Yesterday was a Lie...cerebral Sci-fi flick! Innovative Indie Financing. Backlot Film Festival.

One way to get the attention of a film critic - or rustle up some curiosity at a prestigious Film Festival - is to prepare a slick promotional package to get you in the door.

In the case of feature film - "Yesterday was a Lie" - the effort paid off.

The expertly-crafted teaser - lovingly pieced together by the director James Kerwin - was a sure winner that was replete with still photos, production notes, bios, and a handful of bang-on reviews.

The comprehensive, eye-catching promo not only broke down the doors for Kerwin - but later - was obviously key in landing coveted Jury prizes at Film Festivals around the country.

"Yesterday is a Lie" is a curious celluloid hybrid; a cerebral Sci-fi thriller, starring a female in the role as a detective.

As Kerwin excitedly describes it, "Yesterday was a Lie is a film noir shot in classic black-and-white which uses the genre as a metaphor for the human psyche and the nature of reality."

The innovative writer - who has been hailed as a director on the edge of digital revolution - imagined Bacall playing Bogie (a female Noir detective) lonely and wandering the streets.

In a nutshell, the tale focuses on a world where the characters appear to be stuck in their pasts, unable to get over their feelings of pain and guilt.

"Everything turns out to be a manifestation, a projection of that," notes Kerwin.

At times, the plot gets a bit cerebral.

And, the storyline gets a little bogged down when it gets too talky, as a result.

One filmgoer complained she had difficulty fathoming the subject matter.

"Maybe, if they spoke a little slower," she giggled, when we struck up a conversation later in the lobby after the screening.

I consoled her - noting that the concepts about time and fathoming reality and the dream state - were not always easy to get a handle on even for those versed in philosophy and psychology.

Fortunately, I am a big fan of Carl Jung and studied his ideas about the collective unconscious.

In addition, my own fascination with "lucid dreams' led me on a journey which greatly impacted my own sense of perception in recent years.

For the most part, Kerwin got it right.

However, in respect to his notion about one of the themes of the film - symbols and their importance - I confess that his take on the subject matter was a bit off.

The mind is not overwhelmed by dreams; but rather, couches their messages in symbols for the upper levels of consciousness to decipher so that the dreamer is capable of fathoming their meaning without anxiety or shock to the mental or emotional states.

Although it wasn't mentioned in - "Yesterday was a Lie" - I note for the record that a person's "dream dictionary" (the symbols a sleeper facilitates in the dream phenomenon) is never foreign to the individual.

Dream symbols always speak in a language the subject understands.

For example, if a snake means evil to an individual, that is what the symbol will mean in the dream state.

Just like the mist-filled streets in this classy low-budget psychological thriller - the message is a little foggy, at times - with a bit of hocus-pocus and a large dollop of smoke-and-mirrors thrown in for good measure.

"Yesterday" proved to be elusive, mesmerizing, thought-provoking - and all-the-while - a visually-stunning filmic experience.

To achieve the unique look, Kerwin turned to Apple's color application software.

First, he collaborated with costumer designer Sara Catherine Curran and makeup designer Breanna Khalaf, who both paid particular attention to the use of color throughout principle photography (often using unconventional tones which would ultimately appear stronger in white and black).

Then - red, green, and blue color channels were manipulated for each shot - before the footage was de-saturated.

Later, subtle vignette and blur effects were overlaid to evoke the feeling of 1930's and 40's lenses and film stock.

At times, I found the effect a bit heavy-handed, and fake.

But, the adventure - for the most part - appeared to hold the audience within its thrall.

When I was introduced to one of the pretty actresses - Chase Masterson - my instinctive response was to note how pretty she was.

Ah, a classic case of "foot in mouth".

When I read her bio, I discovered that she was on Femme Fatale's list of 50 sexiest women!

Career-wise, she's no slouch either.

TV Guide online readers voted her the "Number One" Science Fiction Actress on TV.

In "Yesterday", Ms. Masterson (pictured above) exudes a sultry charismatic presence just right for the sensual role of a torch singer cum High Priestess with a "mystical" soul.

On occasion, camera angles and lighting did not flatter her, however.

Maybe my discerning eye as a former theatrical agent got in the way, nudging my perceptions as I peered into the glass darkly, in this instant case.

The financing for this independent film was downright intriguing.

The producers were a recipient of a Panavision New Filmmaker Grant.

In view of this, the production team landed the free use of a Panavision Sony Cine-Alta F-900 Camera for the project.

The financing was raised through Helicon Arts Cooperative, a 501 (c) (3) non-profit arts organization.

Helicon - according to their mission statement - is dedicated to the creation of cinema with inherent literary merit.

In addition to offering employment opportunities to underprivileged youths, they conduct seminars in schools to encourage students in development of film and theatre arts.

Clearly, the "Yesterday" script was a good choice right out-of-the-gate.

The idea was original, there were a number of technical challenges to overcome, and the mixed-genre was not the standard bill-of-fare by any Hollywood standards.

I expect that in this instant case, the students learned valuable lessons about film technique, as well as worthwhile ones in the areas of marketing in respect to the promoting and selling of Indie projects.

The prizes garnered later - Bronze Telly Award, Park City Film Festival Award, and Backlot Film Festival Award - were icing on the cake.


Director James Kerwin...

Train Master...charming family entertainment at Backlot Film Festival!

The buzz around the Backlot Film Festival was that a surprise independent - "Train Master" - was the film to catch.

In fact, Phil Bransom - a film producer who hails from Oregon - crafted a charming independent that touches the heart and is a must-see.

In fact, one woman at the question & answer period was inclined to note with elation:

"It was so refreshing to sit back and watch an entertaining movie without any bad language or inappropriate material."

Disney would be envious!

In the first engaging scenes - the audience is quickly introduced to a cast of likable characters - an experienced train "master" in charge of a quaint rail line in the Pacific Northwest, his young grandchildren and a smattering of their friends, and a few unpretentious townsfolk who charm by virtue of their down-to-earth nature.

A young entrepreneur (the rogue of the film) schemes to snap up the old railroad for a song, turn it around, and generate big bucks in the process.

