There’s nothing like a challenge to kick the brain into working at things from angles you never really looked at before. In this case, it was a simple conversation that ended with a friend of mine questioning how something so well-known and well established could even be argued against.
A friend was discussing possible panel discussion topics about horror and, when zombies came up, another friend suggested a discussion about who created the zombie as we know it. He was blown off with a quick answer as to who did it and how silly the idea of even debating it was. There was, he was told, simply no questioning the fact that George A. Romero created the modern zombie. There are, after all, entire books and documentaries dedicated to just that fact.
My comment in response to this was that, hey, they’re still arguing over whether or not the Wright Brothers were really “First in Flight” in America. If that can be seriously debated by various scholars and newspapers; why not this? I put on my devil’s advocate’s cap and a day later told him that it might actually be easier than he thought. This is the result.
I should note, as if it wasn’t already somewhat apparent from the above, that this is pretty much just an exercise in looking at this from a different POV than the one I usually hold. It’s also maybe an opening for fun debate. I love George and think he doesn’t get enough credit in some areas and I certainly respect his well-earned reputation as the father of the modern zombie. Keep any angry typing and any offended INTERNET SCREAMING to yourself here. We’re likely on the same side of the actual argument. However, friendly geek debating is always welcome.
This is also going to be a bit rough as a read. I’m a bit busy and I’m supposed to be working on other things right now so I’m not working this out or refining it much beyond first think through and first draft. I’ll leave the polishing (or crushing) of the thing to any debate it might invite.
So, without further ado…
Did George A. Romero really create the modern zombie?
The generally accepted answer is usually a resounding “yes” and given faster than one can think. But the answer may not be as cut and dry as that. As a matter of fact, one very authoritative source has repeatedly stated that George A. Romero did not invent zombies back in 1968. That source would be George A. Romero himself.
Romero has, in many interviews over the years, stated that he never intended them to be zombies. Zombies to Romero were the still living Voodoo slaves of such classic films as White Zombie. His film was partially intended to be a riff on Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend with updated concepts and contemporary themes thrown in. But Romero didn’t want to use vampires. So after some thought about what to do, the decision was made to make them ghouls.
That’s actually an extremely important point. Romero knew what his creatures were and he named them. They were ghouls. And ghouls, even as portrayed in Night of the Living Dead, were not new or original by any stretch of the imagination.
Ghouls, particularly as seen in NotLD, date back centuries, if not millennia, in legend and lore from all around the world. You can find stories of the ravenous dead in ancient cultures that have been nothing but dust and ruins for longer than anyone reading this has been alive. And in many cases, they were also depicted as the departed friends, family or village-folk that came back mindless and with a taste for the flesh of the living. That’s not a story new to 1968 or even American storytelling. There were even a few of the pre-code horror comic books in the 1950s that at least played with the concept even if they didn’t dance fully into on panel, full gore body devouring.
So George A. Romero himself has for years said that he never intended these things to be “zombies” and didn’t even call them that himself in the early years and yet they still became “zombies” to the movie going and horror loving public. So how and why did that happen?
Romero has answered that one as well. The press basically did it. It was the press, both professional and fanzine, that labeled the ravenous dead of Romero’s film with the “zombie” tag.
But, Jerry, I hear you saying, they were new to film. We had never seen such a sight in films before; certainly not American films at any rate and not films that had any sort of mainstream coverage and release. And to that I answer simply…
Did James Bond not exist as a fully realized creation until the films came along? Yeah, they changed him quite a bit in the transition from page to screen, but it has always been acknowledged that James Bond was based on a book, on pre-existing stories, created by Ian Fleming. The film Beastmaster and Marc Singer’s Dar are nothing like Andre Norton’s books or Hosteen Storm in any way but the most superficial, and changed far, far more of the story and setting than Romero’s ghouls were changed from some of the ghouls of legend, but it’s still widely acknowledge that Beastmaster is Andre Norton’s creation. So how are we not to also acknowledge that Romero’s “zombies” existed so fully and firmly in story and legend that he knew what they were well enough to name them as ghouls himself even if a host of press people felt the need to give them a hipper name?
But, you say, the origin makes them different. The ravenous dead were supernatural. These were brought about by natural, if slightly cosmic and exaggerated, means. That means that they are different based on the “birth” as it were.
No they weren’t and no they’re not.
