I Guess People Do Listen to Rationality

I’ve tried to listen to the streaming version of “The O’Franken Factor” at Air America Radio — which launched at noon today — but apparently, they’ve got so many people trying to do the same thing that keeping a connection is nearly impossible.

It’s too early to tell, but it looks to me like this may be the death knell for the right-wing monopoly on talk radio...

The Dark Knight Returns... Or At Least His Car Does

Okay, for all the criticism I regularly heap onto the “fanboy” population, I hereby prepare to show my own membership card. I’ve been a fan of Batman pretty much my whole life. As a child, I would read the comic books constantly — I first learned to draw by trying to copy those artists. I used to watch the old Adam West/Burt Ward television series (in reruns, thank you — I’m not that old) religiously, and even caught the associated movie on the big screen (at the little theater on the Air Force Base where I used to live). I made sure to wake up bright and early every Saturday morning to watch Superfriends (never realizing that “Robin” and “Shaggy” were one and the same). I remember reading in high school about the intention to make a new Batman movie — bringing the character more into line with the darker image of the character from the 1970s — only to see those plans fall flat.

And then came Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns. I remember seeing the ads for the new “graphic novel” miniseries, and not being particularly excited about it. After all, I was about to head off to college — I thought I’d long since outgrown my superhero phase (okay, so I still harbored a none-too-healthy Star Wars obsession, but I eventually got past that as well). My younger brother, however, picked up the first two issues, and started raving about them. My curiosity got the better of me, and I gave them a read.

Oh, my god. Here was a creator who had taken what was a completely two-dimensional character — the stuff of children’s fantasies — and given it adult depth. Of course, he also perfectly captured the essence of the Reagan era, with satire that became all the more evident in hindsight. No longer was Batman a carefree billionaire playing at being a superhero, but a psychologically scarred, obsessive lunatic — as vicious (if not as lethal) as the “criminals” he pursued (Miller was the first to draw attention to the inescapable fact that Batman is himself a criminal). Gone were the silly gadgets and outlandish plots; the theatrical had been replaced with the practical — if still a tad larger than life.

Miller followed his tale with his vision of the character’s “origin story,” Batman: Year One, but by now, the ball was rolling again in Hollywood. Tim Burton built on the groundwork Miller laid to craft his own vision of the character — and with the mind-boggling success of Batman, the character had successfully been revived in the public consciousness.

But, of course, it was at best an unfinished job. Burton took substantial liberties with the character, even more so in his follow-up effort, Batman Returns. And then, as if completely forgetting what had led to the character’s resurgent popularity, Warner Bros. handed the reins to Joel Schumacher, who proceeded to turn Batman back into a campy joke with Batman Forever, and finally killing any commercial viability the franchise may have had with the crapfest that was Batman and Robin.

Well, as it turns out, Warner’s thinks there might be some life in the old boy yet. And — wonder of wonders — it looks like they’ve decided to do it right, or at least try. They started by bringing in Memento director Christopher Nolan to helm it, from what sounds like a well put-together script by Dark City scribe David S. Goyer. The cast includes Christian Bale as the titular hero, with Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, and Gary Oldman along for the ride.

I’ll admit to being more than a tad skeptical, but I am looking at this with... guarded optimism. They’ve effectively decided to go back to square one, rather than building on the Burton and Schumacher films. And as such, they’ve opted to title their new project Batman Begins. A little cheesy, perhaps, but we’ll see what they come up with. Details are few right now, but the movie’s official site has just opened. At the moment, the only thing on the page is a corroded-metal bat logo; beyond that, the only actual content is two photographs of the new Batmobile. I won’t say it’s perfect — I will confess to a particular affinity for the late Anton Furst’s designs for Burton’s first Batman movie. But it’s clear that they’re thinking about how a practical Batmobile would come into being. Basically, Bruce Wayne has “appropriated” a prototype military vehicle from his own company. A little far-fetched? Maybe. But a hell of a lot less implausible than pretending he built the whole thing in his Batcave garage. And it’s clearly more influenced by Frank Miller’s “urban tank” design than the 1960s “tail-finned” look.

They’ve still got a long way to go, but I’d say they’re off to a promising start.

Suburban Pleasures

You know, sometimes, little things can make one irrationally happy. This past weekend certainly wasn’t one of the high points of my year so far, but I did manage to do a decent amount of yard work, including not only mowing the lawn, but aerating both the front and west side yards, and all the trimming and edging. The result — not just because of this weekend’s toil, but all the prep I’ve done over the past year — is that our lawn looks the best it has since we moved in (well, that and the mess of blisters on my hands, but I can live with that). The difference is astonishing; we’ve gone from a lawn consisting primarily of weeds and cheap Kentucky 31 grass to one noticeably fuller, greener, and softer. And this is after losing our front-yard tree last fall (along with most of the grass beneath it). There’s still a lot of work to do (and always will be), but I’m damn proud of having the best-looking lawn on the street (and not having paid someone else to do it).

Not to mention that the daffodil bulbs I planted last fall are all in full bloom.

Is it ridiculous for me to obsess about such flagrantly superficial concerns? Probably. But who cares?

It makes me smile.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled cynicism.

Once Again, We Are Experiencing Technical Difficulties...

There’s definitely a downside to trying to make a website a rewarding experience. In my own case, I’ve tried to add content that’ll make a visit here more than just a simple read. But alas, it seems like every time I try to add anything in the way of external content, the site ends up getting bogged down. Not right away, of course, no. At first, everything seems just hunky-dory, and then wham! The site takes forever to load, and I’m losing readers right and left.

The latest casualties are the “Currently Reading” links — a great way to recommend books, but I can no longer put up with AllConsuming.net’s sporadic reliability. It’d be one thing if I could set it so the page would give it a couple of seconds, and then move on, but no, it just seems to get stuck there interminably. And now it looks like I’ll have to sacrifice the headlines from the Bush/Orwell campaign site GWBush04.com. They’re great, but I can’t put up with loading delays.

If anyone else has problems loading (or displaying) the page, please let me know as soon as possible. I may not have a whole lot of troubleshooting time (or ability), but I’ll do what I can.

Critical Response

“This is one of the best scripts I've ever read! The story is really well thought out. I can totally visualize the scenes as they'd appear on the big screen... After reading this, I feel like I've been introduced to a true mentor... this is definitely top ten material.”

“I felt nothing. I just wanted it to end. The writing was very wordy, but not in an interesting, catch you and keep you, kind of way. I'm glad it's over!”

