So last night, I had a dream. It was a murder mystery/whodunnit sort mixed with horror. By morning, I tried conjuring up the dream in its entirety, but only just the gist came to me. And so, today at work, I developed a whodunnit script idea. After a while I gradually became fed up with it AND the main problem: falling through too many loopholes haunted me. I can honestly see myself attempting a murder mystery again in the future. It's seriously one of my favorite genre's! But it seems every killer is either predictable, or so unbelievably unpredictable that by the unveiling of the killer, which is usually suspensful, just seems like another inciting event. There's a chemistry to writing, period, but it's almost mathematical to write a good murder mystery. If I did try writing one, I'd start with the killer, and work my way out of loopholes. Almost think like the killer. As if I were inviting several guests to an isolated castle and made plans to kill my guests off one by one. So the question is how would I go about doing so? Writing a whodunnit requires the writer killing off characters literally. Oh well, I just don't feel it anymore... today at least.

On a closely related subject, well actually the same subject, just a different paragraph, I came home with the desire to watch a good whodunnit. So, I found "Ten Little Indians" broken up into ten minute segments on Youtube. It's so cool being able to watch a full length movie online and not have to pay for. I will say that it's a shame the filmmakers aren't being compensated, but it does allow me to view some material that I wouldn't be able to view possibly ever. Take for instance an ancient Stanley Kubrick film I stumbled upon. This film is hidden away in a vault somewhere. The fact I can see it online not only gives me pleasure being able to see it, but the fact that it's a lost treasure and the access is right there in front of me is unbelievably great. Not to mention, so many silent films are not in public domain that they're begging to be watched. I caught an F.W. Murnau short and Jean Cocteau's first feature "Blood of a Poet." I once heard a fact that so many of the films existing day, out of all of them, only like 50-100 will be accessible in 50 years. It's scary to think about this, but it's even scarier thinking about all of the non 100 that existed 50 years ago or further back to 100 years ago. It's interesting that plays have managed to survive over time, but film manages to dissolve. It has a lot to do with chemicals, but if more people donated to film preservation, then more films would survive this "plague" of deconstruction. I read that chemicals in celluloid have been known to be of a nitrogen base, so many libraries of film have caught fire do to the mixture. Wow, I feel like a nerd now.

Back to the track, I watched "Ten Little Indians" on Youtube tonight hoping it would spring my re-interest in whodunnits, but it didn't. Once again, another Hollywood ending just like the 1930's version of "And Then There Were None." Last survivor shoots man, the killer is revealed, informs the last survivor of the only exit is suicide, but man comes back in and saves the day. It makes me sick. I can't believe that rich moguls sat on beds of cash, because they'd rather end with happiness that doesn't exist rather than reality. What am I saying, it's still going on today. It think it's about time to alter the studio system. I read an article that discussed fortune 500 companies giving loans to studio filmmakers. One of the filmmakers on the list was Todd Field, who created such masterpieces as "In the Bedroom" and "Little Children." I don't know what to think of this. I mean, to be a Hollywood director, you pretty much have to submit control of your creativity and yourself to the studios. But why? We went over someone in British Lit. who said that art needs to reevaluate itself every so many years. I think it was Blake. I don't know. Now that we've emerged into the "Post-Post-Modern" era, I think it's time. But you need money to make a film. This isn't entirely true, but to a certain level. Buster Keaton set up a camera, walked into the picture and acted. Same with Orson Welles, at first. John Cassavetes ran through the streets of New York with his actors. How is it that film is so difficult? Maybe it's just challenging. And I mean challenging in a positive way. If it wasn't challenging, then wouldn't I not have made many films by now? The challenge is truly the fun part... maybe. Who knows. I'll know later.

I did have a major breakthrough movie idea wise. I had an idea for a short, and jotted down some things, and eventually began writing out a scenario. It's a silent short. I plan to shoot it when my camera gets here... if not earlier. I just felt a surge of emotions. I kept hearing what Bret Wood said when he told me to write about what I like and myself. Not literally, but on a mentally penetrating level, where by experimenting with film, I'm psychoanalyzing. I have been toying around with an idea regarding dreams, and the unconscious, so here's my chance. I've written two character so far, and maybe I'll add in one or maybe two more. I want to keep it as simple as Jerry Bruckheimer. But I'm all drained out now. Time to go dream and develop more ideas.

Today, I bought Amy and myself the Universal Studios tickets. I sure am excited to be going to a film studio, when I myself am an anti-studio man. Although, if it weren't for the studios, many films would have not been made. And so, we're going to have so much fun at Universal!!!

I'm still working at the Hanger. John is paying me cash "under the table." Not literally, just in envelopes. This is good also, because we don't have to take out for taxes. So, I'm making more money to spend on us in Florida.

Well, I'm off to watch a movie called "The Last of Shelia." Maybe this will restore my attitude to write more.