A lot of people who call themselves big zombie fans and big Romero fans often seem to trip themselves up over that one. They’ll tell you that the zombie plague was created by radiation brought back by a satellite that broke up on re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere. This is not true.
The satellite is referenced in NotLD, but it’s never actually established as the cause for the zombie outbreak. Romero himself has even said that the satellite was not the cause and inserted commentary by an expert into the early parts of Shaun of the Dead shooting down that idea. The cause of the zombie plague of Romero’s world is to this day exactly what Romero himself has stated he wanted it to be. It’s an unknown and hotly debated source. And, again, no matter what else is said, we still have this.
GEORGE ROMERO: “They haven’t. When I did the first film, I didn’t call them zombies. When I did Night of the Living Dead, I called them ghouls, flesh eaters. I didn’t think they were. Back then zombies were still those boys in the Caribbean doing the wet work for Lugosi. So I never thought of them as zombies. I thought they were just back from the dead. I ripped off the idea for the first film from a Matheson novel called I Am Legend which is now back with us after a couple of incarnations prior. I thought I Am Legend was about revolution. I mean this is a 60s guy sitting there [pretends to take a toke, laughs] and I said if you’re going to do something about revolution, you should start at the beginning. Richard starts his book with one man left. Everybody in the world has become a vampire and I said, “No man, we gotta start at the beginning and tweak it up a little bit.” And I couldn’t use vampires because he did so I wanted something that would be an earth shaking change, something that was forever, like this awful shit, something that was really at the heart of it. I said what if the dead stop staying dead. Again it’s just an idea that comes to you. And I just never thought of them as zombies in the first place. This film goes back theoretically to that first night. I mean I didn’t use the word until the second film and that’s only because people who were writing about the first film called them zombies and I said maybe they are in a way, but to me zombies were separate in the rainbow. I mean they were not even undead, they were just people that were … You blew this shit up with blowfish powder which would put someone in a state of suspended animation and then you get them to do your chores for you. I just thought it was completely different.”
It’s kind of hard to argue with the man himself when he says that he never intended them to be “zombies” and in fact thought that they were just ghouls. He also addresses the fact here that he only decided to use that word himself because other people were describing his ghouls as zombies in their writings on the first film.
You’ve built a car. A bunch of people who don’t know any better call it a plane. You finally give in and call it a plane. Did you really invent the modern plane?
No. No you did not. And Romero may not have created the modern zombie. He certainly had a hand in it and might be honestly labeled a co-creator who has had the good fortune of having many other co-creators who were far more unknown than he was and, in some cases with the passage of time, mostly forgotten.
But certainly he can be credited with creating the “Romero Zombie” and thus still have the title as the “Creator of the Modern Zombie” that has been bestowed upon him, right? Maybe not. The truth may be that we’ve never really seen a “Romero Zombie” on film.
The closest thing that you can make the claim of being a “Romero Zombie” about would be the first zombies of NotLD, creatures, again, that Romero himself has stated were never zombies, and that after that film we saw the creature drifting away from what it was and into the pop culture created narrative of what the zombie was.
Think about the evolution of the “Romero Zombie” for a moment. The zombies seen in Night and the zombies seen in Dawn could almost be different creatures. Yeah, they both rise from the dead to munch warm, living flesh, but there’s much more about them that’s different.
Other than the two child zombies at the airport in Dawn, the zombies of Night show the ability for faster movement than their counterparts in Dawn. In NotLD, the very first zombie we see jogs at a fairly nice clip after the departing Barbara. He also shows us zombies in Night that are more physically capable and that show more signs of intelligence in the moment. Jogging zombie, upon catching up to Barbara’s car starts rapid-fire pounding on the window like a jackhammer. He then, after figuring out that his knuckles ain’t cutting it, steps back, rapidly looks around the ground, picks up a rock, hauls back, and then smashes the window with the rock. Throughout Night we even see the undead using basic tools (sticks and stones) with regularity. They also seemed a wee bit light sensitive.
By Dawn of the Dead, the concept of the NotLD ghoul being instead a “zombie” has seemingly infected their presentation on screen. They’re slower, they’re more lumbering, they’re more clueless, they seem to have forgotten what tools are, and they resemble the lumbering Voodoo zombie of films gone by insofar as their general actions and movements much more so than their NotLD counterparts did. It was as if the very idea of labeling them zombies in turn affected the way they were written and performed.