But, after retiring the engineer (a seasoned pro) and introducing innovations that fail miserably, it is soon evident his vision was ill-conceived.

During a mishap, one of the ailing locomotives fires up and starts barreling down a stretch of the worn old tracks, with a small posse of startled kids on board the runaway train.

Now, the excitement begins, as the townsfolk rally together to prevent a tragedy.

The script is intelligent and well-written.

Astoundingly, for the first-time out, Mr. Bransom's directing is relatively seamless, too.

In fact, as the story unfolds, the audience is immediately swept up into the drama as it beautifully plays out on the wide adventure-filled screen.

In particular, I was impressed with the soundtrack, which buttressed a handful of the scenes when an emotional lift was oft needed.

Indeed, at times it appeared that at inspired moments during the course of the film, a chorus of Angels was serenading in the background.

Simply joyous!

For a couple of magical moments, I was transported back in time, when scenes of the young ones playing with toy trains in their grandpa's garage lit up the screen.

Understandably.


My Uncle Gordon (who resided on Nairn Street) set up a train set in his rustic attic, replete with a track that snaked through a make-believe town dotted with lakes & mountains that ran wild with animals.

As one character noted in the film:

"I've never known a boy to play with trains to turn out bad."

I guess that's true. Look at me!

Mr. Bransom has done alright for himself, too.

The film has won a handful of festival awards which include those garnered at the Backlot Film Festival, the Fairhope Film Festival, the Big Island Film Festival, and KIDS FIRST.

In fact, you may be able to catch a screening of the "Train Master" in this year's upcoming travelling KIDS FIRST Film Festival.

http://www.kidsfirst.org/filmfestival

Now in its ninth year, the Festival is a showcase for new and classic children's films, TV shows, and DVDs from studios, independent producers and youth producers.

The festival is a traveling year-round festival that partners with more than 100 venues nationwide and acts as their off-site curator.

Unique to the festival circuit, youths are given a true voice - as curators of the Festival, as panelists critiquing films at the festival, as volunteer staff, and as filmmakers and videographers showing their work.

One astute film enthusiast quipped:

"Celebrities & paparazzi have Sundance and Cannes, but kids & families have the KIDS FIRST Film Festival."

In 2007, almost one-third of the films accepted were from youth producers.

In spite of the odds, Mr. Bransom was one of the lucky adults to charm the tots with his own brand of engaging family entertainment.

Why not?

Train Master is a gem that will warm the cockles of your heart.

Director Phil Bransom pictured at center

http://www.julianayrs.com

Cannes & Toronto Film Festival tops amid garden variety of mediocre fests!

Well, there has been quite a proliferation of wide-ranging Films Festivals in the past couple of years.







I was just coming off the "Backlot Film Festival" when I received word that the "Beverly Hills Festival" was starting up.



And, when I logged into my e-mail, I was confronted with a series of frenzied communications from the "Very Short Films" venue, urging me to attend a couple of final events before the big wrap at their Hollywood fest.



The "Arab Film Festival" (gave them a big promo last year) has been firing off news releases, too.



On "Facebook" in May - the Cannes Film Festival "group" I joined - was gearing up for the big bucks extravaganza where big names were sure to be bouncing off Festival walls throughout a dizzying array of high-profile high-energy events on the Riviera.



Of course, festivals are a dime-a-dozen and come in garden varieties.



The world's first major film festival was held in Venice in 1932 with major film festivals in Berlin and Moscow to follow on its heels.







The longest-running fest is - "The Edinburgh International Film Festival" - established in 1947.





North America threw its reels into the ring in 1953 - and with little fanfare - started up the Columbus International Film & Video Festival ("Chris Awards").



"The Chris Awards" - fifty-four years in the running now - primarily focus on documentaries, educational films, and business and informational competitions in the U.S.





When the San Francisco International Film Festival was launched in March 1957, the festival played a major role in introducing foreign films to avid American audiences. In the initial year of screenings, film-goers were delighted to thrill to the captivating original works of Akira Kurosawa (Throne of Blood) and Satyajit Ray (Pather Panchali).



Film Festivals often showcase films in one or more movie theaters during their runs. So, you may have to dash helter-skelter all over town to keep up. Most offerings are recent, and include major international releases, as well as those made outside a country's established film industry.



A particular genre (film noir) or type (documentaries) may have a drawing power for a specific audience that promoters will utilize to their advantage to get film enthusiasts in the door.



Some Fests have a definite mission, although they may stray from it without notice.



Sundance notes on their site,



"Sundance Institute is a year-round non-profit organization dedicated to the discovery and development of independent artists and audiences. Individual donations to Sundance Institute support theatre, film, and music artists. The community of supporters help these artists navigate the challenges of creating new work and see their projects succeed. Individual donors support the Institute by making general contributions, providing program specific support, purchasing tables and tickets to the annual Gala in New York, or by joining the Patron Circle."



Other festivals of note include the - "The Toronto Film Festival” - which is centered around upscale Yorkville (once a hippie hangout before the yuppies moved in) where trendy alfresco cafes, luxury hotels, and VIP movie theatres (they serve popcorn and soft drinks ringside in your comfy high-back leather seats) lure the big whales in.



There has been a lot more focus on mainstream Hollywood films over the past decade; but, the Festival has not forgotten its roots in the independent vein.



TTFF - as it is known, features retrospectives of National cinemas, individual directors, and highlights of Canadian cinema - along with a veritable staple of African, South American, and Asian films.



The festival is considered a place to listen for "Oscar-buzz".

It's great organizers open their doors wide and permit first-timers to unveil their fledgling projects, and likewise, provide a forum so that newcomers can rustle up much-needed feedback.



But, is that what's unfolding these days around the circuit?



Last week - promoters of the "Backlot Festival" complained that some filmmakers weren't showing up for their own screenings - let alone hanging around to take in the labors of love screened by their peers.



Young auteurs these days are more focused on landing a spot at a prominent Film Festival. If luck and timing is on their side, they may garner a coveted prize, to tack on their film resume as a noteworthy credit.



The Icing on the cake?



