In this episode, the Completely Machinima team focus their discussion on Facing the Wolf, a series of films by Iain Douglas and Mark Coverdale, submitted to the Milan Machinima Film Festival 2022. The film presents a series of provocative ideas which provoke Ricky, Phil, Tracy and Damien to have a deep discussion on the role of information, ambiguity and audience investment. What are your thoughts on the film series?
Machinima, real-time filmmaking, virtual production and VR. Four veteran machinimators share news, new films & filmmakers, and discuss the past, present and future of machinima.
Ricky Grove 00:05
Welcome, machinima filmmakers and people interested in machinima. This is a Completely Machinima podcast. This episode is devoted to a single film called Facing the Wolf by Iain Douglas and Mark Coverdale. It was a choice of the Milan Machinima Festival, which is where I discovered it. I'd like to invite my friends Tracy Harwood, Phil Rice and Damien Valentine to share their thoughts about this particular film as I do the introduction to it. As always, you can contact us to talk at completey machinima.com and notes for the film will be completely machinima.com website. Facing the Wolf is a three part shot in Grand Theft Auto. It was chosen by Mateo Bittanti at the Machinima Festival. Now the Milan Machinima Festival is an academic affair. It tends to have a more emphasis on intellectual and experimental film. So I tried to put aside my preconceptions in coming to this film, but it was pretty clear why it was chosen in the page that I don't think as long as it's still live that particular page when the interview is Tracy,
Tracy Harwood 01:23
no, it's not. But but the interview. Yeah, good. Got a bit, so
Ricky Grove 01:35
we'll have a link to the interview in there as well. Basically, it's a three part film, and it It's hard to describe exactly what it is. But Mateo Bittanti said, one of the things that attracted him to the film was the combination of poetry and machinima. The first section is a man walking through a noir-ish part of Grand Theft Auto overlaid with a narration of poetry. The second part is further continuous that although it introduces a coyote and a crow into it, and the poetry is much less present. And the third part as the you still have the walking man in the second part, and in the third part, the poetry is almost gone. And the man is walking and arrives at a dilapidated house on the outskirts of what looks to be Los Santos, which is the GTA equivalent of Los Angeles. At the same time, the coyote arrives and the crow arrives at the same place. It makes for an interesting combination of realism and abstraction. I found it compelling. And interesting, although the first section with the poetic recitation was off putting, because it seemed to me that the poetry didn't really connect to the visuals that we were looking at. But then again, I think that was the purpose of the of it and that there was a contrast between the two. It's clearly a film that a lot of effort, and thought, and craft went into making it a kind of film that forces you to think about what the meaning of it is, I found the most affecting parts to be part three, where there was no literally no narration. And I had that strange experience where you don't know why. But the convergence of the coyote in the man and the crow moved me in some way. I don't know why. But it made me feel sad and happy at the same time. Schadenfreude I think it's the word the Germans have for that feeling. I enjoyed the film very much. I found it fascinating and interesting. And like I said, I was moved by clearly the craft of the film. In terms of the shot selection and the music that was used in it, I would have wanted a few more sound effects, because I think it existed primarily with the in-game sound effects. A few more interesting ones, like bird wing, and ambient ambient sound, I think would have been more interesting. But then again, I don't think that was the kind of film they were making. So in a way, I sort of admired it for the film that they weren't making. You know what I mean? Because I think it wore its ideas on its sleeve. And that's another thing that I want to talk about later, after our discussion is about is machinima and animation a style or a form of art that ideas can dominate, as opposed to feelings? But let's hear what the rest of you have to say. Tracy, what did you think?
Tracy Harwood 05:09
Yeah, I don't disagree with some of you your comments.
Ricky Grove 05:14
That's a relief, yeah, well.