Two completely separate scripts? Nope, both writing about Holding Pattern. Anyone else see a bit of a disconnect here? I know, there’s no accounting for taste, but I’d suspect that a more rational assessment of the screenplay would fall somewhere between those two extremes (though, for the record, the first critique above was not used for scoring, while the second was).

I was going to go off on a rant about each individual critique, but after a weekend spent largely in a moderately (though doubtless not clinically) depressed funk, I’ve pretty much been able to put it past me. (I did manage to watch quite a few movies over the weekend, and even got out to see the new Kevin Smith release Jersey Girl; I do recommend it wholeheartedly — though watching a movie about a father and his seven-year-old daughter may not have been the best choice on a weekend when I’m upset and my own family is out of town.) Some of the criticisms actually did bring up some valid points, but even those were frequently couched in a morass of poor spelling, inept grammar, and a healthy dose of “fanboy” aesthetic.

The thing is, though, that there is one hell of a lot of random chance inherent in any “audition” process. Either you get screened by people who like your work, or you don’t. The same probably goes for the directorial scene. I was really happy with it, and those who’ve seen it have been uniformly supportive, if not effluent in their praise. But I’ll concede that it certainly wasn’t breaking any really new ground. I do wish there were some feedback on why it didn’t catch the viewer’s eye, but at its core, Project Greenlight was a competition, not a film class. I’ve found it helpful to think of it like a job interview. You either get the job (or a second interview) or you don’t. And if you don’t, you get a form letter back.

Discouraging, but not enough to make me quit trying.

Time to Say Goodbye

Sincerest congratulations to all of those writers and directors who advanced to the second round of Project Greenlight!

Alas, I will not be joining you. I’ll post some of my thoughts after reading my reviews later — right now I’ve got to prepare for a “pitch meeting” for the CEO of my company at five o’clock. (One thing does strike me as a bit curious, though I suppose it could just be a site glitch — all of the reviews for Holding Pattern say that they were not used for scoring. Not just the high and low scorers, but all seven of them. If it’s not a glitch, it would lead me to believe I was somehow disqualified. Curious.)

Can’t say I’m not seriously disappointed (I do wish there were some way to get feedback on the director’s scenes). I’m trying to check back on the user names of some of the screenplays I reviewed, since — judging by the titles — it looks like two of the screenplays I reviewed favorably made it to round two. I can’t be sure yet, as the site’s moving extremely slowly right now (gee, I can’t imagine why).

On the other hand, unless there’s a duplicate title (and I seriously hope so), it also looks like at least one piece of utter crap made it through as well.

Addendum: Yes, it did turn out to be a site glitch. So no conspiracy theories here. At least not today.

Waiting... Waiting...

Dang, I can’t concentrate at all. Today is not going to be particularly productive (although we did just get a copy of DVD Studio Pro to play with).

Five hours to go...

One Nation Under “God”?

I find it funny that the coverage of yesterday’s hearing is radically different depending on which account you read. According to CNN, Newdow got slammed by the justices, who sounded like it was all they could do to keep from laughing him out of court. They make it seem like Newdow could barely get a word in edgewise. The Post, on the other hand, flips it around completely — it was the justices who couldn’t poke holes in Newdow’s case, leaving them with the tough choice of kicking it out on the standing issue (likely according to CNN, unlikely according to the Post) or trying to weasel their way into keeping the pledge without actually having any legal basis for doing so.

I’ll confess that I had serious doubts as to Newdow’s chances going in, but it sounds — at least according to the more comprehensive Post report — that he did a pretty bang-up job. I particularly love the exchange (which didn’t even merit a mention in the CNN report) following Newdow’s claim that the “under God” phrase was divisive. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist claimed that the law’s unanimous passage in 1954 didn’t sound particularly divisive to him, to which Newdow responded, “That’s only because no atheist can get elected to public office.” He was greeted with applause sufficient enough to force Rehnquist to threaten to clear the room to restore order.

Setting aside the legal issues at stake — which really are pretty damned cut-and-dried — I’m irritated as hell at the blanket assertions being made by the pro-“under God” folks, assertions which don’t actually hold up under scrutiny. First, that our forefathers believed our nation was, in fact, under God. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite is true. While most of them believed in a creator, they specifically did not believe that this new government was a product of “God.” The whole point was that this was a government of man, not a deity. It was therefore in direct opposition to the prevailing governmental concept of “divine right,” in which a supreme being authorizes rule. As a corollary to that, our leaders don’t have the excuse of saying that “God” is responsible for the decisions they make. No, you are not “blessed” by God anymore than anybody else. God isn’t making these decisions — you are. In other words, our government is fallible.

I also take issue with the assertion that “under God” is inclusive of other faiths besides Christianity. Maybe I’m taking an overly literalist stance, but that’s simply not true. The notion of referring to a supreme being as God — proper name — is exclusively Christian. The God of Abraham (who was, historically, a henotheist, not a monotheist) has a name: YHWH. It’d be pronounced “Yahweh” if it were pronounced — which it isn’t, since that would be “taking the Lord’s name in vain” (which, incidentally, is what that commandment means, not saying, “God dammit,” or any variation thereof). Instead, the word “adonai” is used in its place. Granted, most Jews have learned to live with referring to their deity as “God,” but I would argue that they really didn’t have a whole lot of choice in the matter. You want to survive, sometimes you have to assimilate. The Muslim faith, on the other hand, does not worship “God,” but “Allah.” Yes, they have the same root origin, but to imply that they’re the same deity is a little naive. Again, most mainstream Muslims wouldn’t take issue with it — but I wouldn’t count on hearing references to “God” in a mosque.

We’re In!

Just got a notice that — even though the applications period for the 48-Hour Film Project hasn’t closed yet — team “Tohubohu” is guaranteed a slot in the competition. Sometimes it pays to be prompt: Because our application was one of the first ten received, we get in. Anyone whose entry is received after those first ten goes into a random drawing for a chance to compete.

So now I’ve just got to send in the remainder of our entry fee — another $100 — and start making preparations. Sure, the creative part all has to be done in that one weekend (May 7th through the 9th), but there’s still a lot to accomplish in the meantime. First of all, I need to assemble our team — so if you want to join us (and can be in D.C. — or help out remotely — for at least some portion of that weekend), either make a note in the comments for this entry or send me an e-mail.

Getting Off to a Beautiful Start This Morning

This morning’s not turning out so great. First, I had to make the coffee. Not that this is that big a deal, but I got spoiled for a while, there. For a few months, somebody else in the office was making coffee, at least a lot of the time. Now, every time I go in there, it’s yesterday’s leftovers. So I have to clean out the coffee maker and brew a new carafe. Again, I can live with this, but it’s just one of those little annoyances that can really get your day off on the wrong foot. I guess I really am the last guy on Earth who’s not willing to pay three bucks for a friggin’ cup of coffee.