Just maybe, a young maverick can rustle up a distribution deal or additional funding to blitz the heck out of his "baby".



Feedback? Forget-about-it!!!



In some cases - some constructive criticism would have been a Godsend to a handful of the slip-shod producers I've crossed paths with - believe me.



For example, one project at the Backlot ("Roses in April") was a friggin' mess.



The production values were poor and the editing equally lousy.



The narrative - what there was of it - was lost in a tangle of clichés and what-ifs.



Although the young director took a novel approach in a couple of scenes - which signaled her potential as a "film artist" - a few innovative visually-stunning minutes on screen do not a film make!



About a quarter of the way into the screening "Roses" turned into a thorny proposition.



Undoubtedly - the first-time-outer would have benefited from some honest input from friends, fellow filmmakers, show organizers - you name it.



So, there goes another pile of celluloid onto the old scrap heap, because it's doubtful it will even make it to DVD.



In my view, Festivals should be a breeding ground for artists.



For instance, a hotspot where creative folks can unveil their projects, engage in a meaningful dialogue, and explore the artistic temperament in a purposeful, nurturing, and satisfying way.



In such a forum - filmmakers have an insightful opportunity to discuss the latest trends (leading-edge developments in the industry, for example), or mull over new product (like camera gear and film stock) with fellow shooters.



Chit-chatting about the skuttle-butt - and the "who's who" and "what's what" - is a great way for industry-newcomers to fathom ways to survive in an ever-growing filmmaking landscape now predominated by innovations in rich media.



The goal?



To nurture and develop the talent and improve the product for market.



Curiously, "Roses" did create some dialogue, albeit unexpectedly.



When the young director chose to feature a photographic still of a child playing in the nude, the organizers of the Backlot Film Festival were stridently opposed to showcasing the poster (after labeling the image "porno").



Ha! What nonsense.



I studied the Mapplethorpe case in the days when the key legal issues were relevant - and more recently - the Robin Sharpe case in Canada (Sharpe was a neighbor of mine in Kitsilano, B.C. years ago) and am quite cognizant about what constitutes "art" verses "porno".



Essentially, the argument boils down to this.



Is the image being used to exploit the subject in a sexual way or to satisfy prurient interests?



In the case of "Roses" - an image depicting the innocence of a child - can hardly be construed as pornographic by any stretch of the imagination.



Look to the HOWL litigation for further guidance.



In that landmark case - where the issue of obscenity was raised in respect to poet Allen Ginsberg's literary work ("Howl") - Judge Horn (who presided over the case) was inclined to set a few guidelines for future cases on obscenity after dismissing the criminal charges.



For instance, in his opinion he wrote,



"If material has the slightest redeeming social importance it is not obscene because it is protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution."



A second legal finding is my favorite,



"In considering material claimed to be obscene remember the all-important motto: honi soit qui mal y pense."



Or, in plain old English, "Evil to him who Evil thinks".



In the hands of the "Backlot Film Festival" committee, censorship would have a chilling effect on artistic expression in the community at large.



In the final analysis, that's what determines if a festival is relevant and highly regarded - prestigious, in fact - or just one of many bogged down in a smattering of mediocrity.



Artists should strive for the higher ground, in my estimation.



As Buck Rodgers once said,



"There are countless ways of attaining greatness, but any road to reaching one's maximum potential must be built on a bedrock of respect for the individual, a commitment to excellence, and a rejection of mediocrity."

Red Carpet glamour pose...

Lily Tomlin...Carl Reiner. Gracious amid chaos at Backlot Film Festival. Former Prez Reagan criticized by comic!

On occasion, this year's "Backlot Film Festival" proved to be a comedy of errors, unfortunately.

For example, on the festive evening the Festival chose to screen "All of Me" and "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" on a double-bill.

After "Dead Men" sputtered to a close on the silver screen - Carl Reiner lingered to chat with Lily Tomlin - who was scheduled to appear for a Q & A.

As filmgoers took their seats, a couple of staffers proceeded to set up a couple of chairs and a mic on the floor to the left of the main stage.

Then, Ross Hawkins (founder and director of the Festival) appeared in the dark at the front of the Veteran's Memorial Hall and urged the audience to rise from their comfy seats to relocate to the other side of the Theatre to make for an "intimate" setting for Lily's scheduled intro.

A groan went up from the throng - who were anxious to meet and greet Lily - as they reluctantly uprooted themselves and trotted over to an uninviting darkened section of the auditorium. Not exactly a trained dog by nature, I remained seated where I was in an enviable spot center main stage.

Once everyone was settled in - someone got the brilliant idea to set three chairs on the stage "above the audience" - and fire up a handful of spotlights to capture the zany comedienne in the light.

So, Mr. Hawkins shuffled back and instructed the now disgruntled masses, to move back to their former seats!

Oi veh!


The fiasco could have been lifted right out of an episode of Carl Reiner's popular hit - "Show of Shows" - I tell 'ya!


But, the lunacy did not stop there.

One gentleman - with a claim to fame as a former Mayor of Culver City - chose to get up and tell a couple of anecdotes which summarily dropped to the floor like lead balloons.

In fact, both parties the ad-libs were directed at (Lily and Carl) were baffled by the recollections which they couldn't make hide or tail of.

When the speaker jokingly laughed that he was one of the first officials in Sacramento to get "canned" by Schwarzenegger when the film actor took office, I suddenly heard my inner voice cry out,

"Occasionally, the terminator hits the target, alright."

At this juncture, Mr. Hawkins returned.

Gosh, he loves to get into the thick of things, doesn't he?

At this juncture, he invited Lily (standing in the dark on the sidelines) to step forward for the much-anticipated question and answer session.

Another awkward moment.

Clearly, someone should have led their star speaker up onto the stage. Surely, Mr. Hawkins wasn't suggesting the feisty comic cross the floor to stand by his side in the shadows below the stage?

Ms. Tomlin was forced to spring into action after sizing up the pregnant moment.

"Should I go up on the stage?" she graciously quizzed the befuddled Hawkins.

"Oh, yes, please do," responded Mr. Hawkins - who had obviously not even fathomed the dilemma until it was resolved before his eyes due to the quick thinking of a true pro.