Tracy Harwood 05:19
Okay, so I had a look into the into the backstory of this a little bit as well. So it was created by Iain Douglas, at the same time that the posts or the Machinima that is, was being created by Iain Douglas, at the same time that it was being written as a poem by Mark Coverdale. So they're very different roles in the creative process. And as you sort of said, it's kind of told in three parts, which, which have very different aesthetic representations. Now, you guys probably struggle with this and more than perhaps, Damien and I because both Douglas and Coverdale and northern UK artists, and I certainly got the feeling for that region through all three of these films, even though it's shot in GTA five, which clearly has a very American set of references within it. For example, the the aesthetic of rain that you see in the, in the first part of it invokes basically what we have in our minds of, of dirty coal fired industrial northern UK cities post World War Two. And there's, I think, many references in the in the film to, to industry. But the poem itself, and and it's, and it's telling, it's really intriguing, because in the first part, there's this over reading, which is really bold and loud. And then there's this under reading, which is kind of a ghost of the other, but actually, when you listen to them, they're very different verses of the poem itself. And so I'm not really sure how you're meant to kind of listen to it, the only thing you can really kind of hear and then the bold words, but the accent is really heavy. And it kind of makes it quite a challenge to make out what is being said. But all of that said, what it's about clearly, I think, is war, and possibly the it's also about post traumatic stress, not necessarily a personal kind, but as the environmental kind. And the words, to me seem to say how all sides in war are losers. And in that sort of sense, what it invoke for me is a memory of Wilfred Owen's classic poem. But the poet but the words in the poem are actually nonsense words as well, they didn't make any sense to me. Which meant that a good portion of the first part, I think you're wholly reliant on the visuals. And the thing that you see the most of in that, in that first part is this kind of relentless marching, as illustrated, you know, through the same kind of striding walk with the character, whom you never see clearly at any point, is basically this kind of shadow man moving through this kind of decaying landscape walking in gloom. And for those kinds of portions of the sentences, you don't quite catch what don't make sense of what fills the gap is this kind of pouring rain, which at times is so loud, and so over beer bearing that you can't even hear the poem. But then when I have another, listen back to it, I don't think sound varies at all. So it's really kind of the way that it makes you zoom in and out of the different layers of it that's kind of intriguing in that first part. In the second part, it starts with a howl of wolves, or what you call coyotes. Ricky, and the image is, is kind of heavily focused on these industrial chimneys spitting out smoke, and the poem is being spoken over a factory tanoy. Or it seems to be and the scene is sort of played backwards and forwards, and I'm never really sure why it's sort of played backwards and forwards. And this kind of poem verse is weird because it's about colour. And it mentions lots of well known artists, but the images are black and white, or at least, they seem to be in first part of it. And again, you've got this kind of over reading and it's under reading. And it seems that somehow that what is being said, not so many words. But basically what you're what you've kind of get the sense of is that art is being invoked over the visualise industrial processes, a form of recovery from war perhaps, or a dream of a possible future, I'm not really sure, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. But as it progresses, you kind of get a strong sense that the process of manufacture is also the process of war and turbulence, which is kind of well illustrated through the use of the Grand Theft Auto game for this particular film. So this part of the poem, I think, is quite it, you know that you get quite a clear sense of tension between the visual and the word. And I think that's really well crafted, that kind of tension is deliberate. And then I'd say that because part three, what you see is something completely different. First of all, it's in colour completely. And the industrial sounds a distant and the natural sounds of birds and crows are much more dominant. And the scene, I think, having said all that is one of utter bleakness and industrial desolation. But there's some really quite clever words, which you you're kind of forced to think about a little bit more. And the words that I picked up on it, are things like when facing the world, you