More significantly, I just checked the PGL3 site; specifically, the contest timeline. See, originally, they were going to announce the first-round winners by midnight tonight — twelve hours after the close of reviews — but they soon after changed it to noon tomorrow. Now, apparently, they’ve moved it back once again — to noon on Friday. Of course, those are all Pacific time, which means I’m not gonna know squat until three in the afternoon.

Which means I’ll either have a really good weekend, or a really bad one. (Actually, not all that good in either case, as I’m still gonna be stuck here taking care of Sasha while the rest of the family heads down to Virginia Beach, but that’s another story.)

An Issue of Supreme Importance

Today — in addition to being the last day for screenplay reviews for Project Greenlight — marks the long-awaited hearing of the infamous “Pledge of Allegiance” case by the Supreme Court (well, eight members of it, anyway). Actually, come to think of it, if they’re running on schedule, they should be getting started on it right around now. I’ve gone into my position on this issue before, as well as my prediction as to the likely result, so I won’t bother to reiterate it here. Go ahead and read them if you haven’t already. I’ll wait.

Everybody back? Okay. I will draw your attention to today’s Post, in which they have a pretty detailed account of the issues at stake. I’ll give the Post credit for being balanced in their coverage, but one point is made abundantly clear by reading between the lines of their coverage: The pro-“under God” folks don’t really have a legal leg to stand on. Their entire argument consists of either, “It may technically be unconstitutional, but it’s harmless,” or, “How dare this guy even bring up this issue.” Now, is that the popular viewpoint? Hell, yes. But is it supportable? Not even close. This isn’t an example of long-standing “ceremonial deism”: The phrase was inserted a half-century ago as an explicit endorsement of religion. That’s the entire reason it’s in there. And the established case law is equally direct: Lee v. Weisman determined that religious invocation in a public school setting is unconstitutional. And that case involved high school students, who, it could be argued, are less likely to be influenced by an ostensibly “harmless” school endorsement of religion than the elementary school students in this case.

For my part, I haven’t recited the Pledge of Allegiance in years — not only because of the “under God” part, but because I actually don’t “pledge allegiance” to the flag, or even to the republic as a whole. I choose to ally myself with the United States, and I certainly have a strong interest in the safety and security of my family, friends, neighbors, and countrymen (in that order). But as a freethinking individual, I reserve the right to choose otherwise at some point in the future — by either the obvious step of moving somewhere else or the less obvious one of working to change the republic. Forced patriotism is a farce; I understand the government’s interest in indoctrinating “patriotism” in its subjects (how better to keep them docile and unquestioning?), but I’m sure as hell not gonna go along with it.

I may be no patriot, but I would be far more understanding of a pledge like that proposed as a replacement for the existing one (or a variation thereof): “I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the Republic that it established; one Nation out of many Peoples, with Liberty and Justice for all.” I’m still not saying I’d recite it, but I certainly wouldn’t be so all fired up about it.

A Little Facelift

Well, after toying with the idea of a major design overhaul, I’ve given up on its happening anytime soon. So I’ve decided to incorporate just a few of the elements I had planned into the existing Prometheus Unleashed template. So functionally, everything should be pretty much exactly the same as before; it’s just a slightly different look.

Whereas before, the look sprang from a modern aesthetic, I wanted to at least add some suggestion of the more... primeval implication the name “Prometheus” connotes. My degree of success is certainly a matter of individual interpretation. But as true web design requires a time commitment I can’t make, I’ve learned to be happy with a more modest outcome.

Feel free to comment on your own reactions, make suggestions... but don’t hold your breath waiting for me to do anything drastic.

My God Can Beat Up Your God

Boy, isn’t it great to see that religious persecution is alive and well in the good ol’ U.S. of A.? A New York D.A. has filed charges against two Unitarian Universalist ministers for performing same-sex weddings within their church (well, within the context of their church — the weddings were actually performed outdoors). Boy, sounds like an example of the same homophobic bigotry underlying the Constitutional amendment debate, right?

Well, not exactly. While there may be an element of far-right homophobia present here — I don’t know the D.A.’s specific motivations — in actuality, this is even scarier. This is the government saying, “Your religion cannot recognize any sort of union other than that prescribed by the state.” Which is, in turn, that prescribed by mainstream Christianity (and, admittedly, most — but not all — other religious groups).

In other words, my religion is better than your religion. And I’m gonna force you to change your religion to be like mine.

“Wait a minute,” you say (okay, maybe not, but bear with me here). “Isn’t this prosecution more about the ministers’ role as representatives of the state? Aren’t they being charged because they are legalizing those marriages?” To which I respond (boy, conversation really is much easier when you play both parts), “Um, that’s the state’s problem.”

The argument doesn’t hold up under logical scrutiny: If the state doesn’t want to recognize the unions, fine — don’t recognize them. If the state isn’t issuing government marriage licenses, then they’re not legally recognized anyway; if the state is issuing licenses — as is the case in New Paltz — then you can take issue with the licensing body (in this case the mayor). Or you can nullify those licenses.

If, on the other hand, you’ve written your state law so that any marriage performed by a legally ordained cleric is somehow legal, then you’ve written yourself into a quandary. But it’s not one that you can weasel out of by interfering in the functioning of the religious body itself.

I’ve performed two — legally recognized — weddings, one in Maryland and one in Arizona. In both cases, while my ministerial ordination was a factor in those marriages being recognized by the state, it was far from the only such requirement. In fact, the burden of legal recognition was more heavily skewed toward the licensing end of things. From a legal standpoint, I just signed the papers and sent ’em in. In contrast, I cannot perform legal weddings in, for example, Virginia or the District of Columbia, both of which require additional state certification in order to be granted the legal powers to perform legally recognized weddings. And I’m fine with that. Part of a marriage is a state-regulated contract, and while I wholeheartedly disagree with the restrictions against, say, same-sex marriages both governments impose, the state is perfectly justified in further regulating those that can legitimately endorse these contracts. Provided, of course, that those restrictions do not unreasonably discriminate against particular religious groups (which is another issue, and one that could be argued in both D.C. and Virginia).

What the state — any state — cannot do is say that I cannot perform weddings within my church. They may choose not to recognize them — requiring an additional state certification procedure, for example. But they have no right to say my religion cannot recognize them. I haven’t pursued any additional licensing, but I can say that I’d never sign any document that explicitly forbade me from performing same-sex marriages; any such requirement would be a patently unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state. Again, the state can say it won’t acknowledge them, but it cannot say I can’t perform them.