As Tomlin stepped up onto the stage, Mr. Reiner was left behind in the dark, so he returned to his seat. Had they forgotten about one of their star attractions?

At this juncture - as if they heard my inner thoughts - Mr. Reiner was asked to join Lily; so he scrambled up the stairs and crossed the stage to take a seat next to the award-winning actress.

A third man, who suddenly appeared to be the host of the chit-chat session, joined them from out-of-the-blue. But, the awkward moments persisted with him at the helm. For example, there was only one large hand-held mic and the off-putting fellow began to hog the spotlight.

Geez!

Finally, guests started to ask the key speakers insightful questions and that got the ball rolling in Reiner and Tomlin's corners.

Much to the crowd's delight.

It's interesting what tid-bits are dredged up in innocent moments of recall.

For instance, Mr. Reiner underscored what a perfectionist Lily was in preparing for her role in "All of Me". At her behest - for example - quality jewels graced her neck to lend authenticity to the scenes in which her wealthy character appeared.

Right you are, Lily. On camera, real gems sparkle like no other; while fakes dangle without any true dazzle.

Then, Lily noted that Steve Martin was so tight with a buck that she sprang for the cost of the security guard to deliver the gems to the set each day.

"What," Reiner asked incredulously, "He told me he paid for that."

The crowd roared.

Yes, Lily noted for the record that she put up the 10,000 smackeroos to cover the cost of insurance and the services of the security guard who surreptitiously appeared each day with a metal suitcase containing the jewels handcuffed to his wrist.

Just like in the movies!

Now, the conversation drifted to their personal lives and the old-world charm of Los Feliz.

"Lily lived in the W.C. Fields mansion," Reiner gushed to an amazed crowd who oohed and aahed among themselves in the footlights at the prospect.

Ms. Tomlin noted that W.C. disliked Deana Durbin's vocalizing (the legendary star was a neighbor, after all) so - to get back at her - he was inclined to gleefully shoot bee-bees at her Swans in the lily pond when she was out of sight.

Apparently, the De Mille house was down the street as well, next to Chaplin's.

Talk about synchronicity! After the discussion about the De Mille house, I picked up the newspaper on the weekend and noticed an article on the history of the home which is currently up for sale.

The restored Beaux Arts estate where the legendary Studio head resided for forty years is 9,700 square feet, sits on 2.1 landscaped acres, and is listed for 26.5 million dollars. Out of my league, to say the least.

On a negative note, Mr. Reiner noted how disgruntled he was with Ronald Reagan in his heady glory days.

The comic noted with disdain that he was at the fateful meeting where Ronnie cast a deciding ballot that resulted in actors being barred from receiving residuals for roles performed in projects prior to the sixties.

"I was shocked by his actions," Reiner recalled.

The veteran performer went on to note that in spite of the fact there was not any legal requirement to do so, his office sent out checks in the sum of $10,000.00 to each actor that was still alive to compensate each for "film clips" the producers facilitated for key scenes in "DEAD MEN DON'T WEAR PLAID".

Admirable, huh?

When asked if he made any efforts to "preserve" his work over the years for posterity, he laughed out loud and quipped,

"I don't have enough time to do my peach preserves."

Apparently, Mr. Reiner has resided in the same home for fifty years. He confesses the interior is jammed to the rafters with letters, memorabilia, old photos, tapes, reels of film, you name it.

"One day, I'll invite historians in and they can take the whole lot," he promised.

There was a roar of approval from the rapt audience who hung on every word.

Carl fondly recalled that during the filming of the feature film - "DEAD MEN" - Edith Head (the celebrated costumer designer) - came to the set each day and rested on a cot in a back room to keep abreast of things. Sadly, she passed to spirit - a shadow of her former self - a week after the project wrapped.

A great lady, surely missed by Mr. Reiner and a host of others.

Mr. Reiner made one astonishing admission on stage.

He turned to Ms. Tomlin and noted for the record that he originally wanted to cast "Lily" for the role of Rob's wife on the "Dick Van Dyke Show".

Boy - that will surely raise eyebrows to a handful of TV Historians - and shock the sensibilities of Mary Tyler Moore, no doubt. After all, if I am not mistaken, part of the folk lore of the show includes reminisces about a frantic search by producers to locate the perfect actress for the role.

Until now, "Ms. Moore" was known to have been the chosen one.

Wonders never cease!

In spite of a sputtering start, the talk fest ended up on a positive note.

Ms. Tomlin proceeded to say a few kind words about Mr. Reiner and the longevity of his remarkable career - in view of his pending "Thomas Ince Award" - to be presented at a formal award ceremony on the weekend at a Backlot Film Festival Gala event.

Will they work together again?

God willing, you bet.

Charlie Sheen...attends documentary on alleged OJ SIMPSON crimes; supports Investigator Deer's theories!

Was it all a charade to protect Jason Simpson?


When I noticed the "Backlot Film Festival" scheduled a documentary on OJ SIMPSON (Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman murders) for screening, I was inclined to pass on taking it in.

After all, during the course of the original trial in Los Angeles I wiled away a number of leisure hours following the legal wranglings in detail. But later felt ripped off when a quickie verdict was rendered within a few hours after deliberation began.

Yeah, I thought at the time that "white folks" should take to the streets and riot for a change!

But, by a twist of fate I ended up at the screening yesterday. And consequently, I came face-to-face with Investigator - William Dear - who has been investigating his theories on the Simpson-Goldman murders for the past fourteen years.

After a brief discussion on some of the semantics the charismatic investigator noted that actor Charlie Sheen was so intrigued by the suppositions that he was on his way to the Theatre to take the screening in.

A few years ago I worked on a minor scene in the feature film - "The Boys Next Door" which was directed by Penelope Spheeris and starred Mr. Sheen. On that occasion, we acknowledged each other from a distance; but basically, we were just two ships that passed in the night.

As he stepped in the door I was taken by his confidence and the manner in which he carried himself these days. A far cry from his wild bachelor days! After a few perfunctory handshakes the entourage entered the theatre for the unveiling of the doc.

