Pro-Choice

Because of it's subject matter, namely homicidal feminists trying to take over the world, Women's Studies isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea. "You can't please everyone," is an adage of the theatre. It's true too. You can't. All you can do is tell the story the best and as honestly as you can, and hope for the best.

Back in March of '06, I sent out the first initial casting notices for Women's Studies, which got picked up by the Independent Women's Forum who wrote a blog about it.

In turn, a blog called Pandagon picked up on the IWF story and wrote a response to it. My thoughts are at the end.

As you can see, the negative reaction kind of rattled me the first time. Then I got my head out of the clouds and reminded myself of that old theatre adage. Now when it happens, and I'm sure it will keep happening, while I listen politely to what detractors have to say, I certainly don't try to change their opinion of the film. Just as I hope no one thinks I'm going to change my mind about making it.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I have no intention of playing politics here. My goal is to make a scary movie, not save the world or destroy it. Cults are scary. Feminism is interesting. A film about a feminist cult seems like it would be scary and interesting. The argument of Women's Studies is not, "Feminism is good/bad." Both the protagonist and antagonist are almost mirror opposites in their feminist beliefs. The difference is that one is willing to kill for their beliefs and the other wants change to come about peacefully. That's the ideological debate I'm interested in. Feminism becomes almost incidental, a "MacGuffin" as Master Hitchcock might have said. My intentions, though I'm admittedly an agent of chaos, are good. Yet, we all know what the road to hell is paved with, don't we?

Here's the bottom line for those people who find the concept of Women's Studies (or any other book, TV show, movie or art work) offensive, sad, outrageous, misogynistic, politically incorrect, or intellectually pornographic:

You ready?

It's kind of a crazy idea.

Choose not to watch it.

I'm certainly not going to come into your home and force you to watch my film. I also sincerely doubt congress is going to pass a law making Women's Studies required viewing for all Americans. Your local church group isn't going to ostracize you if you don't see this film. So, the choice whether to see it is entirely in your hands. Should I inadvertently contact you or a group you're involved with because I think you might be interested in the film and it turns out you're not, by all means politely tell me so. I won't bother you again.

Don't get me wrong. I want you to come see the film. I'd like for you to come with an open mind and put any pre-conceived notions aside and see what we have to say about cults, feminism, and the fine art of sharp, shiny knives. However, I also understand and respect that Women's Studies may simply not be your cup of tea, and as that old theatre adage goes . . .

I'll leave you with this thought to ponder: To me, anyone who thinks this film (which isn't intended to be an anti-feminist film) has the power to ruin the women's rights movement doesn't seem to have much faith in that movement's power. Also, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't womankind have bigger problems to worry about than a horror film about killer strippers?

End of the Gardening Leave beginning of the Soul Leave

Well, I had planned to be pretty upset today..........I have been feeling the anger and depression of having to go back to work and start being a corporate monkey again, it's been welling up inside for a few days. I tried hard to regulate it and overcome the fear.

I managed it for six years straight, why can't I get back into it again? Of course I can, it's just jumping through the hoop that's a pain. But there really are so many things to do apart from work that it's been a real revelation. I can't wait to fook off again and chill, only next time it's three months. Bring it on!!

However, after checking the Blog I though what's the point being all upset? Basically all my mates are Fooking Legends and life is too sweet and too short to let the fact that the Gardening Leave is over to ruin my life. So I am taking it on the chin, it's going to smart, a lot, but I have just got to get back and start getting up early (not because I want to, but because I have to), getting the suit and tie on and going out to earn a living. So you lot have been doing that for ages, and why should I be any different? No reason, just once you get the chance to do nothing once, you want it again and again. It's not long until Christmas and that is going to be a great break to take.

I am looking forward to the beers on the 24th and on the 26th and if we're all lucky either James or Darragh or even both will be back. That would be a great.

So I am off to iron a few shirts and get ready for the dull and boring tube journey to the Wharf tomorrow, I do have a nice new shiny Ipod and I'll be going in earlier so I'll defo get a seat so I can read the paper without other people's arms in my side.

Should be a wake up call.........can still do it? Could I ever do it? Will I be found out? Can I take the pace? Is it a big mistake?

You never know until you know and I will tomorrow. At least I know that I'll be fine if I end up on the Giro.

The Robot.

Nottingham hero's

DEREK RANDALL
It was said of Derek Randall that he could catch swallows. Watching him patrolling the covers, you could almost believe it. It was his anticipation and speed over the ground rather than strength of arm that made him such a wonderful fielder - he would often run batsmen out simply by outpacing them to the wicket and whipping off the bails. With Randall on one side of the wicket and David Gower on the other, few batsmen chanced quick singles against England.

But there was more to Randall than his fielding. There was his spectacular, eccentric batting too. His Test record of 2,470 runs in 47 matches at an average of just over 33 betrays a lack of consistency, but when he was good, he was very, very good. There was his match-winning knock at Sydney in 1978-79 when, with England trailing after the first innings by 142 runs, Randall held the second innings together with a magnificent 150. But that was against an Australian side depleted by the Packer ban. On a different plain altogether was his 174 in 1977 in the Centenary Test against a strong Australia side at Melbourne. With England chasing an improbable 463 to win, Randall took them unbelievably close - doffing his cap to the mighty Dennis Lillee in the process after just evading a bouncer - but in the end their valiant chase fell 46 runs short.

Randall, known as Arkle after the racehorse, was seldom far from the drama. His lightning run-out of Rick McCosker in the Test when England clinched the Ashes at Headingley in 1977 amazed all who witnessed it. And in the previous Test at his home ground of Trent Bridge he had been ridiculously run out himself, stranded by Geoffrey Boycott at the other end. Boycott went on to make amends by hitting his 99th first-class century, followed by his 100th at Leeds in the next game. In the one-day game, Randall's fielding came even more to the fore and he became a one-day regular, playing in the World Cup Final defeat at the hands of the West Indies at Lord's in 1979.

In Randall's Nottinghamshire career, which lasted from 1972 to 1983, he hit 1,000 runs in a season eight times and scored two double centuries. His highest score of 209 against Middlesex in 1979 was accompanied by 146 in the same game. Even at the ripe old age of 49, he was turning out for Suffolk in the 2000 season and played in the NatWest Trophy. He finally hung up his bat in 2001, aged 50.