Of course, this brings up the whole issue of the so-called “civil disobedience” being practiced by the mayor of New Paltz, Jason West, as well as San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, among others. I am far from a legal scholar (though I play one on TV), but in at least the San Francisco case, calling it “civil disobedience” is pushing the definition a bit — my understanding is that Newsom’s legal team reached the determination that prohibiting same-sex marriages was, in fact, illegal under the California constitution. Now, he may be working on shaky legal ground (or even Bush-style “Here’s the conclusion, now find me the evidence” coercion), but as the California Supreme Court had not ruled on the issue, it was hardly a closed case. I haven’t read the California constitution — or the New York constitution — so I can’t argue the case on its merits. But so far, it would appear that both of these issues are resolving themselves within the court system — rationally in California’s case, less so in New York’s. And with this latest tactic, New York’s credibility — at least with regard to this particular D.A., Donald A. Williams — is dropping quite a few notches.

I’m reminded of a phrase I’ve heard repeatedly (though, thankfully, not recently), usually uttered by devout adherents of a particular religious group: “I’ll pray for you.” Oh, I’m not talking about the perfectly innocent good wishes for a speedy illness recovery or anything along those lines — while I may not believe that prayers will do me a whit of good, they won’t hurt either. Such sentiments are offered only in the sincere desire to offer whatever aid may be possible. No, I’m talking about the dogmatic insistence that my soul is on the fast track to hell, and your intervention may be the only thing that saves me from eternal damnation (yeah, I know, I’m a little shaky on the pronoun antecedents here, but it just sounds better this way).

In other words, my religion — or lack thereof — is wrong, and your religion is right.

It’s one thing to follow a particular religious belief because you believe it’s the best path toward personal achievement, enlightenment, “salvation,” what have you. And there’s nothing wrong with trying to convince others to join that belief (annoying, maybe, but not wrong). But when you start claiming that not only is your chosen path the best one, but it’s the only one, then I’m sorry, but I won’t be taking you the least bit seriously from here on out. Whether or not you realize it, you’re a religious bigot. The Middle East doesn’t have a monopoly on ’em.

You’re perfectly allowed to maintain your bigotry, and to express it. But don’t ever think the Constitution of the United States gives you the authority to impose that bigotry on the rest of us.

I take a great deal of comfort in the knowledge that, in twenty years or so, the anti-gay marriage crowd — or, more specifically, the anti-gay civil rights segment of that crowd — will be viewed in the same light as the segregationists of old. When you’re choosing sides on this issue, make sure you’ll be comfortable with that assessment a generation from now.

A Friday Buffet

No real topic today, just a bunch of half-formed thoughts. I’m too busy trying to edit together a video before a rough-cut screening this afternoon (and a final showing on Tuesday) to go in-depth on anything. If anyone else wants to take the lead, go right ahead. Yeah, like anyone needs my encouragement.

Congratulations to Duh-bya on the one-year anniversary of his decision to effectively abandon the war on terrorism to wage his little vendetta against the guy who tried to kill his daddy. Yeah, I know, it was really more a result of the American imperialists’ agenda (still working on the terminology — bear with me), but you never were smart enough to really understand what any of that was about. But hey, at least it all worked out exactly like you said it would, right?

E.J. Dionne has a great column in today’s Post, in which he rather clearly points out that the results of the election in Spain had much less to do with terrorist appeasement than a backlash against the use of terrorist acts for political purposes. I’d suggest that little George give it a read — oh, wait, I forgot, he doesn’t read the newspaper (or can’t — I’m not sure).

I’m really ticked that I won’t be able to participate in this year’s Washington Invitational Scavenger Hunt for the Make-a-Wish Foundation. Oh, I’m sorry, the AOL Washington Invitational Scavenger Hunt. I don’t really have a huge beef with AOL — and I’m certainly glad they’ve donated so much to a worthy cause — but tacking corporate names onto everything from stadiums to sporting tournaments to charity events just leaves me cold. The hunt itself, though, is one of the most exciting events I’ve ever participated in. Of course, the fact that we won didn’t hurt (the team, ABC-Ya-Later, won two years in a row, but I was only an observer the first time around). But alas, the core team members have largely disbanded or joined other teams, and the date — April 17th — conflicts with my daughter’s fifth birthday party. Kind of hard to tell her, “Sorry, but Daddy’s not going to come, since he’ll be running all over the city having fun.”

Speaking of AOL, is anyone else really freaked out about rumors that Microsoft may be in the running to buy AOL? Normally, I wouldn’t be concerned — it’s such a flagrant anti-competition threat that there’s no way the FTC would let it happen. But after the Bush regime’s decision to get all buddy-buddy will Bill Gates, I’d be willing to bet they’ll let it sail right through. At least the EU’s still got some business ethics. (Update: The Guardian is running a story on the talks, though Time-Warner sources are apparently denying it. The Guardian also cites the New York Post, though I don’t see any mention of it there. Of course, they don’t make it easy to check.)

And thanks to Joseph Finn’s In Apprehension..., I’ve discovered my “very British name”: Neville Garside. You too can discover yours with The Very British Name Generator, courtesy of Rum and Monkey’s Name Generator Generator.

That’s it for now — you can go on about your business. Nothing to see here.

Truth in Labeling

One of my conservative readers (well, occasional readers — whenever he feels like getting angry) has taken issue with my use of the term “neofascists.” Specifically, in reference to the group that prefers to refer to itself as neo-Reaganites (a term coined by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in their article, “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy”), but will accept the label neoconservatives. In other words, the adherents of the worldview promulgated by the Project for the New American Century.

The popular press has jumped on the “neoconservative” bandwagon, perhaps figuring that on the one hand, the group won’t scream about it, but on the other, it’s not their first choice. I suppose they believe that makes it a reasonable compromise, and it fits right in with the “politically correct” edict that groups must be allowed to name themselves. (Yes, you read that right — I’m slamming the so-called “liberal media.” Make a note of the date and time.) Sounds noble, until you see the glut of corporate or extremist special-interest groups with deliberately misleading names like “Citizens for Better Medicare” (a.k.a., the pharmaceutical industry), “Citizens Against Tax Abuse and Government Waste” (a.k.a. the tobacco industry), and “The American Center for Law and Justice” (a.k.a., Pat Robertson).