The argument could be made that Romero allowed others and their descriptions of and ideas on his creatures to shape the development of his creatures, either consciously or unconsciously, rather than keeping them what they were and expanding on that. They changed in between NotLD and DotD into being closer to something you might see in White Zombie or King of the Zombies.
By Day of the Dead, the transformation of the creatures from being a ghoul to simply being a deader, hungrier version of the Voodoo zombie was more or less complete. We’re even treated to the lone zombie breaking through the haze of its clouded zombie-state mind to start remembering aspects of its previous life and to start displaying facets of its old, pre-zombie personality.
By the time the modern era of the zombie film came around (skipping Land of the Dead even though I actually liked that one more than most) and George Romero reclaimed his cinematic kingdom, we saw him using zombies that were in every way respectful of what many call “Romero’s Rules” for zombies. Surely these zombies are in fact Romero’s zombies, right? Hey, they follow Romero’s Rules for crying out loud.
Actually, if anything, these “Romero’s Rules” zombies from Diary of the Dead and Survival of the Dead are the least like Romero’s zombies in NotLD than any to come before them and are actually fairly different from even the zombies of Dawn, Day, and Land. These zombies do in fact follow the “Romero’s Rules” as defined by a legion of hardcore zombie purists in pop culture, but the problem is that Romero himself never really followed “Romero’s Rules” all that closely in his first three zombie films. What we see in Dairy and Survival is Romero using the zombie demanded by the purists and what we saw was even the purists ranking these two films as the worst two films of his (so far) six films.
What we have is a man who set out to use ghouls, slowly allowed the pop culture forces of the time to shift his creatures closer to their “zombie” moniker, and, after many years, finally set out to use “his” zombies based on “his” rules when the rules in question were never really his rules in the early days. So where does this all leave Romero insofar as being the “creator” of the modern zombie?
He’s certainly a great filmmaker. He’s made three fantastic films, two pretty damned good ones and one kinda clunker. But the reality of the situation is that he’s a co-creator of the modern zombie at best and, when looking at his first film VS subsequent films, he’s not even the majority co-creator of what is today considered the Romero Zombie.
He laid the groundwork, the well established groundwork, and so many others filled in the blanks. He headed the team, but a lot of other technicians added the fine details. Godfather of the modern zombie he may be, but he is at best only the unintentional co-creator of the modern zombie and not in fact the creator of the modern zombie.
Oh… A little bonus debate starter… Do you want to hear something that’s really insane sounding but very likely true? It’s quite possible that the single biggest thing that created the modern zombie as we know it, even the modern Romero zombie and the zombie craze as we know it right now was a simple mistake with copyright. Yeah, you read that right. You may in fact owe your favorite current creature’s success and relevance on the horror landscape to a screw-up.
It’s A Wonderful Life is a Christmas staple. For years you couldn’t turn the television on in the Christmas season and not channel surf into it on at least two or three channels. Everyone was airing it from your short on funds local PBS station to superstations like WOR, WGN, and WTBS. The thing is, Life was a flop. It was a failure at the box office and it was savaged by most critics at the time. No one cared about it and somewhere along the lines the film fell out of copyright and in to public domain. At that point, just about anyone who wanted to could air the thing day and night without putting the least little dent into their budget. And slowly over the years this “Holiday Classic” was aired so much and so many times that almost everyone had a chance to see it. It actually found an audience on television and it built a bit of a nostalgic following for some as the movie that they always watched in the Christmas Season when growing up.
And then the popularity got it noticed and it slipped back into copyright. Nice DVD versions were released and the cost of airing it went up. Suddenly it’s not on TV as much each December and its popularity has been noticeably slipping.
Night of the Living Dead sort of did the same thing. Night fell out of copyright almost immediately thanks to a fairly large screw-up. As a result, it cost basically nothing to air. Channels that were willing to air it, occasionally “uncut” but slightly edited to avoid bare zombie butts, could do so every Halloween season or on their local horror host’s program on the cheap. Drive-Ins and theaters now called Grindhouse Theaters but not so much known as such then could get prints cheap if they knew where to look and show it on special occasions with a much better profitability bang for their original layout buck.