negotiate it in solidarity, but in solidarity with what exactly? I think the only thing you can kind of make sense of is the solidarity that is in reference to nature. And the industrial machinery that you see is is of nodding donkeys, which in Grand Theft Auto is clearly related to oil fields, but in northern England, would have been references to mine pit heads. So it's kind of an interesting comparison. But it's also evidently a metaphor for the industrial versus the natural world. All the mines in the UK, now dormant, of course, and it kind of leads you to the title of the work and sort of, you know, raises the question, Who exactly is the wolf that you're facing? Is the wolf, perhaps industry? Is it a reference to Wall Street trading, perhaps, of commodities, such as coal or oil? Or is it the animal that you see trotting through the landscape and approaching the man in the end? You know, towards the end of that third part of it, I think there's a real play on meaning of words and things. And that interplay, the more you get into it, the more you kind of see just how many levels there are in this in this film. And, you know, one of the things you might ask is, is Grand Theft Auto, the most appropriate game to show that interplay, and actually, I think it is in this particular instance. And what's interesting is the the interview on the websites on the Milan Machinima Festival website, states that the visualisations and the verse room kind of organically together through an interplay of sharing and development, where the artists say they drove each other into a darker and darker space. And they are clearly complementary. And I don't think you would make the connection to some of the things in the in the poem, without the visuals, but equally I don't think hearing the poem being read in a northern accent, or indeed the soundscape itself would make you understand what the visuals are about. So there is definitely this kind of tension and this kind of complementarity. They also said that, actually it's a reflection on war, loss, grief and class struggle. Now the the war loss and grief I got, I, you know, I could pick that up in what we were seeing here. But class struggle, if what you're dealing with here is war and industrialization aren't those everybody's experiences, so that I didn't get but a really interesting pick, thank you, Ricky, I really enjoyed sort of thinking about that one made me think quite deeply about it.
Ricky Grove 14:16
Yes, you did. You're certainly looked at it in a more deeper level than I did. And some of those things are fascinating. I see those things that you're talking about, but I have some comments about them. Later after we hear from Phil and Damien. Phil. Yeah,
Phil Rice 14:36
I've something that I really latched on. onto that you said there Tracy was that how the poem really can't stand on its own. Not that it can't. But it doesn't stand on its own in the same way that it does with the visual that there is a there's a real interdependence there. Which I think ties into how It was made that it was made collaboratively and at the same time, that's very unusual. You know, an adaptation typically happens after something else already exists and Okay, now it's my turn to take that and transform it into something else, or riff off of it or whatever. Even in music, you have a jazz standard, you know, a Gershwin song, and then a jazz artist will take that and, and improvise off of it. And the idea that those things were created together is it's a little mind blowing to me, like how does that process work? You know, that's, that's fascinating. I'm, I'm involved in a project right now. Which we'll be releasing sometime before the end of this year, where I did the audio, and someone else's doing the video. And there was there's some Interplay there, but not wholly from the beginning. Yeah, I think that it ends up creating something very unique. Because the the poem it is part of the film, and the film is part of the poem. Yeah. It's not a film about a poem. And it's not a poem about a film. It's something else. And yeah, it's a little I didn't get nearly into the deep analysis as you firstly informed mostly because as we were leading up to this episode, I realised that I'd watched the wrong film because Milan had switched it out. So So yeah, I assume it still makes a similar impact when someone watches it at 1.5x is what I did. But the sound I thought the sound was used very effectively, even though as Ricky mentioned, it appears to be mostly if not exclusively, in game sounds well, if you're gonna do that, in GTA or in Red Dead Redemption, you're in good company if that's what you're going to lean on for your sound you know, it's it's some pretty amazing soundscapes going on there. But the part that really jumped out to me was with the what did you call them? The something donkeys?
Tracy Harwood 17:23
Nodding donkeys?