But, of course, neither name bears any relation to reality. If we are to take the literal defitinition of “neo-” we don’t really get off the ground. There’s nothing remotely “new” about the group’s philosophy; though at least when paired with “Reaganite” it implies a resurgence of Reagan’s Cold War foreign policy worldview — “Evil Empire,” and all that. If we take the political connotation into account, there’s a leftist slant that is nowhere in evidence (save perhaps among some of the movement’s original proponents, such as Kristol’s father, Irving, who once described them as liberals “mugged by reality”). Trying to associate themselves with Reagan strikes me as such a transparent attempt to invoke the deity of Republican politics as to be laughable. And while the (current) proponents of the philosophy are ensconced firmly in the camp of the Republican party, their position is anything but “conservative,” which necessarily implies a less activist stance.

Sure, the whole lot is usually grouped under the blanket heading “hawks,” but with the functional opposite to that term being “doves,” the label falls short — one needn’t consider oneself a pacifist to oppose them. I was all in favor of military action against the Taliban. And frankly, I could have been convinced that an invasion of Iraq was a good idea had the proposal been presented on its merits. But not on the basis of the flagrant lies Bush and his “designated liars” (most egregiously Dick Cheney, but eventually trickling down to the previously admirable Colin Powell) perpetuated. (And, of course, they’re still lying, as demonstrated by this video in which Rumsfeld is actually caught in a lie. Whoops!)

I’ll admit that I personally chose “neofascist” with an eye toward exaggeration for satirical effect, but in at least one respect — the group’s stated aim of using America’s military might to impose its vision of government on the world at large — I’ve found the appellation particularly apt. (Of course, they also claim to want America to act as a leader in the international community. Bush, of course, has proven himself to be anything but, unless someone out there’s found a definition of “leader” that means “somebody whom nobody will follow.”) However, as it does smack of extremist rhetoric, I’m open to considering an alternative. I tried brainstorming a few options (playing on the overriding theme of unwavering, self-righteous zealotry), but nothing really felt quite right; most of my ideas ended up being simple labels for the rabidly extreme right wing, which — in this case — isn’t altogether accurate. And then I discovered that William Kristol himself may have suggested the best option: American imperialists. The “American” part is fairly obvious, so in the interests of simplicity, I think I’ll drop it. And while I’m loath to fall into the “self-labeling” trap, the group’s two most common labels do include the “neo-” prefix; it may be wildly inaccurate, but it might help make sure folks understand to whom I’m referring. And so, we’re left with... the neoimperialists.

Kind of has a nice ring to it. Appropriate overtones of world domination, of reviving the empires of old... I’m not going to go back and edit previous posts, but I think I will start using this name going forward. Unless someone can come up with a better — and accurate — alternative?

Wednesday Potpourri!

Happy St. Patrick’s Day! Not that I really consider myself Irish (or Irish-American), but “Coughlan” is an Irish name — at least some of my ancestors hail from the Emerald Isle.

I took Sasha to the vet this morning, for her first diabetes regulation appointment. Yes, we’ve decided to go ahead and try treating her with insulin. It’ll cost a lot of money, but I’m more concerned with the logistics. She’s been on oral antibiotics for the last several days, and it’s tough enough catching her for that. Add an injection into the mix, and I have serious doubts we’ll be able to get her to come out of hiding on a regular basis. Still, some insulin is better than no insulin; we may not be able to continue treatment, but we owe it to her to try.

Tom recently brought up three “Political Trends I Can Live Without” I only agree with him on one of the three, but it’s good food for thought (after all, he mentions me specifically in his first point). As to his second point — the steadfast refusal of some of us to recognize Duh-bya as a legitimate president (for example, Joseph Finn over at In Apprehension... continues to refer to Dennis Hastert as the Constitutionally mandated president) — I’d point you to a little Flash presentation I recently ran across, Grand Theft America. Not that it’s going to convince anyone who’s already aware of the depth of corruption in the 2000 election. But since the recounts are all anyone heard about in the media, this might help inform some of those who didn’t know that a judicial coup wasn’t the only thing that swept little George into office. And it’s fun to watch.

Is anyone else seriously looking forward to seeing Bush’s Brain? From what I’ve read, it’s a flawed picture, but if it’s at all watchable, I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t radically alter the perceptions of the American people. Then again, I can’t imagine the American people tearing themselves away from Fear Factor long enough to actually watch anything of import.

Quick recipe on how to lose an election: Rush out to blame your personal bugaboo for your country’s most devastating terrorist attack in modern history. Keep pounding that point home, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. Watch as actual evidence shows you were completely wrong. Hmm... is there a lesson to be learned here? A parallel with someone else? Anyone? Anyone?

David Bach, in an Op-Ed column in today’s Post, says that he doesn’t think the terrorists will come away with the message that their tactics worked. I wouldn’t go that far — I think the terrorists will believe what they want to believe — but I do think his central point is valid: The Spanish people didn’t vote out the Popular Party because they feared the terrorists. They voted them out because the administration lied to them. All of the Bush regime’s not-so-veiled efforts to paint the Spaniards as cowards aren’t likely to win them any friends; as usual, they’re completely missing the point.

It looks like the Dems are finally starting to get the message: For the foreseeable future, there can be no truce with the Republican establishment. Particularly when it comes to ethics violations. All I have to add to that is what the hell took you so damn long? The GOP machine declared war on you years ago.

And finally, the Bush propaganda machine is demanding that Kerry name those foreign leaders who he alleged have told him they hoped he would win the upcoming election. I’m not one to defend little George’s goon squad, by any stretch of the imagination, but — unlike his “most crooked... lying group” comments, which were right on the money — this was a really stupid claim for Kerry to make. Not only because it smacks of truth-stretching (Kerry hasn’t left the country anytime recently, so when did these supposed conversations take place?), but because given its very nature, it can’t really be supported with proof. You’ve got to assume that, if true, these sentiments were conveyed off the record, which puts Kerry into an untenable position. If he doesn’t name names, people can’t help but suspect he’s lying (or at least exaggerating). On the other hand, if he does name names, he betrays the trust of the very foreign leaders who’ve expressed their support. Of course, I think in reality, you’d be hard-pressed to find a foreign leader who supports Bush, at least if the opinions of their nations’ populations are any indication.

“Karen Ryan George Bush reporting...”

I do hope you were planning to fund Duh-bya’s campaign commercials — ’cause your tax dollars are doing just that. Oh, I’m not talking about federal campaign funds — these are the funds that are supposed to be used in the regular business of government. Specifically, your money is funding a flagrantly partisan series of commercials being aired during local newscasts, touting the benefits (and conveniently omitting the shortcomings) of the behemoth that is the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Complete with standing ovation for little George. What’s worse, the commercials aren’t even being noted as such: They’re ostensibly a series of “special reports” by nonexistent reporter “Karen Ryan,” a creation of the Bush regime.

