Advogato blog for skribe

22 Feb 2005

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:23:01 GMT

Word Power

Do words have power? Do they pose a risk to us? Are they dangerous? Malevolent? The right words in the right place are all of these things, plus more. And we're not talking about secret words, not trade secrets or issues of national security. We're talking about normal, everyday words. The manifestations of our thoughts. The places where our the hearts and our minds lead. Where our bodies follow. Words have power. They can bring down governments. Overthrow tyrrants. Make you fall in love. Or laugh. Or cry. Be wary of words. Words have power. They can fuck up your whole life. Just ask Arash Sigarchi or Mojtaba Saminejad.

Free Mojtaba and Arash ToDay

12 Feb 2005

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:55:54 GMT

Decisions

You know you've made the right decision to turn down a job directing a commercial when:

It's exactly the same people that screwed up last year's attrocity.
One of the producer's ideas for Harmony Week is a scene involving a burning flag.
The 1st AD doesn't know what a call sheet is.
The DoP doesn't think they need a call sheet on a project that is shot over three days using seven locations and a cast and crew of ten.
None of the actors have done any acting before.
The script involves a sparking electrical cable.
Western Power don't want to be involved.
One of the actors pulls out six hours before principal photography is due to start due to a religious belief.
The grip has pulled out, because he hasn't been paid by the producer for a past production, and hasn't told anyone on the production team.
The commercial was designed by committee.

10 Feb 2005

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 04:18:24 GMT

Blood from a stone

The scenario:
You need to see a lawyer.
You have some contracts you want checked.
You're a cheapskate.

For the last hundred-thousand years you've seen the same sign on your way to the production house each day. Legal advice. $20 for 20 minutes. You think, 'It shouldn't take 20 minutes to check a 3-page contract.' So you go in to inquire.

The elderly lady at the reception desk ignores you for the first five minutes. That's despite having looked right at you as you entered the otherwise vacant room, two massive coughing attacks on your part in a vain attempt to attract her attention and several excuse me's. You only spring into her consciousness when somebody else - an entire extended family actually - enters the room.

"Hi, I'd like to have a contract checked for a [insert explanation], can I do that here and what's the procedure?" you ask.

"You make an appointment," she says primly, then proceeds to tell you that the next available slot is in two days time. You hurriedly agree because her eyes are once again showing a vacant sheen and you're not sure you want to wait until someone else enters - can fit into - the now crowded room. You leave, thinking that for a $20 lawyer you'd have waited at least another 5 minutes.

Two days later you arrive on time to discover another old dear at the desk. She recognises you straight away. She asks you to fill out some forms, pay over your $20 and explain once again what you need done. She then asks you to wait on the couch until the lawyer arrives.

The lawyer arrives and she leads you into her room. There's a 4th year law student there as well to observe. You explain again what you need done and hand over the contracts. The lawyer frowns. "I'm not sure I can do this," she says. She hmms and hahs a few times, goes out to see if someone else is qualified to check it instead, returns to tell you that nobody is, sits down and grabs the yellow pages. She provides you with a pamphlett featuring a list of names - of recommended 'proper' lawyers - as well as a seemingly random name picked from the phone book.

"Where do you live," she asks.

"South Perth"

"Is that near the city?"

It's about now you start to realise that the $20 is for the copy of the DVD you'll receive featuring the highlights of some legal version of Candid Camera - of which you will be one of the stars.

The law student pipes up, "It's just across the river."

"I'm from Queensland," the Lawyer says.

And that pretty much sums up the entire scenario. The lawyer. The little old lady. The $20. Queenslanders have come west and set up shop hoping to cash in on our booming economy. You wonder why she didn't tell you that when you entered. It would have been so much quicker and far less confusing. Perhaps a sign on the doorway: WARNING: This area may contain banana-benders. Enter at your own risk. They could also be forced to wear a tag or declare it during introductions.

"Hi, my name is Joe and I will be your lawyer for this evening. Under the Mental Health Act of 1972 I am required to tell you that I was born a Queenslander but I have been in remission for three years now."

All this has taken about five minutes and you're finished.

"Do I at least get a discount?" you ask.

And that's when it happens. That small thing that a religious person might have called a miracle.

"I don't think you should have to pay at all."

Blood from a stone.

2 May 2004

Sun, 2 May 2004 04:02:09 GMT

I've just added a link on my PLUG homepage to some basic details about a couple of short films I've recently made. Be warned clicking on the posters leads to a large image.