Phil Rice 17:24
Yeah. The oil derricks? Well, it's not a derrick. Yeah, whatever that thing is called, I've never heard an oil nodding donkey, it's permanently down here. So there's some scenes, particularly in the third part, where that's really in the foreground and the sound of that this kind of repetitive. Industrial machines sound, it reminds me a lot of some Nine Inch Nails from the early 90s, he would incorporate a lot of live captured weird, mechanical sound effects like that, and then weave them into a song and this, this just had that kind of this lumbering, behemoth, metallic sound. Maybe made me forget every you know what I was saying before that and just fixate on that. And I think there's moments throughout this where the sound really, if it is indeed all from the game, they really captured it effectively, and put it to good use, I think. Anyway, that's, that's me, I have no poetic insight whatsoever. But I could have watched it and analysed it over the course of the past week, and still wouldn't have much to contribute there. So how about you, Damien.
Damien Valentine 18:42
Did you think yeah, somehow it was a follow up on all of that. I'm gonna concentrate more on the visual side of it. Because, Tracy, you, you mentioned that each one looks very different. And that's true. The first one, it's, the game is basically the visuals, but it's nighttime. So it's dark. And it's gloomy, and the characters walk into this desolate, it's the drain pipes you have in LA. Channels, the
Phil Rice 19:12
LA River River.
Damien Valentine 19:14
Yeah, he's just walking along that. And that's basically the visual side of it. And that's his journey, and he doesn't stop, he doesn't. The scenery doesn't change, you just, it just does that. And the poems do reach to the top of it. And then of course, you go on to the second one, which is black and white. But it's not just black and white. It's made to look like old black and white. Like you'd expect something to be made. If it's filmed 60 or 70 years ago, the kind of cameras they had back then because it's it's very bright white and it's very dark black and there's not much in between. And they obviously took a lot of time to do it and it's very even though the first one is dark because nighttime somehow the black and white makes it even darker even though you've got some bright sections to it, it's something that the way the blacks really, it's really dark black. And I think as to the tone of the poem is this is even darker now. And then, of course, the third part, which is daylight. So suddenly you go from darkness, more darkness to desert in the middle of the daytime. And of course, it's gonna be very bright. But even so it's the desert. So it's all desolate, there's nothing there. This is walking along a road, that's it's kind of cracks and holes. So you've got this, even though they look brighter is still not in a good place. Because there's nothing there. And it kind of adds to that whole. I can't really go into the poem in its depth as you did, but that whole the war and industry, and we've moved past that to this third part. But it's still nothing good here. Because all this other stuffs happened. And that's kind of what I got from it. And you got the loading donkeys, that sort of the remnants of all the industry that you've seen in the previous video, and the river, which is, you know, just nothing there at all. In the first one. So it's like, nothing has really improved, even though it's, it looks better, like because it's brighter, you can see everything but Right, right. Yeah, let's go I took from it in the official style.
Ricky Grove 21:30
Fascinating, fascinating. I'd like to point out the difference between Prazinburk Ridge, which we reviewed last week, and this film, in Prazinburk Ridge, the ideas of the story of World War Two, bravery, desolation, fear, angst, death, were all combined, clearly, and effectively with the visuals. So there was no difference between the two. And Facing the Wolf, we have an entirely different way of using visuals, with the kind of poetry as a story poetry as idea. And the problem I have is that the filmmakers made the film they wanted to make. There's a quote in there interview where Iain Douglas, I think, says I think the characters in this machinima speak to my dichotomic belief that the world is built full of the worst kinds of people, and that our collective empathy, solidarity and faith in the best of humanity will overcome any attempts to destroy it. Interesting idea, but watching this film one time, would you get that idea from the pen? Definitely no, not at all. So what it requires, it requires more of an effort from the viewer, you have to watch it multiple times, as Tracy pointed out the accent, and the sort of gibberish words at the beginning, sort of distance between the two. So the idea that they're clearly complimentary, is not clear in a single viewing, perhaps in a multiple viewing or in a deep view, like you had in your awareness of, of British northern cities and all that war, it would make sense. But it didn't tell me, what it did to me was suggested in noir scenario, all of it suggested a noir scenario. So the idea of having an over laid narration made sense. So I was sort of expecting a kind of commentary on the actual visuals that you were seeing, but they're not. They're abstracted ideas that are somewhat separate. Initially, from the they only connecting in terms of ideas. They don't connect in terms of story, or character. They don't say and as I was walking through the LA River, no, it's none of that. It's all heightened stop. But I think the artistic work on it, and the care, which they, as you pointed out so beautifully, Tracy, the distinctions between the three come to fruition in the idea that Mateo Bittanti said in the interview, which is it's a parable. And I think that's a very good way to look at it as a parable of the human condition. The problem is the visuals are so fascinating and interesting, that you don't want to listen to other that's that other stuff. You don't want to pay attention to those other ideas. You want to see the story of the thing that you're watching. So I think this kind of work depends upon the viewer. It's much like modern art where the ambiguity that's being shown in the film, really media affects certain viewers, certain viewers who want to see all of these connections like Mario Bittanti, because that's the kind of film that he wants to show at Milan Machinima Festival. And regular viewers like Damien, and myself and Phil and you too, Tracy, who, in a way, just want to see the story that's being shown in it. So I think it's a fascinating film. And it's the kind of film that should be made. These sorts of films should be made all the time, but they aren't necessarily successful on only one viewing.
