Log in

No account? Create an account

Accomplishment chart, 3/31 – 4/6

Accomplishment chart, 3/31 – 4/6


- scribbling for Mrs. Hawking part 5
- 1 blog entry for Mrshawking.com
- plotting for Mrs. Hawking part 4
- drafting for prose project
- drafted press release for Watch City Steampunk Festival 2017
- edited 2 draft articles for Game Wrap Magazine volume 2
- drafting for WFRR exegesis
- broke 15,000 words on prose project
- 3 LiveJournal entries

- loaded in large set pieces into performance space for Vivat Regina and Base Instruments at WCSF 2017
- set up a window display advertising performances of Vivat Regina and Base Instruments at WCSF 2017
- had 3 rehearsals for Vivat Regina and Base Instruments at WCSF 2017
- went to Agnes of God by John Pielmeier staged reading with Bare Bones

- cast Silver Lines at Festival of the Larps 2017

- graded 6 #1 creative assignments for Intro to Creative Writing class
- made lectures with notes for week 3 of online Intro to Creative Writing class
- finalized week 3 class module for online Intro to Creative Writing class
- planned lessons for 4/3 and 4/5 for Writing and the Literary Arts class
- agreed to teach a second English Composition class at Lesley for fall 2017
- graded 3 revisions for essay #2 of Writing and the Literary Arts class
- graded 7 #2 creative assignments for Intro to Creative Writing class
- graded 4 papers for essay #3 of Writing and the Literary Arts class

- drew portrait of Zoe Kravitz
- helped set up display window at Waltham Library for Watch City Steampunk Festival

- contacted my reps 3 days

- carried set pieces for 3 hours
- 1 one-mile run
- 1 fighter abs routines
- 1 two-mile runs
- walked 10,000+ steps 3 days
- walked 15,000+ steps 1 day

- watched Big Little Lies miniseries
- read act two of Fences play by August Wilson
- listened to episode 102 of Tom and Lorenzo’s Pop Style Opinionfest

- made baked halibut stuffed with crabmeat and steamed cauliflower

More drafting for my planned deep-dive exegesis on one of my all-time favorite films, Who Framed Roger Rabbit. This is rough, disorganized, and unedited, and I will polish it up once I have a fuller draft, but here's some of the work I did on one of my favorite parts of the analysis-- the surprisingly sophisticated workings of Roger Rabbit as a character. Previous scribbing on how the noir genre factors in can be found here.

Now I want to talk about Roger Rabbit, who is in my opinion the most remarkable character in the film. Roger is my favorite, and honestly has been since I saw the movie as a tiny child. But now, as a critic with a slightly more mature perspective, I’m fascinated by him because there is much more complexity to his character than his surface affect suggests, and by how much dramatic weight his narrative actually carries.

Despite being the title character, Roger is not straightforwardly a protagonist in the strict sense. Much as I love and am fascinated by the workings of the character, I will admit that his arc, such as it is, is… minimal. The fact that he is fundamentally the same throughout the entirety of the story, with minimal personal growth from the experience, automatically subordinates his narrative to Eddie’s, who is in fact the true protagonist of all. But his story function is not simply to act as a foil and motivator to Eddie Valiant. Though secondary, Roger has the very important protagonistic quality of wanting something and taking actions to get it. And in fact, his Want and his Actions toward that Want drive the entire film— A Want, by the way, that is shockingly mature and sophisticated. You see, EVERY EVENT IN THIS FILM stems from and is driven by Roger’s constant assertion that his marriage is real. And this is important, not to mention necessary, because none of the people around him seem to believe it.

Our very first awareness of Roger is his act in the Baby Herman short that opens the film. It is done in classic cartoon style, characterized by invented exaggerated reality and broad ridiculous humor. It is quite funny— Roger Ebert said he seldom laughed harder at anything that he did the first time he saw this cartoon —but it’s also narratively important. By seeing Roger “at work,” we see him as most people in this world see him— as the silly cartoon character, not just ridiculous, but the fall guy, the butt of the joke. The guy who is, despite his best intentions and efforts, continually whacked around by the circumstances of life, not somebody who has any real perspective or outlook to take seriously.

With Roger so established in our eyes, we see where R.K. Maroon is coming from in talking about Roger as if he’s blind to the truth of his own life. Maroon seems smarter and more on the ball than Roger, so when he gives his assessment that Roger’s wife is obviously a tramp and the rabbit just can’t see it, we’re inclined to accept it. We are induced to dismiss Roger just as the characters do.

