Talent Drivers - Trailer

Directed by Michael O'Hara, this is a sample for an upcoming project.

It can be voted for on IPF (www.ipf.ca )  Chilly day helping out on this;

played an "A.D" in cut shots, but ended up as an "E.T."

Woody Allen Controversy - Who Is To Be Believed?

What we DO know is that a) Mia reacted much more passionately to the Soon-Yi thing at the time (producer had to persuade her to come back to shoot the last couple of scenes for Husbands and Wives) than any allegation supposedly put forward by Dylan (after the charge of molestation, she still called Woody about costume fittings for Manhattan Murder Mystery due to shoot in 5 weeks). b) Alleged venue of abuse was the attic Woody wouldn't go into c) Team Mia - Dylan and Ronan - were 7 and an infant respectively, whereas Team Woody Soon-Yi and Moses make more credible witnesses of the context of the household circa 1992. d) Woody would have been happy with Soon-Yi and on enemy turf on the date in question where such a monstrous risk and violation is unlikely. e) Woody has had 22 years of his name being sullied for the accusations alone. f) Two states have vetted him and Soon-Yi for current adoptions g) Why did Mia sign-off on her footage for the tribute that so offended her unless she wanted it as an excuse to fan the flames? h) Woody has directed 22 films since 1992 and acted in others and received honours for which Mia was silent (apart from writing What Falls Away) while her career sputtered.  i) If she was such a great mother, why treat Soon-Yi as the "other woman" and shut her out?  And if Woody were a pedo, how would it escape the notice of Soon-Yi ?  Therefore I believe the brainwashing angle.    

Ten years and ghosts

Ten years ago, 2004, I did not own a video camera and I did not have my own editing software. I wasn't even on-line at home until 2005. I was using the public library computers. 2005 was different. Lots of time to edit and make little videos and daydream. This was before HD rendered everything obsolete. But why I'm thinking about 2004 is that I keep bumping into an actress I knew from a film troop or co-op I was part of back then. We were involved in a few shorts and I met some interesting and fun people. There was a window of time when things were good. In the first session, we voted for a handful of short scripts to shoot and then held little events to raise money, although I don't recall anything about how that was spent since I was not involved in that. My short was the last to shoot, but we involved a lot of actors in the group and a few from outside it. Ten the founders of the group decided to have a screening and solicit ads from local stores for the printed program. Some of us were skeptical, but we failed to imagine what might go wrong. The founder who suggested the program ads ended up having the best results. He personally raised over a thousand dollars, ostensibly for the group to produce four unspecified shorts to be voted for. But once he raised the money, he decided - gee, what if his script isn't voted for and he has done all that legwork truly for the group and he did not benefit from it. This definitely should have been anticipated. For me and a handful of other members, there was a fine line of ethics. He has since apologized for I presume badmouthing me at the time, since I was most outspoken in questioning this. I knew he was doing an arty script that nobody really understood and there might have been wittier options. He might have even composed a better one himself, since he was a published playwright. I would admit that I was lucky my own script was chosen in the last round because it was experimental and weird and satirical. But anyway, when I first heard this round would be different I phoned the founders and left voice mails but did not hear back, then I spoke to them in person and at a meeting, and only then did I wrap up in e-mail. Ironically, during the most heated meeting they bashed me for opting to communicate through e-mail instead of the other modes that I have just mentioned. Convenient memory. One actress in particular must have joined the choir of people blaming me for the dissolution of the group and started one of her own. The founder used the thousand-plus on his own film and then didn't publish it anywhere and didn't feel it was up to snuff. Too bad. I would have watched it. But to this day that actress I know has some kind of unflattering characterization of me. I am fairly certain she shared that with a guy who ran a screenwriting circle as well, so he in turn snubbed me somewhat. So honesty is the gift that keeps on giving.

Finding Blogger

If I'm away from blogging a while, it is a fresh challenge to see how Google has tucked it away. First, log in to Google, then click on the set of squares that give no indication that they mean anything, then because Blogger is not deemed to be among the most important features you have to click "more" to find it in the next batch of icons. Well, here we are. Annnnnnd, I forgot what I was going to say.