Tracy Harwood 25:34
You, I think you make a really, really good point there, because I would not have enjoyed this so much had I not have looked into the background, how it was made. And the minute the minute, I started to sort of discover how they created it. I mean, these two guys are lifelong friends. To your point, Phil, how did they do it, they're lifelong friends, they literally shared clips and bits and pieces, as they were working on it, because they'd been used to doing that. So it's not only you know, it's not something you can necessarily pick up so well, with folks who don't know, so well. And, and then, riff off each other. When, you know, these guys said, they drove each other to a darker and darker place, they, you know, they clearly knew each other inside out, come to come up with this, the three sort of parts of it. But I don't think you get that, in just the watching of it. I think, you know, that somehow you've got to communicate how it was made in order to get to a deeper level of understanding and appreciation of it of it as a film. And unfortunately, you know, when you just watch, you know, when you just watched and find these films and see the interviews and whatnot, it that's not well explained, it's never well explained. And we've, you know, we've commented on that before, once you know, a little bit more about the creative process of it, you you come at it from a different perspective, and that's where I came at it from it made me want to look at it, and, and in a different way. But without doing that, I think I'd have come to exactly the same conclusions as you guys have done. But that, that detail that, that, you know, when collaboration, and the and the way that they drove each other down into it. That's what makes that quite an interesting film for me. And it doesn't work. I think, you know, that that uniqueness comes from that collaboration. But how do you explain that? I don't know.
Damien Valentine 27:46
They're a unique project, it's hard for people to realise they need to, they need all the information, like they need to know how it's made. And you can't just have one part of it.
Ricky Grove 27:56
So that calls into question the idea of certain kinds of films, idea films, do you have to have more information than the film provides in order to appreciate it. Now, that certainly is the case with many modernist films, people are people would scream at at Luis Bunuel, Andalusian Dog or Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie was because he leaves ambiguity in it. But in those cases, he still tells the story visually, I could take this film, remove the audio entirely, add my own audio to it in the form of ambient sound, and not even narration not even add words. And it would stand on its own as an interesting film. At one point in the first part, the guy that's walking down and you never is face. So it becomes a type as opposed to a character. He's going down, he stops, there's a distance shot from railroad tracks or subway tracks. The subway passes, he's gone on the subways at the end. How many times have we seen that shot in a noir film? Do you know what I mean? So in a way, the tension between the the text and the visuals made it hard for me to be able to appreciate the two together simultaneously, partially because of my own expectations as a filmmaker and as a viewer of land lover of Noir films, but also because they make it hard. They don't make it easy for you.
