Summer, the only reference we get of that wedding is the cake Noriko brings back home. Another supposedly important moment is when the kids run away from home after Koichi hits them for misbehaving. Instead of focusing on searching for the kids, instead we see Koichi and Kenkichi playing poker and talking about their lives and later receiving a phone call, keeping the focus only on the characters rather than a potentially unfulfilling moment that distracts the viewer from the overall focus of the plot. The film makes us focus on the many perspectives of all of the characters but never forces us a message on us and never designates which character is right or wrong. The movie is about life. Later on, we see the kids complaining to their father Koishi about bringing home bread when they thought Koichi would get tracks for their train set. The children are focused on having the attention solely on themselves and getting whatever they want. It's understood that the kids could also be a form of comic relief when the film becomes dramatic. As the film goes on, we're presented with the lifestyle and differences in ideology from what we're used to seeing. The emotions of the characters aren't clearly defined or spoken out loud. It might bother us to see the other characters hoping for 28-year old Noriko to suddenly find a person to marry and being aware of the pressure given to her by her family until we remember when the film was created: 1951, 6 years after the end of World War II and the catastrophic damage done to Japan and we can begin to understand where the pressure is coming from. Throughout the film, we get many references to the hardships the family has gone through such as when Noriko and her sister are eating cake and they recognize what the value of cake is compared to something they would actually need. Another example of the film's unusual way to portray life shortly after the breakfast scene when Noriko waits at the train station and talks with her childhood friend, Kenkichi, who she will end up getting engaged to later on. There is an extreme long shot of the train moving from the right side of the frame to the left with the music from the title sequence playing again. Unlike many other films that focus on having an overall conflict that pushes forth the direction of the film, Early Summer isn't as forceful with its own narrative. Early Summer becomes a more complicated film than we give it credit for. In its portrayal of the family dynamic as an isolated space rather than something picturesque, the film includes another depth of meaning to its already complicated ideal. The characters wear different kinds of clothing that confuse us into understanding what time period we are currently in the film but after a while we begin to realize how unimportant that kind of thinking is. If we wanted to explain the plot of the film very succinctly, we would be doing a disservice to the meaning of the film. Early Summer is a mysterious film that forces us to closely examine the characters in a way that is not encouraged in other contemporary films.
Works cited: Early Summer. Dir. Yasujiro Ozu. Perf. Setsuko Hara, Chishu Ryu, Chikage Awashima, Kuniko Miyake. Shochiku, 1951. DVD.
September 20, 2011...
Another week, another couple of pounds of brain fat at lost to thought. Whatever…that could mean. Things have gone well, but not swimmingly well yet. I have been working on my art history paper, due next Wednesday, my Spanish paper, due the following Wednesday, my Philosophy realization (which I’ll explain soon-Ed. note, I forgot to do that), and my presentation for SAGES, as well as my normal rations of homework. And that’s only till the end of the month! I knew the work was going to pile up, but I didn’t expect it this soon. If I just take it slow and steady, I might just be able to survive September with enough ligaments in my fingers for typing a seven-page paper. It has been an unexpectedly defining week, however. I’ve become closer with my roommate, my friend who lives across the hall, and with my own family. Something I’m especially beginning to miss is the appetizer sandwiches my mom occasionally made right before dinner. Standard ingredients: white (or wheat) bread slathered with mayo and mustard, ham, lettuce, tomatoes, mozzarella cheese, and slightly toasted for a satisfying crunching sound. Simple, yet perfect. I am reminded of how often my family embarrassed me, and how I’d wish their personalities were tweaked a little bit, but I’m realizing that their personalities define them for they are and I’ll won't dare to change that. I had dinner with my roommate’s family on Saturday, that was lovely(aside from the fact that I hadn’t left my dorm all day) since I had a delicious dinner, a very invigorating conversation, and got to see the most astounding record collection. I also saw my first record player, and got to listen to my first record: Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd. The first chords silently slipped through the speakers, a warm orange glow surrounded the walls, and my roommate’s father’s tales of musical ecstasy enchanted me. It was the perfect evening until my roommate took me to the Ingeniutyfest. It wasn’t a terrible event, but it was terribly overwhelming, with the numerous colorful works that attacked your senses, the amount of people who were there, the amount of people as high as paint chipping, and the amount of products being sold. I did like a huge wall that you could draw on, a dazzling performance by a woman with flexibility and large amounts of drapery, and an artist’s photoshops of numerous landmarks. It’s a night I won’t soon forget (for the wrong reasons). This weekend also featured my first chance to work directly with one of the guys of IgniteTV. We talked about his career and how it boils down to many avant-garde projects made only for his amusement, and our first conversation about potentially working on one of my projects. He told me that I’d have to wait till Wednesday to pitch my idea and see if it gets approved, which is discouraging, encouraging, and nerve wrecking. If all goes well, I’ll be able to direct my first short film which is a lifelong dream of mine. As always, we’ll just have to see what happens.