21 Feb 2004

Sat, 21 Feb 2004 12:14:55 GMT

At the moment I'm neck-deep producing a television series on computers, the hardware and software, and the people that use them. It's a real challenge. While I've made quite a few documentary episodes for tv it has always been under the wing of a senior producer. This time I'm the senior producer. Which is great up until the shit starts to hit the fan and then everyone is looking either to nail your arse to the wall or hoping that you'll throw them a safety line. Like one of our segment producers having a nervous breakdown and being unavailable for the rest of the series. It means I have to take up the slack. Do all his stories as well as my own. It's something I can handle I just wish I didn't have to. I can handle it. No really, I can. *twitch*

14 Jun 2003

Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:14:47 GMT

Big Cat Diary

Today

There were lots of gazelle around today. Unfortunately the bitches failed to catch any of them. I'm so hungry. The cubs look tasty. Maybe I can lure one away and sneak a bite. I'm sure they won't notice. Damn. They did. They ganged up on me and hid the cubs while I was distracted. I hate it when they do that. My testicles need a good wash.

12 Jun 2003

Thu, 12 Jun 2003 04:08:12 GMT

Quote of the Day:

30 May 2003

Fri, 30 May 2003 02:51:16 GMT

"The challenge, never to be indifferent in the face of injustice or falsehood encompasses the challenge to advance the truth and human dignity rather than seek advantage ... and intolerance."

29 May 2003

Thu, 29 May 2003 15:27:02 GMT

During the lead-up to the referendum that would decide whether Australia would remain a monarchy or become a republic, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, uttered the immortal phrase 'If it's not broke, why fix it?' Four years after that referendum was defeated the Hollingworth saga has proven once and for all just how broken the system is.

Under the Australian constitution the Head-of-State is Queen Victoria of Great Britain, her heirs and successors. The current monarch is Queen Elizabeth the second. The monarch is represented in Australia by the Govenor-General, whom performs all the duties and roles that the monarch would if she could be bothered travelling half-way across the world to the colonies. While the Govenor-General is officially 'assigned' by the monarch, for all intents and purposes he (as there has yet to be a female GG) is chosen by one man - the Prime Minister of Australia. Very often this is done without any consultation.

The Republic referendum was essentially lost because the proposed republican model didn't allow the direct election of the President. It would have had the President elected by a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament. The majority of the Australian population were unwilling to give the politicians that much power. Instead, we are stuck with a system where one man chooses.

The selection of Peter Hollingworth as Govenor-General - and the seventeen-month furor that led up to his resignation - have proven the not only is the system broke it is fundamentally flawed. There is no allowance for the Prime Minister or the parliament to dismiss a Govenor-General unless he, while serving as Govenor-General, did something to warrant his dismissal. This theoretically could mean that a war-criminal could be appointed GG and, short of an unprecedented intervention by the monarch, unless he broke the 'rules' during his tenure as GG could not be dismissed. This is clearly unacceptable. The howls from the media and the populace have proven that. An alternative must be found.

So, what are the alternatives? There really are only two: choice by the parliament or choice by the voters. Both have their problems and their benefits. The main problem facing parliamentary choice is that the voters remain unconvinced that it is not a further power grab by the politicians. On the other hand, direct election could result in a mandate for the president which might bring him (or, hopefully one day, her) in conflict with the parliament or Prime Minister. The politicians are unwilling to support this option because of this.

During the referendum I heavily supported the republican model favouring parliamentary choice despite loving the romance of electing my own head-of-state. I was swayed by the idea that a conflict stemming from presidential mandate was a bad thing. The Hollingworth incident has nullified that arguement. Bad things will happen no matter who makes the choice and I would rather that I made that choice directly rather than have it made for me.

28 May 2003

Wed, 28 May 2003 02:41:28 GMT

The Govenor-General makes his farewell speech tonight acquiring some airtime (10 minutes IIRC) from the ABC. I have to wonder why bother.

Does he wish to further explain himself about why he failed to remove a known paedophile from working with children? Perhaps he wants to reinfer that it was the child that was to blame and not the adult. Or maybe he wants to tell us again that he 'must not have heard the question properly.' Everytime he opens his mouth to explain he puts another size 13 boot into it.

Does he wish to apologise to the Australian people for being an international embarrassment? For apologies to have any meaning they have to be sincere - a genuine regret and desire for penance. But there is no real sincerity emanating from Hollingworth and his only regret appears to be that he got caught. Anyway, the time for apologies has long since past. Had he stepped down in early 2002, when the story was first made public, then his apology might have had some level of meaning above a superficial attempt to hold onto regal glory.

This man placed himself above the good of the office of Govenor-General. He placed himself above the good of the country. He placed his own well-being above the welfare of the victims. As far as I'm concerned he doesn't need another ten minutes of tax-payer funded airtime. His actions have already spoken loudly enough.