Phil Rice 29:45
Here's a question too. And I don't know if there's a way to ask this in a way that it isn't abrasive, but like if a film can't have its intended impact, be it story or idea or poetic or whatever, without something from outside the film being used to enhance your understanding of it. Is that a failure on the part of the filmmaker? I kind of asked him rhetorically, because I don't think that there's a concrete answer to that. But I guess I can say that I would, that I would look at it that way. But that's because I don't make this type of film generally. But if I made a film, and at the end of the day, I had to explain something to someone before they would understand the film at all. I'd feel like I hadn't succeeded. Because the film should stand on its own enough. And if there's ambiguity, it's deliberate. It's with intent. You leave spaces in there on purpose, because you want the viewer to fill it in with their imagination, that kind of thing. You know, ambiguity is a dangerous thing to play with because of that, that if you're doing deliberate ambiguity, you can't do too much. It's like too much salt in the in the soup or something, you know, but I don't know. It's just it's it's an open question. Not Not, not intending to assume criticism. But I just wonder if if the film does rely on going and delving and doing research. To get out of it, what was intended? Isn't it possible that there would have been a way to make the film where that wasn't needed? So that everything's right there?
Tracy Harwood 31:45
Well, maybe it's no longer a film. Maybe it's just art.
Phil Rice 31:48
Okay. That's fair.
Tracy Harwood 31:51
And if it's art, then the gallery that it's presented in is the thing that provides the context.
Phil Rice 31:58
Oh, that's a great answer. That's a very fair.
Tracy Harwood 32:01
Yeah, I'm not I'm not sure that it's the right answer. Well, here's the thing, because
Phil Rice 32:06
it's an answer. It is, it isn't answered.
Tracy Harwood 32:08
But how long were the three episodes together? Or the three parts of it together?
Damien Valentine 32:16
Maybe 20 minutes? Well, would
Tracy Harwood 32:17
you sit in a gallery and watch something for 20 minutes? And do the background research on it?
Ricky Grove 32:24
If it was interesting. Yes. Yeah. Although I have to say I almost bailed halfway through the first episode of this. I said, No, no, go go get yourself a piece of toast and a cup of coffee. Stay with it.
Phil Rice 32:42
I did. It's worth acknowledging, too, that sometimes. digestibility by the largest possible audience is not the filmmakers goal, or the artists goal. Yeah. That it? In other words, mass consumption. That's, that's, you know, I think we're, we watch a lot of content that is intended to be enjoyed by as wide an audience as possible. But it is worth remembering that sometimes an artist makes something that they intuitively know, not everyone's gonna get this. Not everyone's gonna like this, like, not just, well, people are fickle, but I've made this such that not everyone's going to like it, but the people who do invest emotionally or intellectually into the art and engage with it, that's going to be really rewarding for them. And so that's worth it. So maybe that's kind of maybe that is, this is of that class of work.
Ricky Grove 33:51
I thought were true fill the ideas that are being expressed that they talk about the idea that somehow our collective, we have to share our collective humanity. And that even if, if industry and war is makes it hard for everybody, our collective humanity will overcome it. Are those original ideas, or those creative original ideas no, the same kind of thing has been addressed in many different forms at films and paintings and in poetry. Wilfred Owen is a great example of that. So the originality of it isn't particularly new. I think what you're getting at is that it's a personal film. Okay, perhaps, and perhaps it's so personal, that it doesn't let everybody in on it.
Phil Rice 34:44
I think that's fair as well. I think that's a possibility, too.