imdb credit updates

Ten years. There is a ten year gap between today and my most recent posted project title on imdb.com. Granted, I haven't even tried to add a title since 2005. There are some little complications such as which links may be accepted proof that a movie exists, which of the approved film festivals it may have screened at, or who is distributing it or presenting it. Unless a title is part of an established writer or director or actor's body of work, it can be included even if it has fallen under the radar. But the criteria is apparently a little more stiff when it comes to the rest of us. There is a certain fairness to that. Another way around it is if a number of previously unseen works are collected in a volume and marketed. But someone else' profile was brought to my attention recently - a former collaborator I do not get long with whose listed imdb credits were as sparse as my own until very recently. Apparently it is easier to get new titles added - even clearly bogus titles - if you a) run your own film festival for a few years, and/or b) master the internet to a point where you can fudge a few facts. When I should be thinking about the projects ahead and moving forward, I can't help feeling I should have made more effort to list a few titles from 2005, Porno the Clown from 2007, and maybe some of the quickies I've done in the last few years. This is the sort of silly pressure nipping at my heels. One would think that with the movie industry changing there will be more internet-related outlets that will have to be acknowledged as distribution of a short or other film or TV project. This of course is something I have not looked into in just under a decade, even though I pretty much feel that if I bring in a producer on another movie it will have to be someone who can sort that out and make sure the title is on imdb. There are a few projects I have done on film and others that certainly have more substance than a few titles noted above that I have seen listed. Can you imagine someone pointing a camera at her boyfriend, letting him rant, and calling it a documentary? Maybe it's not as scandalous as I make it out to be. I guess I just can't stand con artists. Unless they are conning for me. To be fair, how man times have I failed to submit a movie to Mediawave or other festivals? Today is this year's deadline for Mediawave and I don't know if I'll submit. I have not embraced the business of show. Yet I am facing the specter of new expense of HD transfers for very old movies of mine that were shot on film and which can't measure up in their current digital form when compared to HDV home video camcorder material. Maybe having money would be another way people can cheat their way into circumventing the red tape and getting credits listed. I suppose a person could also engage someone to create a wiki profile and add those titles and a bio, since users may not be allowed to submit their own profile information. But isn't that exhausting? And if you can finally google yourself to see how "famous" you are, would it count? It is going a long way to believing your own hype. Unless people are just using it as a sort of modern business card. The irony is that legitimacy is just so potentially false.