In passing, I overheard one filmmaker ask - "Is the LA Times here?"

When a staffer said "no" he probed further,

"Did they slip in without you noticing?"

Again, a response in the negative. That appeared to be a portent of what was to come.

After the screening of the provocative doc - which was not unlike a TV infomercial in many respects - Dear lamented to the enthused audience "Where are the media?"

And exasperated, answered his own question, "They're not here!"

That was unfortunate because in his insightful documentary - titled "OJ IS GUILTY...BUT NOT OF MURDER" - Mr. Dear has presented an interesting scenario supported by evidence he has gathered in his lone investigation over the past decade or so.

In a nutshell...

Mr. Dear alleges that Jason Simpson, OJ's son, was the real killer; then, proceeds to systematically present the evidence in straight-forward convincing manner to support his claims.

For starters, the respected investigator notes that Jason Simpson suffered from a bipolar disorder and was subject to nasty outbursts and rages. Then, Dear proceeds to establish that just prior to the murders there were a couple of documented incidents of Jason pounding on his girlfriend.

Evidently, Jason stopped taking his medicine - Depakote - which heightened the problem.

At this juncture Dear takes a foray into the world of an afflicted person and underscores the potential scenarios that may unfold when a bipolar individual neglects to take their medications to curb the illness.

As that bit of evidence settles into the old psyche he moves on with gusto.

The investigator now focuses on disturbing revelations that pertain to Jason's alibi for the night of the murders. When questioned, the LAPD allegedly stated for the record that the alibi had been checked and Jason had been summarily written off as a suspect.

However, Dear's investigation proved otherwise.

After a thorough examination of transcripts and in-depth interviews with key witnesses it was determined that Jason's alibi had not been verified. Moreover, there were huge holes in it, as well.

For instance, Jason Simpson testified in a deposition in Goldman civil suit that he was preparing a dinner at Jackson's restaurant (where he was a chef) for 200 people that fateful evening. However, employees verified in on-camera interviews that - on the contrary - Sunday night was not only slow but no such dinner party was ever hosted.

In sum, convincing testimony established that Jason's whereabouts as he recalled them did not ring true.

Moreover, an inspection of a "time" card at the trendy eatery in Brentwood raised a spectre of doubt as to the veracity of information of its face. So much so, that as Mr. Dear probed further, a silent partner in the restaurant finally admitted on record that Jason's alibi was foisted up as a defense was not the truth.

But what about motivation for the crimes?

The main theory is that Jason became angry when Nicole and the family decided to forgo on stopping by the restaurant that evening for dinner and that the slight pushed Jason (prone to rages) over the edge.

Dear theorizes that after taking his girlfriend home around 9:30 p.m., Jason sped over to Bundy and knocked on Nicole's door to confront her about the blatant rejection which rubbed him the wrong way.

OJ's ex - who was expecting Goldman that night - allegedly opened the door and an argument ensued. At some point in an exchange of harsh words Nicole triggered a nerve in Jason and he struck her.

At this juncture, Dear contends that Goldman arrived on the scene.

To subdue Nicole, Jason drew a knife out of his boot (which he was known to carry and which was later recovered) and struck a blow to her head. Stunned, she fell to the ground.

Now, Jason turned on Goldman who became trapped in the small fenced in area near the front door that has been subject of much controversy.

To further the argument that Jason was the true killer Dear notes that Jason was a more likely suspect for a couple of obvious reasons overlooked by the LAPD.

First, OJ was inclined to get nauseous at the sight of blood; so, Dear asserts that he did not have the "stomach" to commit such a gruesome crime. Further, he stresses that Simpson's weak knees and lack of overall strength in the lower extremities would have made it very difficult for him to overpower Goldman, a young athletic man in his prime.

On the other hand, Jason had studied combat in the Navy and was a capable fighter who was expert in the handling of knives.

But, hold on.

Curiously, additional evidence was uncovered which is even more compelling.

For instance, Dear was able to purchase a boxful of personal effects which Jason Simpson had placed in storage which went up for auction when the bill was not paid. In that box there were a number of incriminating items.

In personal handwritten diaries, Jason referred to himself as a "Jekyll & Hyde" personality in one paragraph - then laments in the next - that he was currently "living in the year of the knife."

Astoundingly, a double-edged knife that experts concede could have been the murder weapon was found in the box, as well.

And, do you recall that wool cap that Johnny Cochrane made the fuss about in the courtroom when he barked about the glove,

"If it doesn't fit you can't convict"?

The Investigator found photos of Jason wearing a similar hat in the carton of keepsakes.

In sum, Dear concludes that OJ Simpson was not guilty of the murders of Nicole and Ron; but rather, an obstruction of justice - or quite possibly - complicity in the commitment of one.

Bottom line, it would appear that OJ Simpson took the rap for his son, a young man who was mentally unstable and incapable of defending himself for the crimes allegedly committed.

Yes, Mr. Dear has put together a tantalizing theory supported by evidence that cries out for justice - or at least a second look by Law Enforcement.

But, guess what?

The investigator has been stone-walled in his efforts to have the case re-opened. The LAPD, for instance, won't take a look at his findings. And, despite his pleas, the State Attorney General's office refuses to re-open the case, either.

Dear's only hope now is that by presenting his "case" - by way of the documentary - a concerned public will become intrigued with the wealth of incriminating evidence and demand that Justice be served.

Do the murders warrant further investigation?

You decide.

Info: http://www.theoverlookedsuspect.com



William C. Dear argues that Jason Simpson is the true killer...

OJ IS GUILTY...BUT NOT OF MURDER. Wins Best Documentary at Culver City Backlot Film Festival.

Was it all a charade to protect Jason Simpson?

"OJ IS GUILTY...BUT NOT OF MURDER" won the Best Documentary Award at the Backlot Film Festival in Culver City, California, this past week.

When I noticed the "Backlot Film Festival" scheduled the documentary on the shocking murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman for screening, I was inclined to pass on taking it in, initially.

After all, during the course of the original trial in Los Angeles, I wiled away a number of leisure hours following the legal wranglings in detail. But later, felt ripped off, when a quickie verdict was rendered within a few hours after deliberation began.