But beyond that, it allows a means for the inciting event to occur. The director calls cut at the end of the cartoon because instead of seeing stars after a wallop, Roger produces tweeting birds— cleverly classified under “blowing his lines” the same way saying the wrong word would be for a human actor. It’s evidence of a problem Roger’s been having lately, that his ability to focus on his work is suffering due to distress over a rumor that his wife Jessica is being unfaithful to him. The story kicks off when Maroon calls in Valiant, who is engaged to take pictures of Jessica in the act of cheating to prove to Roger that she’s a tramp and not worth wasting any more time over.

Take a look at that. The issue Maroon feels needs solving is Roger’s disbelief, his refusal to accept that his wife’s having an affair. Maroon’s action is in direct reaction to Roger’s assertion. What is that assertion, that reason that he refuses to believe it? “My marriage is real.”

So the entire story kicks off because of that. But even after that, all of Roger’s actions (or at least all his character-driven ones) stem from this steadfast belief. When he is shown the pictures that Valiant took, he gives some small indication that he can no longer deny that an affair took place, but he violently insists that whatever’s happened, he and Jessica are going to get past it. What enables him to insist on this? His belief that his marriage is real.

The next scene offers up a beautiful, sad little moment where he’s alone, crying over the photos of the two of them in his wallet— on vacation, cuddling up in a booth at a restaurant, and on their wedding day. This is lovely and important character moment. There’s no anger there, only sadness— a hint to the audience that his mindset upon leaving was not vengeful enough to have run out and commit a murder right after. And there’s something beautifully mundane about those photos. While perhaps a bit on the glamorous side— they are Hollywood performers, after all —they are such shockingly normal moments in the life of a couple. These show what’s important to Roger, and how he views his relationship.

And there’s an interesting juxtaposition of the photography in this scene versus the previous one. As we just saw, photographs are evidence, and these are evidence of the reality of their marriage. But we see Roger’s struggle to reconcile the way these supposed records of truth conflict with one another.

The next time is onscreen Roger, it's when he turns up in Eddie's office to ask for his help in clearing his name. And what justification does he offer for his claim that he couldn't possibly have killed Marvin Acme? He has nothing to take revenge for because he doesn't believe Jessica actually cheated. He tells Valiant that he reflected on the whole issue and came to the inescapable conclusion that, those pictures aside, the Jessica he knows could not have done wrong by him— that she’s “an innocent victim of circumstance.” Why doesn't he believe she cheated? Because he knows their marriage is real.

Now notice that Valiant still thinks Roger's nuts to believe in Jessica. Even after he accepts the case, he remains convinced she's a tramp, and that Roger is too ridiculous a person to see the truth. I would argue that perception persists most of the way through the movie. He definitely still believes she stepped out when he confronts R.K. Maroon, as he describes the events as "a story of greed, sex, and murder." What else could "sex" be referring to, other than he still thinks Jessica put out for Marvin Acme? But this, that even Roger’s ally and advocate can’t possibly believe in them, it makes it all the more powerful and that Roger is holding fast: his marriage, God damn it, is real.

More to come later.

Defining literary structure

This is excerpted from my upcoming article in Game Wrap Magazine, volume 2-- "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" about the tension between narrative design and player autonomy. I pulled this part out because it's applies strucutre in all storytelling forms, not just larps.

One of the tools storytellers use to shape narrative is structure. Structure in this case refers to the design of the order, manner, and pacing of events making up the story and the relationships of those events to each other. Narrative is at its fundamental level about change— starting with a thesis, confronting it with its antithesis, and seeing the new synthesis that results. Structure is an important tool for storytellers to choose and arrange events in order to create, control, and facilitate that change.

In much of literature, structure falls into a traditional form. The circumstances are established in a setup, after which a triggering change, the inciting event, propels the protagonist into challenging new situations. As the protagonist struggles to achieve their goals in the face of unexpected obstacles, the tension of the situation is increased by the rising action and its addition of complications. Ultimately, the action builds to the highest point of confrontation, the climax, where the hero faces their greatest challenge, and the changes they have undergone are tested to see if they are sufficient to overcome. This point is usually the most intense action of the story. After this, the tension ratchets down as the consequences of the climax are unpacked, at least to some degree, in the falling action. Finally, we are left with the resolution, which tells us the new status quo, to contrast with the way things were in the beginning.