Are you likely to see these segments running in major markets? Probably not — most big-city station news departments have this thing called “ethics” to worry about (well, maybe not Fox, but that’s another story). But I’d keep my eyes peeled. (And thanks to Stand Tall for pointing it out.)

A Couple of Quick Required-Reading Links

The first comes courtesy of Salon.com and MoveOn.org (brought to my attention by Talon Beeson). It’s called “The New Pentagon Papers,” by Karen Kwiatkowski, and it provides a first-hand look at how the neofascists “manipulated” reality (i.e., lied) to achieve their longstanding objective of invading Iraq.

That article got me thinking about another one that I’d also like to call attention to: “What Value Truth?” by some on-line writer... can’t remember his name offhand.

Speaking of lying, anyone want to start a pool on when the regime will trot out a “suddenly” captured Osama bin Laden? I call October 19th. I figure two weeks before the election is enough time for folks to hear the news, but not to actually think too hard about the convenient timing.

My Critiques (the Official Ones, Anyway) Are Finished

Just turned in my fifteenth critique for Project Greenlight. That’s it — while I can keep reading and critiquing screenplays, it will no longer count toward the scoring of the competition. And while I’m all for helping other writers develop their craft, there’s no longer a whole lot of incentive for me to wallow in filth.

The final tally? Of fifteen scripts I read, only five were what I’d consider worth consideration. I’m not saying they should all make the top 1,000 (let alone the top 100), but they’re workable. I only really enjoyed maybe two of them.

Now, I am still reading a couple of scripts — namely, scripts by fellow contestants who’ve been so gracious as to allow me to do so. The way I figure it, if someone feels confident enough in their material to pass it along (or just to make it available to the ’net community at large), there’s a pretty good chance that it’s better than most of the stuff in the contest. We’ll see — but it’ll be nice to offer a critique without being limited to the 2,000 characters PGL allows. So if anyone else out there would like to submit your work to my scrutiny, I’ll happily give it a read. And along those same lines, if any writers out there would like to take a gander at Holding Pattern, drop me a line.

Here’s the log line: After a particularly nasty breakup, a young artist is dismayed to find that his work has been removed from a gallery showing. He hatches a plan to have his work shown — and thus escape from his dead-end job — but his plans have unforeseen consequences when he falls for the very woman whose entry he displaced. Yes, it’s a “romcom,” and not the “horror/thriller” script PGL3 claimed to favor. But I submitted it anyway, based on some interview comments Chris Moore made in Entertainment Weekly, in which he said they’d also be considering comedies. We’ll see what happens.

Stupidity Never Ceases

Yeah, I know this is old news, but a public school teacher showing portions of The Passion of the Christ — a bootleg copy, no less — to sixth graders without parental notification? Hell, I don’t care if there was notification. In what country does this self-righteous bozo think he’s living? I’m still not commenting on the content of the movie itself, but how stupid does this guy have to be to think it’d be all right to show any R-rated, overtly religious movie to elementary school students? Even if you’re not gonna fire the guy for violating the separation of church and state, fire the guy for sheer idiocy. And don’t give me the excuse that it’s not about religion, it’s about history. The events depicted in this movie (my judgment being based on the source material) are only “history” if you’re a Christian who interprets the Gospels literally; not to say that’s not a valid religious interpretation, but it’s certainly not consensus history by any stretch of the imagination.

Speaking of stupidity... Dennis Hastert is demanding an apology from John Kerry for his inadvertently-overheard comment the other day: “Don’t worry, man. We’re going to keep pounding. Let me tell you. We are just beginning to fight here. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I have ever seen. It’s scary.” At least Kerry is standing his ground. Since when are people expected to apologize for telling the truth?

My Cat

Okay, let me get one thing out of the way first: This is not a “cat blog.” Yes, I’m a cat owner, of which I’ve made mention before, but it’s not my usual topic of discourse. So if you’ve stumbled across this entry as the result of a Google search on “cats,” I’m afraid you’re likely to be disappointed. But today, it does happen to be occupying my thoughts, to the exclusion of much else, and — as a writer — I’m left with little choice but to express myself here. A lot of this I’ve talked about before, so if you are a regular reader, please forgive a little repetitiveness on my part.

We actually have three cats in the house: Lily, the girls’ kitten, Chlöe, the well-adjusted indoor/outdoor cat, and Sasha, the neurotic one. My cat.

Of course, she wasn’t supposed to be my cat. About ten years ago, my mother-in-law took in a pregnant stray, and Pam fell in love with one of the little tortoiseshell kittens. Every time we’d go down to Virginia Beach to visit, Pam would lavish attention on her; I still remember Pam slipping her into her shirt pocket, she was so tiny. Pam chose the name “Sasha,” after a favorite doll she’d had as a child. Once Sasha was old enough, growing from a pocket ornament to a little puffball, we brought her home with us to our Falls Church apartment. At the time, we had another cat, Phoebe, and were optimistic that they’d get along together, that Phoebe would have someone to play with when we were away.

Alas, that didn’t work out as planned. Phoebe didn’t cotton to the idea of an intruder, and Sasha ended up spending most of her time in our guest room. Since Phoebe regularly slept on Pam’s head at night, and we didn’t want to leave the new kitten alone, I stayed in the guest bed with little Sasha for a while. Perhaps as a result, she ended up bonding more with me than with Pam. She’ll still accept attention from Pam (and has now taken over Phoebe’s old spot on Pam’s head), but there’s no doubt that I’m her “person.”

Sasha’s always been terrified of everything. We joke that the phrase “scaredy cat” originated with her. To this day she’ll have little or nothing to do with the girls, running away whenever they get too close. Up until recently, she’d spend most of the day hiding under our bed, coming out only after we’d climbed into bed in the evening (an awkward arrangement at best). When Chlöe came along, we hoped that Sasha would come out of her shell a bit, but it soon became clear that — while she’d tolerate the new addition — she had no desire for a “friend.” I don’t know if that was a natural tendency, a result of her experience with Phoebe, or just a feline personality conflict, but nothing we could do would change it.

In the end, all three cats — Phoebe, Sasha, and Chlöe — made do with their own “territories,” none bothering the others. Phoebe passed away a couple of years ago, and once we moved into our new house, Sasha and Chlöe quickly worked out their respective areas of influence.