Ricky Grove 34:47
They made this film, and it wasn't as if they said, Hey, we're gonna make this film for the Milan Machinima Festival. I mean, they did submit it, but still, it's their personal film and it's sometimes a person when a film like that has its own language that isn't necessarily assessable. It reminded me a bit of in my theatre background of a German director and writer Bertolt Brecht, he was a very political animal. And he created plays that had what he called the alienation effect. Meaning that he didn't want the audience to become emotionally involved with his characters. He wanted them to be characters and symbols, at the same time, have ideas that he thought were more important than your emotional response to their characters. Now, ironically, in actual practice, very, very few directors actually direct their films according to his instructions, using the alienation effect, because audiences run for the exits as fast as they can. Because it's just infuriated. What they do is they directed for its emotional effect. But it made me think that perhaps, these two politically active and politically thoughtful people know about Brecht or instinctly understand his idea, and want to express their passionate political beliefs in a form that is unique and popular. And this is what they've come up with. And it creates a split. Because on one hand, those people as you pointed out, Phil, who and the rest of us are oftentimes interested in the sort of popular involvement, emotional involvement, and the other types of people who want to understand the ideas and the political points that they're trying to make. But I think if you're going to do that, you'd better come up with a new fucking idea about politics, or at least a new way to say it, or a new way to say it. Yeah. And I'm not so sure. That's a great point. Great point.
Tracy Harwood 36:56
That's a fascinating point, and really, really well named Ricky. Thank you.
Ricky Grove 37:02
Thanks. Thanks. I have to say, though, despite all of our criticism, despite all of our disagreements or frustrations with the film, this is the kind of film that should be made more often in machinima. And
Phil Rice 37:15
I agree 100%.
Ricky Grove 37:17
More people should create personal films that express their intent. And ideas in ways that are not popular are not in the popular vein, too often, filmmakers look to popular culture or popular television series to ape that, they just want to ape that and recreate it. Now. That's fun. That's exciting. But it's very boring. Because 1000 other people are doing a million other people are doing it. This is the kind of thing that you got that is a unique film. That is an interesting film. And I want to see more of it. And I hope I'm and on their page. Tracy, you pointed out that the on their actual website, they have several of their other films they do that are there that are very interesting. What's the name of the website?
Tracy Harwood 38:06
Yeah. Good point Art School Mod Poets.com. Yes, so
Ricky Grove 38:16
check it out. Check out the other films, I think you'll find them equally interesting. And we would like to hear very much of excuse me before I do the field. Does any of you want to add something at the end here?
Tracy Harwood 38:29
No, I think you've nailed it.
Damien Valentine 38:31
What do you think about anything else to that?
Ricky Grove 38:34
Thanks. Thanks. Anyway, this is a really challenging film. We'd like to know our listeners what you thought of it. Please send us your reactions, your thoughts. Do you disagree with us? Do you think Phil's a buffoon?
Phil Rice 38:49
That's neither here nor there. That should just be a single checkbox. Radio Button.
Ricky Grove 39:00
Thanks for taking good humour. Because I meant it seriously.
Ricky Grove 39:04
No, no, no, no. Are you kidding? Come on. I'm just having fun with you. And makes me think of that great picture we had at the Machinima Festival, where I'm doing some sort of, yeah, that was so great. I love that. Anyway, if you have some ideas about this film that you want to share other films with us, please contact us. We read everything. And if it's interesting, we'll put it on the show. We'll talk about it. Talk at Completely machinima.com all of the show notes to this and links to all of the things that we were talking about, including Bertolt Brecht's alienation effect will be on the show notes@machinima.com So thank you guys, for talking about this film. It's interesting to note that This is the kind of film that brings out conversation, which is I think, in a way, the intent of the filmmakers, is to have you addressed ideas and things like that. So thank you to Iain Douglas and Mark Coverdale for making this film and providing such a lively debate on it. And thank you, Tracy for your wonderful comments as always your five steps ahead of me all the time. Phil, thank you, sir. And Damien, thank you. Your your points are really well made. Okay, guys, that's it for the show. I'll remember next month, we're going to be splitting off our news section into a separate blog. And we'll be doing the films individually and talking about them and perhaps if an important news item comes up, we'll talk about that on the show. And we might have a separate episode on a discussion question. I can think of several that have come up during this particular episode. So thank you very much.
Phil Rice 40:57
How big a buffoon is Phil.
Ricky Grove 41:02
Capital. Okay, everybody, take care. Thank you, Tracy, Phil, and Damien.