This pattern of structure is so prevalent in storytelling because of how well it presents conflict and response to conflict in order to prompt development, growth, and change. It offers a steady buildup of the level of challenge in a manner that increases tension and our investment in the stakes of the conflict — the more struggle a goal entails, the more important achieving it becomes — while eventually providing satisfaction by offering a resolution.

Beyond this simple ordering of events, it offers the storyteller the tools to figure out how and at what speed the events should occur in relation to each other to achieve the best effect. By using this framework as a guide, the storyteller can determine at what point of the emotional journey they would like their audience to have reached at any given moment. The teller can then decide how to shape each event in relation to the other events to achieve the desired effect. If the tension needs to go up, intense actions can occur all in quick succession. If the intensity is increasing too fast, the plot-driving moments can occur on a smaller scale, or be spaced farther apart. So the curation of the occurrence of events in the story allows for the best release of information, timing of events, and measured building of tension.

But the key part of that is that curation. To utilize structure to best effect, it requires design— intentional choices made in what events occur when, with specific desired effects in mind. For events to have the greatest impact on the course of the story and, the development of the characters, they can’t just happen in any order or in any relation to each other; story events don't build properly upon one another or deliver their full effect when they occur in a completely uncontrolled way. For example, iIf you are unraveling a mystery, part of the appeal is acquiring each clue and encountering each complication in turn, with the opportunity to piece everything together and examine the picture step by step as it develops. If all the clues and secrets come together too immediately, the solution feels anticlimactic. If you are on a quest, the challenge of testing your mettle against obstacle and rising to the occasion to achieve your end is a huge part of the fun. If the ultimate prize is simply handed to you, the experience is short-circuited. Even if a character grows too much too easily, without any personal effort or cost, it feels cheap and unrealistic. Indeed, since goals become more important the harder you have to work for them, and easy achievements feel smaller than difficult ones, any resolution that comes too easily or too soon is going to feel less satisfying.

Just doing some early drafting of my essay analyzing Who Framed Roger Rabbit. This is all rough and somewhat cursory-- I may want to reorder some of this later. But I'm working out some of the stuff I want to talk about now, specifically how it relates to the conventions of film noir.

The debt Roger Rabbit owes to the film noir conceit is clear. It has a setup straight out of a classic-- a disgraced private eye haunted by the demons of his past must take on a case for a person who challenges his dim outlook on life and the world. Said private eye, Bob Hoskins's Eddie Valiant, immediately calls to mind his detective predecessors of Sam Spade, Philip Marlowe, and even Jake Gittes, with his once-honorable career, his traumatic backstory, and his current bitter outlook leading him to become a disgraced alcoholic shadow of his former self.

It may seem all this care to evoke the tropes and traditions of film noir are just in the service of setting up the parody. And it is an excellent parody, given the skillful way it spins up many of the expected elements of noir. Roger is an extreme exaggeration of the holy fool the noir protagonist is often called upon to protect. Jessica is a deconstruction of the classic femme fatale. The primary thing Eddie is unable to believe in his the power of humor and laughter. But it doesn't stop there-- Roger Rabbit pulls off the remarkable feat of not only being a spot-on parody of a certain genre, it's actually a really strong entry in the genre itself.

Film noir is a bit tricky to define. Part of that difficulty comes from the fact that it refers to a weird blend of both a narrative genre AND a filmic visual style, and even then the constituent traits of these are not rigidly agreed upon. French critics Raymond Borde and Étienne Chaumeton, whose 1955 book Panorama du film noir américain (A Panorama of American Film Noir) is considered the seminal work on the subject, cluster some descriptors around it, such as "oneiric, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel," but acknowledge this is an oversimplification.

However, an observation of the classics of the genre trend toward the inclusion of a handful of characteristics. The films tend to be shot from a flat, stark perspective, making using of off-kilter compositions and low-key, high-contrast lighting to a chiaroscuro effect. The stories tend to be less about their subject matter-- though there are a number of associated subjects, such as detective stories --and more about the mood of the world, the pervasive cynicism, and themes of guilt, regret, disappointment, tragedy, loss, and sometimes even the flickering flame of humanity to be found within people consumed by those things.