Holidays Versus Days Off

At the beginning of December it looked like I could anticipate my month ahead and count on Christmas Eve and Christmas, as well as Boxing Day, falling into the middle of the week and neatly accommodating a swing shift I was in. That was four shifts, two of which were not demanding and fit with my own sensibilities. On the last day of a rotation I was called and advised not to come in for an afternoon shift because the account manager would "use me somewhere else." He didn't have much time to speak, he said, but in hindsight if I had known the full extent of what was going on I would have pressed for more detail about what precipitated the call. Did he hear from a fellow manager at head office who had recommended that the new "bullpen" guy be put into my shift and that I revert to "bullpen"? There apparently was no issue given about me. So either someone was friends with the incoming guard or they had animosity toward me. In either case, an unethical situation was in play. After a day of frustration and paranoia I was called by someone in operations who asked me to do afternoon shift for the following day and I mentioned the other call to make sure there were no issues. He said that person had given my name, so I went in and there were no problems with this client and I could confirm there hadn't been anything I had missed. The supervisor had been off sick, so the next day I called and asked if she was aware of anything being off and confirmed that I was still in swing shift and I should come in Thursday night as usual. I came in, and the bullpen guard also came in. The guy I was relieving called operations to confirm who was booked into the swing shift - and it was me. So the other gentleman left. The next morning I told the supervisor about this double-book. She said she would called the account manager and get to the bottom of it and that I should still come in that night as per usual and if anything changed she would phone me. No call. So I came in. Instead of phoning me at home, she had left a brief telling the outgoing guy that in case I come in I should be told that the bullpen guy is now in my swing shift and that I am to be bullpen. And it's not like she didn't have my phone number. I had left it in my own brief about the previous night's mix-up. I regret that I didn't leave a reply right there, but I was sure that if I did it might have been too angry. Showing up was a three-hour round trip into Scarborough. A trip that is basically worthwhile if you only have to make it 4 times per week to accumulate your 40 hours. But not so worthwhile if it can be avoided by a simple, promised, phone call. The closest thing to an answer I got from the account manager was an e-mail reply like "sorry if you were misunderstood." Those words could mean anything, up to and including a typo in which the word "were" is a mistake and they believe I misunderstood. The official line is that I was "originally" posted there as bullpen. See, this is nonsense. The original call I got was for a rotation. If the whole thing was a ruse to get someone (and ONE person, by the way, for a supposed bullpen which is usually a group of people) to be at the beck and call of that site, that would be bad enough. The supervisor ended up calling the week before Christmas to ask me to take a bullpen shift for Christmas Eve into Christmas Day, but she didn't tell me that herself. She just voice-mailed that I should call her back. Of course when I did the guy who had assumed my position answered and ht got to tell me, "Oh yeah, I think she wants you to do this shift. . ." I advised that I would be out of town if he wants to give her the message. He said, "That even though you are in bullpen you will be out of town. Sure, I'll give her that message." So I e-mailed the account manager and then the net day phoned the site supervisor and gently let them know that I should not be taken for granted that I am available for bullpen after being removed from a rotation. I let them know that I planned my Christmas when I actually had a sane schedule that I could anticipate and even if I hadn't I would not be interested in bullpen and I don't like the way it all unfolded. I have gotten some shifts since then, but it has been lean. That must be what was meant by he will "use you for something else." I mean, considering that operations still had me on the system as being in swing shift, that means that I was still officially in it and someone had to turn some screws. For all I know I might be at the bottom of the heap at this point. Which drives me insane. That must be why I have not blogged in a while and why I did not say anything about the Stallone/De Nero film Grudge Match which opened Christmas day instead of Boxing Day. It has not been burning up the box office, but I kind of wish it well. Now here's my theory. Keep in mind that I merely connect the dots and impose upon the negative space left my a lack of actual answers. From the other account manager who looked after the site business while the usual account manager was away, i got the answer, "not sure of any issues." And that is the reply to an e-mail detailing my concerns and looking for why I was pulled from swing shift and left hanging. What I imagine - worst case scenario - is that this other manager weighed in on the situation and may have influenced the process. Why I think this is that in August 2013 I got a call from this guy asking a lot of questions he knew the answer to and then finally asking if I had e-mailed a former supervisor or his client there and I said not recently but also told him that in June when I removed myself from that corrupt site (the supervisor there and the client were alleged coke buddies which allowed a lot of unethical goings-on) I dressed him down verbally and put it all on the table and I'm sure others felt the same. This seemed to be a reasonable answer, and I thought nothing of it until two days later when the corrupt supervisor drove past the site I was at - which was out of his way and not in the direction he would take to go home - and yelled at me, "Hey, fu*k you, man!!" So a couple of days later I bounced this off of the manager who had called me and asked how this guy found out where I had been posted that week and that someone had either unwittingly helped him track me through scheduling or had deliberately aided him and facilitated harassment. A month later, just walking along at night, the same idiot roe past on Bloor street and shouted, "Hey, dead boy!" So that's first harassment and then a threat. I tweeted about the last one and discussed it with a few people for the sake of caution, but without a witness there is not much police could really do if I had called. And believe me, if there was I would have gone straight to the nearest precinct. There are at least a couple of people who should not have a guard license. I can only scratch the surface in a blog. This all floods back into relevance because the other day I got two calls from two separate people in scheduling offering me shifts at the abusive supervisor's site and I had to remind them I don't get along with him and both said, "Oh yeah I remember something about that." Which is not necessarily a jab at schedulers. They have a lot of plates in the air to juggle. It might be naive for me to imagine that each employee's file along side his/her phone number might have a note about where not to send them. Or maybe I should be reassured that even though I dramatically left a site and told off the supervisor and he is still angry about that I do not have a Do Not Return note and theoretically if I did not mind the drama maybe I could have just shown up and accepted four hours even if I got into a clash. But I felt it was right to disclose the mutual animosity between myself and that nitwit. The trouble is that even the most hideous idiots in the field might have a friend at head office. If someone got me removed from a relatively pragmatic rotation I can imagine that person calling his idiot friend to laugh about it. But I realize that even the concept is derogatory and is the lowest estimate of ethics and professionalism I could impose upon an executive. So it is not an official charge, only the sort of garbage one is left with to stew upon for lack of any reassuring answers. Christmas and unreliable work patterns have caused me to undo some of the progress I had made in October with Herbalife and some of my weight and blood pressure concerns had returned. But by reducing my food intake yet again, I might make new progress. Last night I was annoyed to see 230 lbs on the scale, so I ate only some celery and in the morning I was 224 and change. I'll have to do that more often, absolutely no food after a certain hour and then wake up with less water retained. More clear-headed today and feeling a bit better, but still somewhat moody about the skimpy hours I've got at a time when I will be paying off Christmas credit card expenses. As far as I'm concerned the accounts are open on these issues until I find redress. One person might read this and think "he has issues with authority" which is a counterproductive generalization. People have the tendency to water down specifics to broad sweeping inaccuracies. I have a problem with unworthy authority. The anger stirs and maybe it will help propel me through the next re-write of my play about the security industry which pays the rent, a job that is not a vocation but which might inadvertently supply material for my vocation. At least now more than ever I know the point of it and the theme of the scathing farce. And if someone I know from that life feels compelled to advise me against speaking out, I'll be all the more determined to tell it like it is. But somehow in the middle of this I still have to wrap up my current draft of Porno the Clown's feature script currently under the working title "Clownatown." It would be nice to see some vindication on that project.

Harlan Ellison on Saving Mr. Banks

He says he is not given to beating around the bush but it is four and a half minutes into the 10 minute post before he makes a critical point. Or starts to. Sure it is propping up Uncle Walt. And another minute later before he says "Bullshit!" I don't really have a problem with a happy polish putting closure on the movie.