Yeah, I thought at the time, "white folks" should take to the streets and riot for a change!

But, by a twist of fate, I ended up at the screening yesterday. And consequently, I came face-to-face with Investigator - William Dear - who has been investigating his theories on the Simpson-Goldman murders for the past fourteen years.

After a brief discussion on some of the semantics, the charismatic investigator noted that actor Charlie Sheen was so intrigued by the suppositions that he was on his way to the Theatre to take the screening in.

A few years ago, I worked on a minor scene in the feature film - "The Boys Next Door" - which was directed by Penelope Spheeris and starred Mr. Sheen. On that occasion, we acknowledged each other from a distance; but basically, we were just two ships that passed in the night.

As he stepped in the door, I was taken by his confidence and the manner in which he carried himself these days. A far cry from his wild bachelor days! After a few perfunctory handshakes, the entourage entered the theatre for the unveiling of the doc.

In passing, I overheard one filmmaker ask, "Is the LA Times here?"

When a staffer said "no", he probed further,

"Did they slip in without you noticing?"

Again, a response in the negative. And, that appeared to be a portent of what was to come.

After the screening of the provocative doc - which was not unlike a TV infomercial in many respects - Dear lamented to the enthused audience, “Where are the media???"

And exasperated, answered his own question, "They're not here!"

That was unfortunate because in his insightful documentary - titled "OJ IS GUILTY...BUT NOT OF MURDER" - Mr. Dear has presented an interesting scenario, supported by evidence he has gathered in his lone investigation over the past decade or so.

In a nutshell...

Mr. Dear alleges that Jason Simpson, OJ's son, was the real killer; then, proceeds to systematically present the evidence in straight-forward convincing manner to support his claims.

For starters, the respected investigator notes that Jason Simpson suffered from a bipolar disorder, and was subject to nasty outbursts and rages. Then, Dear proceeds to establish that just prior to the murders there were a couple of documented incidents of Jason pounding on his girlfriend.

Evidently, Jason stopped taking his medicine - Depakote - which heightened the problem.

At this juncture, Dear takes a foray into the world of an afflicted person and underscores the potential scenarios that may unfold when a bipolar individual neglects to take their medications to curb the illness.

As that bit of evidence settles into the old psyche, he moves on with gusto.

The investigator now focuses on disturbing revelations that pertain to Jason's alibi for the night of the murders. When questioned, the LAPD allegedly stated for the record, that the alibi had been checked and Jason had been summarily written off as a suspect.

However, Dear's investigation proved otherwise.

After a thorough examination of transcripts, and in-depth interviews with key witnesses, it was determined that Jason's alibi had not been verified. Moreover, there were huge holes in it, as well.

For instance, Jason Simpson testified in a deposition in Goldman civil suit, that he was preparing a dinner at Jackson's restaurant (where he was a chef) for 200 people that fateful evening. However, employees verified in on-camera interviews, that - on the contrary - Sunday night was not only slow, but no such dinner party was ever hosted.

In sum, convincing testimony established that Jason's whereabouts - as he recalled them - did not ring true.

Moreover, an inspection of a "time" card at the trendy eatery in Brentwood, raised a specter of doubt as to the veracity of information of its face. So much so, that as Mr. Dear probed further, a silent partner in the restaurant finally admitted on record that Jason's alibi was foisted up as a defense was not the truth.

But what about motivation for the crimes?

The main theory is that Jason became angered when Nicole and the family decided to forgo on stopping by the restaurant that evening for dinner - and that the slight - pushed Jason (prone to rages) over the edge.

Dear theorizes that after taking his girlfriend home around 9:30 p.m., Jason sped over to Bundy and knocked on Nicole's door to confront her about the blatant rejection which rubbed him the wrong way.

OJ's ex - who was expecting Goldman that night - allegedly opened the door and an argument ensued. At some point in an exchange of harsh words, Nicole triggered a nerve in Jason, and he struck her.

At this juncture, Dear contends that Goldman arrived on the scene.

To subdue Nicole, Jason drew a knife out of his boot (which he was known to carry and which was later recovered) and struck a blow to her head. Stunned, she fell to the ground.

Now, Jason turned on Goldman, who became trapped in the small fenced in area near the front door that has been subject of much controversy.

To further the argument that Jason was the true killer, Dear notes that Jason is a more likely suspect for a couple of obvious reasons overlooked by the LAPD.

First, OJ was inclined to get nauseous at the sight of blood; so, Dear asserts that he did not have the "stomach" to commit such a gruesome crime. Further, he stresses that Simpson's weak knees and lack of overall strength in the lower extremities would have made it very difficult for him to overpower Goldman, a young athletic man in his prime.

On the other hand, Jason had studied combat in the Navy and was a capable fighter, who was expert in the handling of knives.

But, hold on.

Curiously, additional evidence was uncovered which is even more compelling.

For instance, Dear was able to purchase a boxful of personal effects which Jason Simpson had placed in storage, which went up for auction when the bill was not paid. In that box there were a number of incriminating items.

In personal handwritten diaries, Jason referred to himself as a "Jekyll & Hyde" personality in one paragraph, then laments in the next that he was currently - "living in the year of the knife."

Astoundingly, a double-edged knife - that experts concede could have been the murder weapon - was found in the box, as well.

And, do you recall that wool cap that Johnny Cochrane made the fuss about in the courtroom when he barked about the glove,

"If it doesn't fit, you can't convict"?

The Investigator found photos of Jason wearing a similar hat in the carton of keepsakes.

In sum, Dear concludes that OJ Simpson was not guilty of the murders of Nicole and Ron; but rather, an obstruction of justice - or quite possibly - complicity in the commitment of one.

Bottom line, it would appear that OJ Simpson took the rap for his son; a young man who was mentally unstable and incapable of defending himself for the crimes allegedly committed.

Yes, Mr. Dear has put together a tantalizing theory, supported by evidence that cries out for justice, or at least a second look by Law Enforcement.

But, guess what?