As mentioned, the film slots in unexpected and on their surface ridiculous elements into the typical roles characterizing film noir. But for all those roles are carried out by odd actors, they all perfectly fulfil the story mechanism that role is supposed to. Yes, Roger is an absurd cartoon rabbit person, but he still does exactly what the client character in the film noir detective story is supposed to do. His need for help calls upon the protagonist's better nature to take action even in a world he sees as hopeless and uncaring, and his personal qualities inspire that protagonist to reevaluate his own failings he'd previously allowed to go unexamined. And even though the vibrant animated characters and set pieces bring a visual exuberance to the screen, they serve to underscore the flatness, heavy shadows, and even bleakness of the way the surrounding world is shot.

More to come later.

New blog entry on Mrshawking.com!

"How we built our prop victrola"

You may recall that when we were putting together Base Instruments for the first run at Arisia 2017, the challenge arose for us to somehow get the victrola prop that is a major presence in the story. While there are a number of record players on eBay and similar places that use the pressed vinyl disc, at this point in history the phonograph relied upon wax cylinders. It’s significantly harder to find even replicas of that older form of the technology. So we decided we would make one, and we'll be bringing it to our performances at the 2017 Watch City Steampunk Festival.

Read the rest of the entry on Mrshawking.com!

Vivat Regina and Base Instruments by Phoebe Roberts will be performed at 2PM and 6PM respectively at 274 Moody Street in Waltham, MA as part of the Watch City Steampunk Festival 2017.

Accomplishment chart, 3/24 – 3/30

I am so busy. I am so very, very busy.

Accomplishment chart, 3/24 – 3/30


- plotting for Mrs. Hawking part 4
- drafting for prose project
- drafting for WFRR exegesis
- 3 LiveJournal entries

- attended 1 WCSF '17 organizers' meeting
- made a poster and banner for Vivat Regina and Base Instruments at WCSF 2017
- saw Endless Burlesque at Club Oberon
- had 2 rehearsals for Vivat Regina and Base Instruments at WCSF 2017
- agreed to direct The Murders in the Rue Morgue for PMRP

- attended 1 Game Wrap editorial meeting

- practiced corpse paint makeup

- posted 1 blog entry to Mrshawking.com

- graded 20 midterms for Writing and the Literary Arts class
- applied to 3 adjunct teaching positions
- made lectures with notes for week 2 of online Intro to Creative Writing class
- planned lessons for 3/26 and 3/28 for Writing and the Literary Arts class
- finalized week 2 class module for online Intro to Creative Writing class
- graded 9 #1 creative assignments for Intro to Creative Writing class
- wrote 3 mid-semester academic alerts
- agreed to teach Writing and the Literary Arts and English Composition classes at Lesley for fall 2017

- called my reps 2 days

- 2 one-mile run
- 2 fighter abs routines
- 2 two-mile runs
- walked 10,000+ steps 4 days
- walked 15,000+ steps 1 day

- watched season 3 of Grace and Frankie
- listened to episodes 100 and 101 of Tom and Lorenzo’s Pop Style Opinionfest
- listened to episodes 1 and 2 of Moviebob's podcast
- read sections 18-38 of “C.V.” of On Writing by Stephen King
- read act one of Fences play by August Wilson

Good teaching signs?

Oh, wow. I was going to complain about how little I wish to do actual work today, as I would much rather work on my exegesis of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which I've been chipping away at here and there for several months now. But I just got some statistical information about the student evaluations handed in for my three classes last semester. I averaged above a four out of five for all values my students could assess me on, which means they thought I did a good job-- a very good job, even. And I got contacted by the very nice humanities division director, who is not usually the person who reaches out to me about class availability, to ask me if I would take on some classes this fall. I'm not sure, but it felt kind of like there was specific desire to retain me, when usually I express my interest in being hired for classes if there any available. That is validating.

I am not a natural teacher; I wouldn't say I have much talent for it. I probably would not have characterized myself as a very good one. Decent, solid, perhaps, but not good. But I've been trying very hard to do a good job, and it pleases me to see that it's paid off in students who feel I did right by then, and said so to the school when asked about it. And hey, I have at least a couple classes nailed down for the fall already, with the possibility of more, so I don't have to stress out about that.

Guess I can't slack off now. Looks what I've been doing has been working.

Cool story about Jackie Robinson

I am reading the play Fences by August Wilson in preparation to teach it in my lit class, and I never realized before how important the integration of baseball is to the backstory of it. I am fascinated by that particular part of history, perhaps weirdly so, since I don't really care about sports in any other capacity. But I've always thought the way it developed was cool, and Jackie Robinson has been a hero of mine since I did a report on him in elementary school. He was an amazing, important man, and the more you learn about him, the cooler you discover he was.