When VHS came along, every fly-by-night company put out their own print. The same thing happened when DVD came along and put a bullet in the head of VHS. Hell, some of the DVDs were the VHS prints copied over with all of the tape defects intact. You could buy it on DVD for a whopping $1.99 or get it in a collection of ten, twenty-five or fifty films for the cost of any one or two big studio release DVDs.
Night of the Living Dead was everywhere when I was growing up. Everyone that was a horror fan saw it because you almost couldn’t not come across the film on TV or in a friend’s video collection.
It was a good movie to be sure. But the film also had a much better than average chance at finding and building an audience. Would it have been popular if it had never fallen out of copyright? Yeah, I think it would have been. It’s a good film after all. Would it have been as big if it had stayed in copyright? I really don’t think so. It would have been aired less on television and there would have only been higher priced VHS tapes and DVDs on the market with almost no mega collections containing it until the most recent years of DVD distribution.
It would have found an audience, but the audience, just based on the reduced exposure, would have likely been smaller in the early years as well as into the 80s and 90s. Without the larger “cult” following, we don’t see the same rise of the cheap zombie horror that we saw in the 80s. Hell, we may not even have seen Return of the Living Dead. Without these things, we don’t see the same demand for Day, which may still have been made, and Land, which may not have still been made, and the blossoming love affair with all things zombie that we’ve seen from the major studio heads. The zombie genre isn’t as strong as it is now and we maybe don’t see The Walking Dead on TV even if we do maybe see the comic with a less successful run from being released to a less rabid zombie fandom.
The zombie craze we see now can be traced back to Night of the Living Dead. But do we see an in copyright NotLD making the same impact in the two decades after its creation that we saw from the cheaper to air/print/distribute version? Probably not.
There was an amazingly well written book released some years ago now called WWZ. WWZ (World War Zombie) was written as the chronicles of a man looking back after a decade’s time on the zombie war that almost wiped out mankind. It was amazingly intelligently written, it focused heavily on the human element, it played around with concepts of the cultures and politics around the world and how they would impact our ability to survive, and it of course had its fair share of zombie action moments.
There is a movie coming out this summer calling itself WWZ. About the only thing it appears to have in common with the book is the name. The movie itself may ultimately turn out to be good, but I’m not holding out much hope.
One of the things that makes me less than secure in the belief that the movie will be good has been the ridiculous CGI scenes displayed in the trailers and clips released so far. Zombies charging like rats at fixed structures and then building up into an ever shifting pile crashing against those structures before pushing zombies up and then off of the top of the pile with the type of laughably bad CGI physics that even good gaming companies try to avoid. When the action on the screen looks less realistically portrayed than your average PS3 cutscene; that might not be a great indicator of a quality movie experience to come. The other problem, of which the bad CGI scenes are likely a side effect of, is that so much of what I’ve seen so far screams that this is a movie asking you to turn off your brain and not think overly much about what you’re looking at.
Now, a lot of really good summer blockbusters are films that ask you to suspend your disbelief for a bit. Certainly more than a few lately have asked you to not only believe that a man can fly. but that a whole lot of men and women can fly while also displaying a wide assortment of other fantastical abilities. But the willing suspension of disbelief is not turning one’s brain off completely. WWZ is actually releasing teaser clips that scream out that you are not to think about what you’re looking at on the screen longer than it takes to jump at the “shock” scare that they throw at you.
This is a recently released teaser clip for WWZ. It’s a clip that, at just under one minute, we’ve actually seen a good bit of in the earlier trailers. It’s a scene that made me wince at the poorly contrived shock moment in the trailer. But released as a full clip designed to show off why you should be excited about the film? It ends up just making me doubt the film’s quality even more.
We once again see Brad in his car with his family as a motorcycle cop knocks the mirror off of the car door as he goes speeding by. We see Brad decide that the best thing he can do is get out of the car and look around and we get a nice bird’s eye shot of the street in front of them so that we can see the massive parking lot that the city street has become as well as a low level shot showing us the same behind Brad’s car; every lane filled with unmoving cars for as far as the eye can see with Brad’s car more or less in the center of the street. Another motorcycle cop pulls up and yells at Brad to get back into his car. We then see what looks like either a small tanker truck or a large delivery truck speed past Brad’s car and slam into the cop; your sudden shock scare moment.
Just a few seconds earlier, we see an entire city block of cars sitting bumper to bumper. There is no open lane of traffic for this truck to come flying through and, Hollywood film or not, the truck is neither making its way through that many cars to make its meeting with the motorcycle cop or doing so quickly and quietly enough that neither Brad or the motorcycle cop are going to be suddenly caught unawares by its presence. It’s a shock scare that barely works as it is and looks mindlessly stupid by the setup the film gives you to the shock scare.
It was bad enough seeing it in the early trailer, but this is a promo clip. This clip is supposed to be about getting you excited by showing you what you have to look forward to when you slap down first the ever increasing sum of money to buy your ticket and then the money from the second mortgage you just took out in order to buy a small drink and a box of popcorn. This clip just says that they expect you to shut your brain off completely and not even consider basic common sense elements when looking at even the most mundane scares and action. Between this and the other clip that they just released where Brad has to decide whether or not to leave his family and undertake his new mission, a scene completely and utterly boring in its presentation of human drama, I think that they’ve successfully killed what little hope I had left that this will be anything but an instantly forgettable CGI fest and that the only thing it may successfully do by the end of its theatrical run will be to ensure that we don’t see an actual adaptation of WWZ come to any screen for a decade or more.
And the world feels like it just became a little smaller and more mundane with his passing.
But, oh, just imagine the wonderful new collaborations that are taking shape right now.
***** Now the winner of best film at the ConCarolinas Short Film Festival. *****
Cache Me if You Can is an interesting film to try and review. Cache Me if You Can was conceived as a horror film and is executed as such, but the horror is by design not present in the early parts of the film or even truly built to until the very end.
Cache Me if You Can is described by writer and director Bill Mulligan as an attempt to create a horror short where you care about the two leads (and one presumes at the outset possible victims) by the end of it rather than simply waiting impatiently for annoying characters to be dispatched by the film’s monster/killer/big bad evil. On that level it succeeds quite well. This success is in part based on the writing and in part on the chemistry between the two leads, Emlee Vassilos and Robert Craft.
Vassilos and Craft play a young married couple on their way to a party when Vassilos notices that they’re very close to a multiple clue geocache. Geocaching, for those who don’t know, is a treasure hunting game where you use a GPS to play hide and seek with hidden containers placed in usually out of the way locations by other participants in the activity. The game involves finding the hidden items through a combination of a geocaching app and clues/riddles.
Our couple embarks upon their geocaching quest in what becomes a long day’s trek through the woods and swamps of backwoods North Carolina. Robert Craft’s character is not enthusiastically into his wife’s hobby so he of course finds himself climbing a high tree with questionable footing on their very first geocache. The first clue is a riddle that leads them to the next and each successive find gives them a clue to yet another. His enthusiasm for the hobby increases with the increasing value of each find — money, jewelry, rare goods — as the couple push on towards the final treasure.
Vassilos and Craft do a wonderful job with their roles. Both are extremely capable actors and they share on onscreen chemistry that makes them a very believable couple. The dialogue is light and fun and the exchanges between the two lead characters are enjoyable. The clues created for the story are quick and clever. The story succeeds very well through all of this in the first of its goals by making the characters very real feeling and people who you feel some level of involvement with.
But Cache Me if You Can is a horror film and it has to deliver on that level as well to succeed. The final act of the film is impossible to discuss without giving away the ending, but when the time comes for the film’s horror element to come into play the film does deliver.
At an overall length of approximately 20 minutes, the initial absence of horror in a horror short film doesn’t have the chance to wear out its welcome and the horror still carries an enjoyable punch when it arrives. You enjoy the characters throughout and even begin to enjoy the game whether or not you come into the film with any knowledge of geocaching. Cache Me if You Can is an Adrenalin Productions film and is currently making the rounds on the festival circuit. The DVD should be available soon through the Adrenalin Productions store.
Cache Me if You Can can be found on IMDB here – http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2676434/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast
And on Facebook here – https://www.facebook.com/cachemeifyoucan?fref=ts
News on Cache Me if You Can screenings and other Adrenalin Productions news can be found here – http://www.adrenalinfilms.com/
Information on Geocaching can be found here – http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hiking/geocaching.htm
Mother is a short film from Sick Chick Flicks that is currently doing the film festivals and convention circuit. The film is directed and produced by Christine Parker and based on a story by Amber Teachey. Amber Teachey is also one of the two leads in the film.