And then, about eighteen months ago, our daughter convinced us to let her have a new kitten — Lily. Chlöe and Lily bonded almost immediately; we can regularly find them curled up together. But something else happened as well: Sasha started coming out. In hindsight, it seems likely that Lily simply refused to accept the territorial boundaries that had been worked out, and Sasha no longer had her little safe hideaway. Still — reasoning that actually seeing the light of day would, on balance, be a positive thing for Sasha — we were perfectly happy with the result.

A few months ago, though, we noticed a change for the negative. At first, it was hard to be certain, but she seemed to be using her litter box more frequently, and drinking a lot more water. Still, with three cats, and Lily getting bigger all the time, it was hard to know for sure. And then across the last month, she started using our dining room instead. We thought it was just an isolated incident — or, at best, a behavioral issue — but as things got worse, we realized there was more to it.

Last night I took her to the vet.

Sasha has diabetes.

And I honestly don’t know what to do. The obvious concern — as selfish as it may sound — is money. It’ll cost somewhere between $500 and $600 just to get her started on an insulin regimen, and then a recurring cost of close to $100 per month. That’s not something we’ve got readily available in the family budget. But even without regard to the money, there are the practical concerns. Even now, we barely see Sasha, and certainly not with any degree of predictability. I had to take off early from work yesterday for the vet appointment, because — even though Pam was home — catching Sasha is a two-person job. I can’t imagine we’d be able to catch her twice daily — within a two-hour window, mind you — to give her an insulin shot. And once she figures out that when we catch her, we’re going to give her a shot, it would only get more difficult. It’s possible to try managing her illness with diet alone, but with a blood sugar level as high as hers, the prognosis is not good.

It’d be one thing if she were so ill that euthanasia were clearly called for. Agonizing — as our experience with Phoebe drove home — but easier to deal with. On the other hand, if it were Lily who were sick, we’d no doubt be likely to more seriously consider the insulin option, not only because she’s little more than a kitten, but because we could catch her.

Rationally, I know what we should do: Try our best to manage her diabetes with diet. But I suspect we’re just kidding ourselves as to the likelihood of any reasonable measure of success. Emotionally, I’m completely torn. Sasha’s my cat. I’ve raised her since she was a kitten. And while 10 years isn’t all that much less than the average 12 to 15 year lifespan of an indoor cat, that’s still a considerable chunk of time that she won’t have. I know that, on the scale of problems one can ask for in the world, this is a relatively lightweight issue; I know she’s not my child. But that doesn’t make it insignificant — at least not to me.

I know that — at my core — I’m a rationalist. But sometimes that doesn’t make the right decision any easier to accept.

The Game Is Afoot

I know, perhaps it’s a little premature for me to start thinking about abother competition while Greenlight is still in full swing, but they’ve just announced the dates for the 48-Hour Film Project here in D.C.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the Project (and haven’t heard me go on about it), here’s a quick rundown. Teams gather Friday night (May 7th) and draw a film genre out of a hat (a different drawing for each team) — horror, comedy, romance, western, etc. Then, the competition as a whole picks out some specific elements — for example, a prop, a character, and a line of dialogue. From that point, your team has 48 hours to make a short movie (between four and eight minutes in length). All creative work (well, with a few limited exceptions) must be completed within that period; the finished project is delivered Sunday evening (May 9th).

Monday evening (the 10th), the finished entries are screened, and afterward, the winner is announced (in the past, that screening has been at Visions Cinema, but this year it’ll be happening at the new AFI Silver Theatre). The competition takes place in cities around the world, and the winning pictures go on to compete with each other for Best of the 48-Hour Film Project.

We’ve got the entry form (PDF), and we’ll be sending it in before the end of the day — while there’s an April 9th deadline for entry, there are a limited number of slots available (and historically, it’s first-come, first-served). There will be a financial commitment, but the more people we have, the lower (per person) that will be (a non-refundable $25 per team for entry, and $100 per team for competition). I know a lot of you out there have expressed interest in joining in, so drop me a line (handy-dandy link over on the left there) and we’ll add you to the list!

Update: The entry forms have been sent off. Our team — hereby dubbed “Tohubohu” — is now in the actively-seeking-participants stage.

Intelligence Wanted — Desperately

Okay, not to keep harping about Project Greenlight, but judging by the writing so far, it seems more than likely that we’ll be left with nothing but garbage moving on to the top 250 (and beyond). So I’m begging you, as a reasonably literate audience of intelligent people, head over to PGL, sign up as a reviewer, and give your honest feedback on some of the screenplays therein. Will you be happy with what you read? Probably not. But we have got to get a reasonable level of judgment into this process before it’s too late.

And no, you won’t be able to influence the judging of my work. I’m just seriously worried that the whole thing will become a bigger joke than Gigli.

The Good, the Bad, and the Irredeemable

Well, I’ve completed reviewing eight screenplays now, and I’m sure not feeling a whole lot better than I was a few days ago. Screenplay number six was garbage, seven was decent (if a little conflicted in its message), and eight... eight was the worst yet. Perhaps not as bad as one from the first Greenlight contest that will make me cringe until my dying day, but as close to that mark as anything I’ve read since.

So today I’m going to start a little feature, which I’ll plan to revisit from time to time. A few helpful hints for aspiring screenwriters. Nothing that isn’t available elsewhere — and from writers who have a lot more credibility than I — but I can no longer sit back and watch while people continue to screw up in ways that could so easily be corrected.

Screenwriting Tip #1: Learn how to write. I know, that sounds basic, but you’d be positively shocked at how many people haven’t bothered to take even that simple step. I have no doubt that if I asked some of these people to define the “plot” of a story, I’d be rewarded with a blank stare. I am not saying you have to stick to “formula,” but you’d damn well better know the most elementary rules of storytelling before you decide to throw them out the window.

Screenwriting Tip #2: Learn how to write a screenplay. The rules for screenwriting are extremely rigid. Yes, there are ways to bend those rules, but unless you know the rules cold, you’re not in a position to decide when that is. And don’t look to published screenplays for help — those are books, written for people who have already seen the movies made from them. They’re also shooting scripts, not spec scripts. If you can’t handle the most basic rule — screenplays must be written in 12-point Courier, with exactly specified margins and indentation spots — you’re not ready to write a screenplay. Oh, and one more thing — a screenplay’s “log line” is not a “tag line.” If you want someone to read your screenplay, you can’t just spout meaningless marketing tripe like, “You never know what you’ve got until it’s gone.” I read that, and I can tell you that your screenplay’s the first thing that’s gone. (On the flip side, don’t give away your story’s final twist in the log line — if I know how it turns out, why should I care about reading it?) A recommended — nay, required — reading list: Standard Script Formats — Part I by Cole & Haag (the rules); The Screenwriter’s Bible, by David Trottier (when to deviate from those rules); How Not to Write a Screenplay, by Denny Martin Flynn (how not to completely screw up). None of these will teach you how to write, but they will teach you how to turn your writing into a workable screenplay.