So I'm going to tell you a neat little fact about him. Jackie Robinson is considered by some to be the father of the modern style of base stealing-- of attempting to advance to the next base at a time that is technically legal for the player to run, but is usually in too much danger of being tagged out to move any farther, by taking advantage of the other team's temporary distraction to take off.

The thing about Robinson was that he did it CONSTANTLY. He would press his luck as far as it would go to make any break he possibly could. He got tagged out ALL THE TIME, but he was also quick and clever and gutsy about it so he often got away with it and made it on base. The advantage of this was not the ground gained by base-stealing, but the effect it had on the other team and on the crowd. It drove the opposing pitcher CRAZY, because they were constantly distracted from pitching by the need to keep an eye on him, to always be ready to shift gears to try to tag him out. It would really throw them off their game and give Jackie's batting teammate an edge! Plus the crowd LOVED it. They couldn't wait to see what he was going to do, how he would shake things up with a sudden break that the other team would go crazy trying to cut off. The fans ate it up and it was part of why they came to love him as a player.

Robinson did an enormous amount for the advancement of civil rights, and one part of the way he did it was by being so likeable, so fun to watch on the field. It made people develop love and sympathy for him that started to change hearts and minds. He brought so much to the sport of baseball with dignity, courage, and kindness-- and just an amazing skill that helped grow and develop his craft.


Toolbox theory of storytelling

In the last several years of my becoming more of a serious writing, I've developed a particular system to think about it. I've found that whenever approaching a craft, it helps my brain a lot to think of it in terms of a series of concepts with specific definitions associated with certain purposes. I believe that crucial to understanding how something is done well is simply to be able to identify all the inherent parts and what they're doing in whatever piece you're examining. And knowing how to put those concepts into practice effectively enables a person to perform the art well.

For instance, I've always believed the reason why the French approach to cooking became so pervasive is because they did so much to define the concepts in an identifiable way and systematized their functions. This enabled a commonly understood language, which allowed for discussion between practitioners to relate to each other, instructors to communicate ideas to students, and culinarians to analyze what they observed in practice. I find this defining of the various concepts and giving them corresponding names to be really useful in identifying and quantifying the practice of an art, so this is the approach I take in my work with writing-- in analyzing it, in making it, and in teaching it.

Others may disagree, but I think when developing a piece of narrative art, the first thing to do is build the substance of it. This may be the result of my particular biases-- I freely admit this is influenced by my personal conviction that storytelling is a highly-considered design process, and coming from a drama background the necessity of STRUCTURING a story always seems paramount --but I tend to believe you need to know what your story is going to be about and what's going to happen in it before you should be worrying about how you're going to depict it. In other words, I usually suggest with any writing, figure out the substance of WHAT you want to say before you figure out HOW you want to say it.

So to do this, I like to think of the elements of storytelling as a toolbox full of tools that have closely defined functions that can perform particular jobs. In understanding what those tools are, you can understand what you can use them for, and therefore have the best possible control over the resulting effect their utilization has on your story. Knowing what the province of that tool is allows you to ask the right questions that will lead you to the appropriate design choice.

Let's take point of view as an example. Point of view can be divided, of course, into first person, second person, and third person point of view; we're all familiar with those. "I am experiencing story," versus "You are experiencing this story" versus "They are experiencing this story." But how do we describe all the things point of view encompasses? To get really precise, I like to break it down into Perspective, Bias, and Filter, each with a definition that enables you to focus on a small aspects of the storytelling that POV can affect.

Perspective deals with the nature of the narrator's identity, and all attendant features of what information they are physically able to take in. What is possible for them to know? What is possible for them to experience? The guy in the mailroom can't know what happened in the company's executive boardroom. The girl who doesn't speak Spanish can't tell you what the Spanish-speaking people around her are saying. A human being can't know everything that ever happened in the whole world. So these people can't tell us even if they wanted to. But the CEO, a native Spaniard, and an omnisicient narrator could. So the point of observation of that storyteller matters in what information is even possible for the reader to get.

Bias is what I use to describe how the narrator naturally interprets the information they take in. These are not their conscious views on the info, but the stuff that occurs to them automatically because of the assumptions that come from the way their experiences shaped them. A native earthling may compare the strange aliens to birds because that's the closest frame of reference they have. An abuse victim may view any conflict at all as a potential danger. A novice horseman may interpret a horse's violent reaction as a sign of aggression rather than fear. This colors their narration without their realizing it.