The investigator has been stone-walled in his efforts to have the case re-opened. The LAPD, for instance, won't take a look at his findings. And, despite his pleas, the State Attorney General's office refuses to re-open the case, as well.

Dear's only hope now is that by presenting his "case" - by way of the documentary - a concerned public will become intrigued with the wealth of incriminating evidence and demand that Justice be served.

Do the murders warrant further investigation?

You decide.

Info: http://www.theoverlookedsuspect.com

William C. Dear argues that Jason Simpson is the true killer

Lucille Ball...hard-knocks, B-movies, and lettuce days!

Lucy's glam days

When I was a kid, I recall catching "Dubarry was a Lady" on the idiot box on late-night TV.

The wide-screen experience eluded me over the years, 'til now.

As part of its tribute to legendary filmmaker - Arthur Freed - the 3rd Annual Backlot Festival screened the Lucille Ball classic and I was there to savor every minute of the experience.

Lucy stars with Red Skelton and Gene Kelley in this screwball comedy - one of a handful of "B" movies the screwy red-head was featured in - just before her career took off after the successful launch of "I love Lucy" in the early fifties.

Actually, it's a hoot to watch Ms. Ball (pre "Lucy" days) saunter across the screen in a swirl of elegant gowns and outrageous designer hats and tangle with the likes of comic genius, Mister Red Skeleton.

The legendary star holds her own, admirably.

One of my favorite lines in the film?
On the subject of romance, Ms. Ball quips.

"I'm too poor to get married for love."

In this hilarious piece of studio pap, Mr. Skelton charms. Here, his timing is impeccable; especially when it comes to quick repartee, pratfalls, and off-kilter shtick, right up the alley of the former vaudevillian.

Gene Kelley is a revelation, too.

In a handful of breezy dance numbers, he executes each step with such grace and style.

In fact, it's difficult to fathom any other dancer of this or any other era, managing the painstakingly intricate step sequences (save for Fred Astaire, of course).

Although Lucy became one of the most powerful women in Hollywood - by virtue of her holdings in Desilu Productions with husband Arnaz - life was not always a snap for the performer.

Lucille Ball was born August 6, 1911 in Jamestown (New York).

Fresh out of the gate, Ball took a job as a model, using the stage name, Diane Belmont.

Moderately successful, Ball became an Earl Carrol showgirl and landed modeling gigs for popular fashion designer, Hattie Carnegie.

But the career climb was not always rosy.

In her "lettuce days" in New York - when she was a struggling dancer - Lucy nearly died of malnutrition, according to one biographer.

Jobs were hard to come by, after all.

As luck would have it, one day Ms. Ball was striding down a busy New York street, when she bumped into a casting woman who took pity on her.

The woman offered Lucy a job as a "cigarette girl" (popular gigs in those days).
There was one hitch, though.

The young starlet would have to pack up and head to Tinsel town.

With a bit of consternation, she headed west, reluctantly.

When she arrived in Hollywood, it didn't escape Lucy's attention that many of the female stars were extremely focused on their "Glamour Queen" images, which worked to her advantage.

Whenever a film required a comedy sketch, or a shenanigan or two that were a bit wacky, the prissy grand dames turned their noses up at the job and flatly refused to sign on.

After all, they didn't want to sully their classy siren images.

But the young upstart jumped at the chance to work.

So, plum roles fell into Lucy's lap in the comedic vein, because she'd willingly take a pie in the face, or throw her heart into in some silly on-camera fluff, to please a director.

Within a short while, Lucy was signed to a contract at one of the studios.

Shortly thereafter, Ms. Ball was turning out a batch of "B" movies, fans hungered for in those early days.

Lucille Ball's first role was a cameo in Eddie Cantor's musical, "Roman Scandals".



Ball later landed bit parts the following year in low budget features such as "Blood Money" and "Kid Millions".



By the late 1940's, the aggressive young starlet appeared in no-less than sixty films (!), and included star turns with Katharine Hepburn, Ginger Rogers and Bob Hope.

On one fateful project ("Too Many Girls") Ball fell in love with her co-star, the dashing Desi Arnaz.

The newlyweds often found themselves on opposite sides of the country because of work assignments, which put a lot of stress on their relationship.

Although Lucy filed for divorce in 1944, the two managed to sort things out before the split was finalized by the court.

However, the experience turned out to be great fodder for their creative well.

Taking a cue from their tumultuous relationship, Ball and Arnaz pitched an idea to CBS about the unlikely marriage of a wild red head to a Cuban band leader.

Network execs surmised the American public would never buy the scenario - so Lucy and Desi formed their own production company called "Desilu" - and took the show on the road.

Within a short span of time, the dynamic duo managed to turn the idea into a popular vaudeville act. Then, on the heels of this success (still without a nod from CBS) Ball and Arnaz proceeded to finance a pilot episode of the show - which they summarily titled - "I Love Lucy".

The sitcom premiered in October of 1951 and became the most popular television show in America, running successfully on Television for six straight years.

During the course of the run, "I Love Lucy" won more than 200 awards, which included five coveted Emmys.

In retrospect, it's important to note that at one juncture in her early bid for stardom, the legendary star was advised to die her hair blond or brunette.

"You'll never make it in the business with red hair," agents and managers whined.

Ironic, that.

Ms. Ball became the most famous redhead in show-business history.

The moral of the story?

To thine own self be true!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Backlot Film Festival...Lucille Ball classic screens. Tribute to Carl Reiner!

Lucille Ball classic to screen...





The 3rd "Annual Backlot Film Festival" returns with an eclectic mix of new releases, old classics, and a handful of intriguing shorts and documentaries.



The mission of the Backlot Film Festival is threefold: to give independent filmmakers the opportunity to showcase their work for industry executives and distributors; to create a better understanding of the motion picture art form of the last one hundred years; to explore the rich film history of Culver City, West Los Angeles and the beach cities of Santa Monica, Venice and Playa del Rey.



This year the program includes World Premiers of fourteen feature-length films, celluloid art pieces by the "Masters" of film, and a catalogue of documentary and shorts sure to be crowd-pleasers.



In addition, there will be Arthur Freed tribute screenings and an awards ceremony.