The basic storyline of the film is stripped down and lean. It’s also, to some degree, familiar territory. The film centers around the relationship, or some might say lack thereof, between a teenage girl (Teachey) and her mother (Catherine Mattson). What relationship we do see on film is one of a highly destructive nature.
Mother is not the type of mother that you would want. She quite openly displays resentment and contempt for her daughter. The underlying feeling in Mattson’s performance is of a woman who blames her daughter’s birth for the failures of her life since that birth. That resentment and contempt manifests itself in abuse that is mental, emotional, and physical. By the time we get a peek into this period of their lives, the daughter is well past ready to escape. This escape comes in the form of a boyfriend with an offer of a new home and safe refuge.
The night in question arrives and events do not go quite as planned. The remainder of the film follows the fallout of that night. Unfortunately, the details of the second half of the film are difficult to discuss without revealing too much.
Mother is not an easy film to watch. The performances by the film’s two leads are powerfully raw and both the directing and post production work create a visual feel to the film that only amplifies this. There were moments when I found myself uncomfortably shifting in my seat while viewing it. The reason for this is that Mother seeks out the horror for its edge in the most uncomfortable genre of all; real life. The odds are that you know these two people or have known them at some point in your life and, as such, the story strikes at places deeper and darker than the average slasher horror or the monster of the minute.
An additional edge comes through in the finished product that comes from its source. Story co-creator Amber Teachey is here metaphorically slashing her wrists and bleeding out onto the screen. When speaking at the screening I attended, she discussed that the inspiration for the story itself was largely autobiographical. The life she depicts on screen was inspired by what was once her own. And, again, that edge comes through powerfully in the onscreen performance.
Catherine Mattson plays the title character with a very gritty and dark tone in her performance. She radiates disappointment with her life’s lot and absolute resentment towards the source that she blames for that disappointment. You can very easily hate her, but at the same time, in one scene where Mother admits to her pastor that she cannot not be this way, there’s a subtle undertone in the performance that almost makes you feel sorry for a damaged human being who knows how damaged she is and seemingly cannot change.
Mother is still a horror short though and it does move into the supernatural by its second half. Or maybe it doesn’t. The supernatural elements of the film are neither heavy-handed nor overdone. The result being that you might be equally correct in interpreting it as the supernatural or as a fragile mind slipping the grip of reality. Even the ending is, in hindsight, open to two distinct interpretations; as different from each other as night and day.
And the ending…
There’s a word of warning that needs to be said before watching Mother for the first time. It is a film very much worth watching, but do not expect the obvious story arc from start to finish. The ending caught me off guard. So much so that I couldn’t even review it properly that night on the screening cards passed out at the event I was at.
There are certain patterns in storytelling that most stories follow and that most people are conditioned to following. When you get A, B and C, well, you then expect D. Maybe someone throws a curveball at you and they substitute D with 4, but even then D and 4 are close enough that the seeming difference from what you expected VS what you got are actually close enough that you still immediately accept it. Certainly Mother seems to be setting you up for an expected and, some might anticipate, justified ending. Mother instead gives you something else entirely in its last act. And what it ultimately gives you is not a bad thing.
Mother is a film that deserves to be seen. It’s also a film that benefits from multiple viewings in part because it’s a film that in its second half is so open to interpretation but in much larger part because it is in fact a very good film. And it’s a film that deserves discussion and thought afterwards as well.
Mother is currently being screened at festivals and conventions with a DVD to be released soon. The film is being distributed through Creepy Cherub distributors, a subsidiarity of Archangel Productions.
Sick Chick Flicks Facebook Page- https://www.facebook.com/SickChickFlicks
Mother’s Facebook Page- https://www.facebook.com/thefilmMOTHER?fref=ts
Christine Parker – http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2034378/?ref_=tt_ov_dr
Amber Teachey – http://www.amberteachey.com/
Catherine Mattson – http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3932248/
Creepy Cherub & Archangel Productions- http://www.archangelproductions.org/CreepyCherub/CreepyCherubDistribution.html
The movie discussed in the post here http://jjchandler.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/an-independent-film-state-of-mind-or-why-parts-of-the-last-year-and-a-half-were-so-cool/, in case anyone has the good taste to be curious.
Screening at festivals, conventions and single location theaters now. Hopefully on DVD by the Christmas shopping season.