Filter, then, is what that narrator consciously chooses to mention or not mention. A person who suffered a trauma in the past may remember every moment but declare they don't want to talk about it. A morally questionable person may leave out details of their actions so that their behavior doesn't seem as repugnant. This shapes their narration because of their choices of what to say and what to leave out.

So, when you think about point of view being made up of what is possible to know, what is slanted about that knowledge, and what of that knowledge is presented or withheld, now you have more refines axes to consider how point of view is used in a given piece, and how you can make use of point of view in your own writing. Again, this level of precision prompts questions-- what information do I need possible? In that case, what sort of narrator is in a position to provide it? That sort of thing.

I put this to the test recently, when I assigned a midterm in my literature class. I asked my students to choose one of three possible premises for a story, and then make a series of design choices as to how that story might play out in utilization of the various narrative tools we'd studied in the class. I found that a lot of them had much better ability to decide on meaningful storytelling choices because they knew what each tool's function was. They could choose strong conflicts because they knew that conflict was supposed to provide a struggle for that character that was specifically challenging to the ways in which that character was currently deficient, and would have to grow and change in order to manage. They could choose effective settings because they knew setting provided context for the events based on time, location, and continuity of the universe. A lot of them who never thought they had the capacity to tell a story were better able to because the tool's definitions let them ask the right questions-- what would be the toughest thing for this character in particular? What did they need to develop in order to manage this challenge? Where were they going to end up once they'd grown that new strength? I took that as vindication that this approach works, not just as a working style and analytical process as it's been for me, but also as an effective way to teach writing and literary analysis to people who don't know how to do it.

Accomplishment chart, 3/17 – 3/23

Accomplishment chart, 3/17 – 3/23


- plotting for Mrs. Hawking part 4
- edited scene 2.5a for Vivat Regina, version 5
- drafting for prose project
- submitted Hood pilot to Bluecat Screenwriting Competition 2017
- 4 LiveJournal entries

- attended 1 WCSF '17 organizers' meeting
- had 4 rehearsals for blocking Nathaniel, Mrs. Braun, and Mr. Chernovsky in Vivat Regina and Base Instruments at WCSF 2017

- signed up for Somewhere in the Wild West, Primal Spirits, and The Day We Came Home at Festival of the Larps 2017
- had Silver Lines fill at Festival of the Larps 2017
- sent out casting questionnaire for Silver Lines at Festival of the Larps 2017

- made gallery of images for act II of Base Instruments at Arisia 2017 on Mrshawking.com

- made lectures with notes for week 1 of online Intro to Creative Writing class
- finalized week 1 class module for online Intro to Creative Writing class
- graded 10 essays for Writing and the Literary Arts class
- designed midterm exam for Writing and the Literary Arts class
- graded 6 midterms for Writing and the Literary Arts class

- called my reps 3 days

- 2 two-mile runs
- 2 one-mile run
- 3 fighter abs routines
- walked 10,000+ steps 4 days

- read sections 1-17 of C.V. in On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft by Stephen King
- watched Facing Exclusion: Pioneering Activists Harry Hom Dow and Tien Fu Wu play on livestream
- listened to episode 98 of Tom and Lorenzo’s Pop Style Opinionfest

About Me

My name is Phoebe. I'm Boston area theater professional and English professor focused in writing, acting, directing, and modeling. I'm known for having lots of interests, lots of opinions about those interests, and a very high estimation of the value thereof. This blog is for talking about whatever's on my mind, from my daily life to my activities to musing on any number of abstract topics. Thanks for taking the time to read.

My productions:

Upcoming Productions:

MRS. HAWKING part 2 and 3

at the Watch City Steampunk Festival 2016

presented by The Chameleon's Dish

Vivat Regina
by Phoebe Roberts

at 2PM


Base Instruments
by Phoebe Roberts

at 6PM

Saturday, May 13th 2017
at 274 Moody Street, Waltham, MA

Other Achievements:

"The Tailor at Loring's End" screenplay
Quarter Finalist in the Final Draft Big Break Screenwriting Competition 2013

"Adonis" screenplay
Top Ten Percent in the Bluecat Screenwriting Contest 2015

Latest Month

April 2017



RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars