Category: Uncategorized



Reviews coming soon to this site.


21 June, 2018

George MacKay Interview


22 June, 2018

Bao (2018, Domee Shi, United States/Canada)

The Incredibles 2 (2018, Brad Bird, United States)

Three Summers (2017, Ben Elton, Australia)

The Eyes Of Orson Welles (2018, Mark Cousins, United Kingdom)


23 July, 2018

Jellyfish (2018, James Gardner, United Kingdom)

Plonger [Diving] (2017, Mélanie Laurent, France)

George Michael Freedom: The Director’s Cut (2018, David Austin, United Kingdom)


24 July, 2018

My Friend The Polish Girl (2018, Ewa Banaszkiewicz/Mateusz Dymek, United Kingdom)

Mary Shelley (2017, Haifaa Al-Mansour, Ireland/Luxembourg/United Kingdom)

How Creative Are We? (Panel)


25 June, 2018

Dead In A Week Or Your Money Back (2018, Tom Edmunds, United Kingdom)

Several Conversations About A Very Tall Girl (2018, Bogdan Theodor Olteanu, Romania)

The Most Assassinated Woman In The World (2018, Franck Ribière, Belgium/UK/US)

Flammable Children [Swinging Safari] (2018, Stephen Elliot, Australia)

Wild Nights With Emily (2018, Madeleine Olnek, United States)


26 June, 2018

Patrick (2018, Mandie Fletcher, United Kingdom)

Songbird (2018, Jamie Adams, United Kingdom)


27 June, 2018

Unicorn Store (2017, Brie Larson, United States)

The Gospel According To André (2017, Kate Novak, United States)

Yes You Can Make Animation In Europe (Panel)

Hearts Beat Loud (2018, Brett Haley, United States)

Film’s Final Curtain (2018, Lindsay McIntyre, Canada)

Pig Film (2018, Josh Gibson, United States) with Post Screening Q&A



Choose To Change Your Journey (And The Journey Of A Handful Of Talented Female FIlmmakers)

Choose To Change Your Journey (And The Journey Of A Handful Of Talented Female FIlmmakers)

It’s live.   The Seed & Spark crowdfunding page for Split  is live.


Here’s their inclusion statement from that page:

Inclusion Statement from Split

We’re proud to have an all-female Creative Team (Producer, Director, DP and Writer/Creator) as well as an all-female on-set production crew. Out of the five main characters in the show, three are women and three are LGBTQ. Our production is committed to casting ethnically diverse actors.

You want to join them on that journey, right?


Remember,  since you read about it here first, Yael Shavitt is offering three (3), and only three (3), of you an exclusive opportunity:

The first three (3) contributors to the campaign ($25 or above) will get a private link to watch the full pilot of Split that same day.  TODAY!!!  RIGHT NOW!!!  You can see it before anyone else, if you are one of those first three (3).  How cool is that?

Split’s Seed & Spark Page

Yael Shavitt’s IMDb Page





Destiny.  Choice.  A decision you make today could alter your journey for years.  And yet, is it possible you could wind up in the same place, the place where you were intended to wind up, despite distinct alternate, almost disparate, journeys?

That question is addressed in Split, an exciting new web series, coming from filmmaker Yael Shavitt and her all female production team.

Yael Team
The Brains Behind Split:  Yael Shavitt (second, left) leads her team as they prepare for the big upcoming events throughout this summer.

Split is a web series about two possible paths that one life might take. An early decision in a young girl’s life creates a split in her world, sending her off on two parallel paths into alternate futures.

After auditioning for a drama high school, 13-year-old Sammy makes a crucial choice that splits the path of her life in two. Flash forward twelve years: in one world, Sammy’s grown into Sam, a confident up-and-coming actress in a turbulent relationship with her girlfriend. In another world, she’s Samantha, an eager assistant director living comfortably with her longtime boyfriend.

Sounds amazing doesn’t it?  Well, here’s something else amazing:  I spent the weekend interviewing the amazing Yael Shavitt; and I will be posting that interview later this summer.  And speaking of exclusives, here are some more from Yael herself:


Yael has asked me to announce this to you, my readers, here first:  Starting this Thursday, June 15th, you and your life journey can join Yael and her team on their journey, as they launch their crowdfunding campaign on Seed & Spark.  (Come back here, as well as to Yael’s social media links listed below, when we can announce the exact link, after it goes live.  Meanwhile, start following Yael at all these links so you can receive notifications as soon as the launch is, well, launched!)


And since you, my loyal followers, read about it here first, Yael is offering three (3), and only three (3), of you an exclusive opportunity:    The first three (3) contributors to the campaign ($25 or above) will get a private link to watch the full pilot of Split that same day.  WHAT?!?  THAT’S FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE PREMIERE IN NYC!!!  How cool is that?

Yael Split Bumper

So, go follow Split and Yael, at the links below, and we will see you back here on the 15th at 1PM (EST) with the exact link to the campaign.  Change your journey by helping the women at Team Split change theirs!

Yael Shavitt’s IMDb Page

Split’s Seed & Spark Page (link coming June 15, at 1PM, EST)















Yesterday, I blogged about the Jane test.  I was torn, to say the least.  I agree with Ross Putnam’s contentions (and it would be impossible to argue with the horrendous examples), but I also think the issue cannot be simplified into Three Simple Rules.

For those new to my blog, or don’t know what the Jane test is, you can read the previous post on the Jane test here.   The short version is this:  Putnam contends your screenplay is sexist if when you introduce your female characters, you can answer “YES” to at least one of these three simple questions:   1) Does The Introduction Focus on the External Attributes of the Character?  2) Is She a Twenty- or Thirtysomething?  3) Is She Dating Someone Decades Older Than Her?

So being torn, I read this article on the Jane test.

As I reported yesterday, I’m not entirely convinced these three questions are so simple.

Then I wondered , what if my viewpoint of this viewpoint was tainted by MY gender.    Possible I suppose, even for an enlightened feminist such as myself.

So I asked a fellow screenwriter (Yikes!  I just used the sexist word “fellow” in her introduction), and female Brit, Tracy Shefras, for her take on the issue.  Tracy wrote:

The Jane Test is concerned with is there actually anything in the character description that hints at the substance of the woman, highlighting what it might be that makes her tick, worthy of some screen time.  Underneath the gloss and female beauty surely it is possible to extract, and display, a new kind of essence.   The old favourite aesthetic image is no longer of any consequence.  Writers have to do better.

The Test suggests there are three obvious pitfalls that undermine the female character.  If a writer can find a way to describe the character, and avoid the pitfalls, then they will be well on the way to writing a compelling character.  A character that is not defined by the length of her legs, the age bracket she falls into, nor the fact that she is hooked up to an older man.

There have got to be ways to take the sexism out of description.  Ways in which the inherent qualities of the female character leave potential readers and viewers with a reformed, and informed opinion that equality does exist.

Well, obviously, Tracy agrees there is a problem — as do I.  I’m just not certain running a screenplay by the Three Simple Rules constitutes an adequate test/solution.



PunchFarm is a group of friends who love movies, tacos and beer. I recently heard them for the first time (Thanks, Rebekah Fieschi!), and thought, these fun people could be my friends.

They love moves.  I love movies.  They love tacos.  I love tacos.  They love beer.  I love movies.

Each week they watch a movie together and then record their thoughts and opinions about the film. They also discuss anything and everything. Horror movies, comic books and tacos are just a few of the topics they geek out on. They talk to filmmakers such as the aforementioned Rebekah Fieschi and P.J. Starks (a friend of my friend Amber Langton, a fine filmmaker in her own right).  Other recent guests have included Josh Hasty, director of In Hell Everybody Loves Popcorn, and Dynamo Marz, lead singer of The Deadites.

As many of you know, I always like to take a position on one of the topics discussed in each week’s podcast I review.  This week, I will be featuring Episode 39, the one which not coincidentally featured Rebekah Fieschi.

Rebekah on Punch Farm

In addition to the interview with Rebekah, the gang brings up several other topics, as usual.

So the position I want to take in this post, is a response to one of those other topics, and also is my answer to this question:

If you’re the Camera Operator, and one of the actors trips in a gopher hole, do you set down the camera and go help the actor — or do you keep the camera rolling, get the shot, and let someone else worry about him? At the one hour (01:00:00) mark, of Episode 39, our gang discuss that very happening during the shooting of their short film Chompy: Attack of the Fishman. 

My answer is this:

I contend you set down the camera.  Especially if you can run and warn him before he hit the ground, you set down the camera.  Sure the safety meeting is the job of the 1AD — but everybody is responsible to keep their eyes open for safety concerns on the set.

Triggered by this discussion, I emailed a former film professor of mine, and asked him the same question.  He said “I don’t know if I would stop filming, but I would definitely say something before they stepped in it.”  I had another discussion with a peer, who took it one step (pun intended) further.  He asked “Can a Camera Op really stop filming at all if the director never yells ‘Cut’?”  Good question.

Anyway, thanks PunchFarm Podcast for spurring on this discussion!  Before I went to press with this blog post, I shot off an email to Mark Scheetz because I wondered from where the PunchFarm name originated.  Mark replied immediately:  “Years ago we made a few short films and thought it would be fun to have our own “production company” so we just made that name up. That silly name worked well with the silly shorts we made. One short was about a misunderstood fish-man, Chompy. And “Chompy” is part of our podcast logo.”

Way to bring the gopher hole story and the name origin story full-circle, Mark!  I couldn’t have done it better myself.

ADDENDUM:  Here’s a quick glimpse at the PunchFarm gang…