Screenwriting Tip #3: If it’s not on the screen, don’t put it in your screenplay. Hey, it’s great that you’ve thought enough about your characters to flesh out their past lives, but if I have to read one more time about a newly introduced character’s ex-wife, three kids, girlfriend, and aspirations to get his real estate license — none of which has any bearing on what’s on screen — I’m going to scream. Stick to a few basic — visible — characteristics that give me an understanding of your character. The same advice goes for drawings, maps, character lists, and anything else you think helps readers “understand” your screenplay. If you can’t make it clear — and simple — in your screenplay, then rewrite it until you can. Unless you plan on handing out programs at every screening of your picture.

Screenwriting Tip #4: Remember that you are not the director. Avoid all camera instructions, dissolves, “we see” narrative, production designs, music suggestions, what have you. None of that is your call to make. This isn’t a novel — this is a blueprint you’ll be handing off to other creative professionals, who are going to remove you from the process entirely at that point. Is it nice? No. Is it necessarily wise? Perhaps not. But that’s the reality. Stick to telling the story, and let others figure out how to put it on the screen. Music is particularly galling. First of all, just because you love the new Justin Timberlake single doesn’t mean everyone else will. Not to mention the fact that the odds of your getting the rights to use it are between slim and none. (And before any more experienced screenwriters jump down my throat, yes, there are times when it’s appropriate to insert minor instruction — but it had better be absolutely integral to the story; better to err on the side of omission.)

Screenwriting Tip #5: Read what you’ve written. No, your spelling doesn’t have to be perfect, but if it’s clear that you haven’t even done a spelling check, I’m going to assume that’s the level of care you’ve taken across the board. You start confusing characters, introducing inconsistencies as the result of rewrites, and demonstrating other mistakes that a simple read-through would have caught, and your screenplay will get tossed into the dustbin before it’s halfway finished.

Okay, that’s all the venting I’ve got the energy for right now. Like I said, I’ll probably revisit this topic from time to time, but if anyone wants any other tips in the meantime, drop me a line.

All right, now that I’m calm once again, it’s on to screenplay number nine.

Addendum: In case anyone’s keeping score, number nine sucked, too.

A Taste of Redemption

Finally! A screenplay that doesn’t suck.

Of course, I don’t know if that’s an honest assessment, or if I’m just lowering my standards. But screenplay number five isn’t half bad. It’s nothing particularly original — basically just a haunted house/ghost story, with most of the usual formulaic elements firmly in place — but the writer knows what he/she is doing. The screenplay is properly written (with just a few “tells” to indicate amateur status), the story is suspenseful, the payoff is set up properly, and the societally-accepted “rules” of the genre are maintained.

Now, would I like to see this screenplay win the competition? Not particularly. At the very least, it needs substantial revision in a few areas. But compared with the preceding four, this is pure genius.

Frankly, I think the best part — for me, as a reviewer — is that I’ll be able to spend the allotted “critique” space offering truly constructive criticism on those few areas, rather than having to delicately tell the writer not to quit the day job.

Michael & Me

It’s all about location, location, location...

I’d always thought working across the street from the Saudi Arabian embassy was pretty much a negative. We’ve had to deal with elevated security, a nut driving his car up onto the lawn, and general uneasiness. Today, however, I learned that there’s a flip side to that notoriety.

Turns out Michael Moore was shooting some footage of the embassy, and (eventually) interviewing someone who emerged from within. As a card-carrying left-winger (and one of the few folks who took issue more with his use of the nonexistent word “fictition” than with his political statement at last year’s Oscars), I had to go out and meet him. For the most part, folks were standing a respectable distance away — I heard someone mutter, “He’s got security” — but as soon as I saw a break, I stepped right up, introduced myself, and asked to shake his hand. Unprofessional, maybe, but there was no way I was going to pass this up. We didn’t get to chat, but I gather he’s working on his new picture on the Bush/Bin Laden family connections. (I thought at first that they were shooting for television, but on closer inspection, I noticed that they were using a Canon HD camera, so it could easily be meant for the big screen.)

I was going to be satisfied with just that, but then I remembered that David Seitzinger was visiting to do some freelance work for us. I ran in and grabbed him, and he managed to get off a few quick snapshots before they wrapped up.

Of course, a less-than-liberal friend wanted to pelt him in the head (Michael, not David) with a tape dispenser, but ended up deciding against it. A decision no doubt helped along by the rapidly approaching Secret Service agents...

A Snippet of Last Night’s Conversation...

...between me and my four-year-old daughter.

“Today is Dr. Seuss’s 100th birthday.”

“Dr. Seuss?”

“That’s right. So we’re going to read some Dr. Seuss books at bedtime tonight.”

“But... isn’t he dead, Daddy?”

“Um... yes, he is dead.”

“How come it’s his birthday if he’s dead?”

“...”

“Daddy?”

“Uh... yeah, I guess that is a little hard to explain. Well... hm... Finish your dinner.”

“Okay, Daddy.”

I’ve Got a Bad Feeling About This

Well, I’m now into my third review screenplay for Project Greenlight, and I am not happy.

’Cause so far, they’re complete crap. Oh, one of the three actually had a halfway decent story at its core, but across the board, they were textbook examples of what not to do. Lead characters who were either complete idiots or unsympathetic slimeballs. Female characters straight out of an adolescent fantasy. Plot turns coming from out of the blue, with no setup whatsoever. Dozens of forgettable characters, all involved in action irrelevant to the main story. Rampant camera and directorial instructions. Paragraphs of narration giving background information that is never shown (folks, if it ain’t on screen, it doesn’t belong in a screenplay).

I thought the $30 entry fee was supposed to weed out those who really weren’t ready for prime time.

Of course, my first instinct was, “Great — mine’ll look like an Oscar winner by comparison.”

And then reality set in.

The first round of the screenplay competition is peer review. Which means that these folks — who haven’t got more than a rudimentary understanding of how to write a screenplay — are the ones critiquing my work.

If I knew Holding Pattern would be evaluated on its own merits, I could deal with its not making the cut — after all, competition is competition. But at this rate, it’ll be a miracle if anything of quality makes it through.

Not to mention that I’ve got to wait almost a month before I see what my critics have said. In the meantime, I can only hope that I start reading something to give me a little more confidence in this process.