For example - on Wednesday April 2nd - the much-anticipated annual festival will screen "DuBarry was a Lady" (Arthur Freed) starring the screwball comedienne Lucille Ball, funnyman Red Skelton, and celebrated dancer, Gene Kelly.



"DuBarry" is a must see on the wide-screen.



On a more serious note, there will be a world premiere of the feature - "Chekhov and Maria".



This independent feature is a drama which focuses on the Russian playwright and his sister - who were at odds with each other - over the author's secret marriage.



The filmmaker also zeroes in on the difficulties Chekhov encountered creatively - as he struggled to put the finishing touches on his stage masterpiece - "The Cherry Orchard".



I once starred in a stage production of - "The Marriage Proposal" (a Chekhov comedy) - and won a drama Festival award for my portrayal of the lead character, Lomov.



So, I'll probably want to catch this feature, starring Ron Battitta and Gillian Brashear.



The project was directed by Eric Till.



To top off the first exciting day of events, there will be a World Premier of a Sci-Fi entry - "InAlienable" - which looks like a sure bet.



Guilt-ridden over the death of his family, a man discovers his body is host to a parasite from another world that the government believes is a threat to mankind.



The thriller stars Richard Hatch, Courtney Peldon and Walter Koenig.



The former "Star Trek actor" - Walter Koenig - penned the script.



The independent feature was directed by Robert Dyke.



A Question and Answer session will follow that screening.



This year, the festival bestow the honor of a coveted "Arthur Freed Award" on best student film.



Arthur Freed was a legendary songwriter and producer.



Three of his classy entertaining films - "DuBarry Was A Lady", "Cabin In the Sky", and "Gigi" - will also be screened.



The award will be presented by Stephen A. Saltzman (President of Arthur Freed Productions) who is the grandson of the legendary filmmaker.



In addition, Zev Yaroslavsky (Los Angeles County Supervisor) will receive a "Founder’s Award" for his contributions to the Arts and Film industry.



This year’s "Backlot Film Festival" will also honor gifted comic Carl Reiner (a multi-faceted talent who wears several hats) with the prestigious "Thomas Ince Award" for his contribution to the industry.



Carl Reiner’s illustrious career spans seven decades.



He made his directorial film debut in 1967 with "Enter Laughing".



He went on to direct the comedy, "Where’s Poppa?" (starring George Segal and Ruth Gordon); "Oh God!"(George Burns and John Denver); and "The One And Only" (Henry Winkler).



The legendary entertainer - by virtue of his God-given gifts - has been instrumental in puffing up the careers of other luminaries in the biz such as Steve Martin, John Candy, Kirty Alley and Bill Pullman, to name a few.



Recent film appearances have included blockbuster hits like the "Ocean’s Eleven" series - but old-timers fondly recall his finely-tuned performances in full-length comedy features such as - "The Russians Are Coming", "It’s A Mad World", and the "Slums of Beverly Hills".



In the 1950’s, Reiner’s career initially took off on Broadway when he landed a role in the stage production of, "Call Me Mister".



From there he smartly sidled up to Max Leibman on the "Your Shows Of Shows", which starred Sid Caesar.



After creating the "The Dick Van Dyke Show" (he wrote and directed many episodes) he was inducted into the Emmy Award Hall of Fame.



And, there has not been any looking back since.



The "Thomas Ince Award" is named after Thomas Ince - a pioneer in early film production - who greatly influenced the model for motion picture production standards in the modern day.



Thomas Harper Ince was born into a vaudeville family in Newport (Rhode Island) just before the turn-of-the century.



The precocious lad first graced the stage at age six, often appearing in Broadway hits of the day.



Though motion pictures were held in low regard by serious actors in the early part of the 20th Century, Ince - desperate to spread his wings - abandoned the theater to pursue a film acting career many thought disreputable, at best.



After a handful of on-camera acting jobs with Biograph Films, the young upstart joined forces with Carl Laemmle's IMP Productions, where he was given the opportunity to direct.





Once in the fold - he was fortunate to cross paths with Mary Pickford - whose star was just on the rise.



Laemmle wooed the popular actress from the Biograph Company which was a part of a Motion Picture Trust headed by Thomas Edison.





To avoid legal hassles with The Motion Picture Trust, Ince and Pickford (America's sweetheart was Canadian, like moi!) went to Cuba where they set up production.



Sounds a little like run-away production headaches we hear about today, eh?



The venture ended when their cameraman landed in a Cuban jail!



Both Ince and Pickford moved back to Tinsel town where the golden boy soon gained a reputation for directing films of superior quality.



Tired of the low quality of westerns shot at the time, he sought to combat that problem by putting a whole Wild West show (complete with real cowboys, Indians and a herd of buffalo) on the payroll.



He demonstrated his business savvy, too, when he purchased 20,000 acres of land (which became known as "Inceville") to faciliate as locations for a slew of Westerns he intended to shoot out-of-doors.



Francis Ford directed some of Ince's earlier westerns - which starred a charismatic actor he knew from the Broadway stage - Willam S. Harte.



Thanks to Ince, Harte became the most popular western star of the era.



Ince later built two motion picture studios in Culver City, which included a scene dock and a carpenter shop to build sets. Not to be left idle, he generally presided over the production details of all the films shot on the lot and gave detailed shooting instructions to the directors, as well



On the night of November 19, 1924, Ince was fatally injured aboard the yacht of newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst.



After the scandal rocked Hollywood, Thomas Ince's film contributions kind-of faded to black; subsequently, his rightful place in Hollywood film lore has become greatly diminished over the years.



Ince's early studio and filmmaking techniques are often put up there today on a pedestal alongside those of film great, W.G. Griffiths.



Past honorees of the award include producer Daniel M. Selznick ("Gone With the Wind") and writer/producer Budd Schulberg ("On The Waterfront"; "A Face In The Crowd").



The festival will also screen two of Carl Reiner’s features, "The Comic" and "All of Me".



A couple of episodes from - "The Dick Van Dyke Show" - will also screen.



See ya there!





Film Pioneer, Tom Ince died mysteriously on Hearst Yacht...