Connect with us

Global

Los Angeles City Council Corruption Tentacles Extend 7000 Miles

Published

on

The last two years of the unsettling COVID ailment has only done one good thing for the American citizens. It shone a bright light on the political echelon’s corruption, local and national. LA City Council corruption is documented in the news. If the American people were under the honest impression that the politicians they elect to represent them indeed represent them, they were hugely mistaken. It is alarming and an awakening.

The Los Angeles (LA) City Council are a cadre of local politicians involved in corruption, and causing poverty, crime, drug abuse and freelance thievery in the state. All these aspects are on the rise in the city and beyond. Yet, even with all the mounting problems locally, some of the LA City Council members find time to collaborate with a foreign government, Armenia, and commiserate with its atrocious crimes.

Indictments For Bribery and Corruption

In the past several years, LA City Council members have been indicted for bribery and corruption; three indictments in two years for current or former LA City council members.

Mr. O’Farrell [L] with Artak Beglaryan – picture from Mr. Farrell TwitterStatistics indicate that there are 66,000 homeless people lounging and camping in every city park and corner, a growing depressing phenomenon. Yet, LA City Council members find the time to support Armenia, a bad actor in the Caucasus, a region 7,000 miles away from Los Angeles City Hall, spanning Europe and Asia.

Why Does LA City Council Support Armenia?

A question must be asked: why do Los Angeles City Councilmembers support Armenia?

After all, Armenia’s notoriety is from its ghastly crimes against its neighbor Azerbaijan. It is well-known that many Armenians supported the Nazi regime during World War Two. And still, today, Armenian Nazi collaborators are hailed as national heroes in Armenia with huge statues erected to commemorate them. That is a disrespectful fact to Jews, but the Jewish members of the LA City Council ignore it.

Why would that be? Is it possible that the LA City Council members are compromised to the Armenian lobby? Are lobbyists greasing their campaign bank accounts? There are whispers that this is the reality of LA City Council projects. If that is true, it would mean there is dishonesty going on behind the scenes. Are some council members politically and financially opportunistic?

Investigating Los Angeles City Council Work

Mitch O’Farrell is currently a member of the Los Angeles City Council for the 13th district, which covers Silver Lake, Echo Park, and Westlake communities.

Ignoring History

On November 1, 2021, Mr. O’Farrell proudly posted a Tweet: “I was honored to help welcome Artak Beglaryan, Minister of State, Republic of Artsakh, to Los Angeles City Hall on Friday.”

“Artsakh” is the name the Armenians used to address the Azerbaijani territory of Karabakh, which Armenia illegally occupied for 30 years. This occupation ended in 2020, after the 44-day war between Azerbaijan and Armenia in which the territory was liberated by its rightful owner, Azerbaijan.

“Artsakh” was not recognized by the world community because internationally it is recognized as part of Azerbaijan.

Mr. O’Farrell ignored the fact that the United States never recognized “Artsakh,” therefore, Artak Beglaryan is a “minister” of a non-existent state, “Republic of Artsakh.”

Council Member Spreads Propaganda and Fake History

But the story does not end here with bogus proclamations and blatant lies. Mr. O’Farrell continued his tweeting: “Together, with some of my Council colleagues, we discussed how Los Angeles can assist and give aid to the Republic of Artsakh, which has been the target of Turkish and Azerbaijani aggression, as well as occupation.”

Mr. O’Farrell’s assistance to the non-existent “Republic of Artsakh” goes against U.S. policy: “The United States is among the vast majority of countries that do not recognize Artsakh as a sovereign nation and instead recognizes the region of Artsakh, or Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.” His guest, Artak Beglaryan, is a fake “minister” of a non-existent “Artsakh.”

It would be interesting to discover where any support the council members assemble for “Artsakh” will be used.

More Propaganda Tweets

Another piece of propaganda in Mr. O’Farrell’s tweets is that Turkey and Azerbaijan used aggression and occupation against the non-existent “Artsakh.” The aggressor in that area was Armenia in its occupation and the massacre of Azerbaijani civilians during its invasion and war against Azerbaijan between the years 1988 to 1994. Turkey is simply Azerbaijan’s ally, as is Israel, and only gave Azerbaijan political support.

A short time of research and study by Councilman O’Farrell, would show him that the 44-day war in 2020 between Azerbaijan and Armenia ended Armenia’s 30-year illegal occupation of Karabakh. His photo-op with Artak Beglaryan only proves that he is ill-versed on the region’s history. Either that or there is much more here than meets the eye.

O’Farrell’s Tweeting goes on: “As the representative of Little Armenia, I am proud to stand in solidarity with Armenians everywhere, including the people of Artsakh, and pledge to help in every way we can.”

Comparing atrocities

Council Solidarity With Genocidal Military Aggressor

Do Councilman O’Farrell and his council colleagues also stand in solidarity with Armenia’s invasion and illegal occupation of 20% of Azerbaijan’s sovereign land? Are they in solidarity with the ethnic cleansing the Armenians perpetrated there? The Armenians expelled 800,000 Azerbaijanis, looted and razed their homes to the ground, and committed the well-documented Khojaly Genocide.

Do they stand in solidarity with the Armenians who, during the missile attacks in the 2020 44-day war, destroyed 65 mosques and murdered 100 civilians in the Azerbaijani cities of Ganja, Barda and Tartar, located far away from the war zone?

Where is the moral compass of Mr. O’Farrell and his council colleagues? Are they in such desperate need of Armenian donations for their election campaign that they support these horrendous crimes without any compunction or self-integrity?

LA City Council Collaboration With Fake “Artsakh” Goes Further

Joining the very questionable meeting between Councilman O’Farrell and fake “minister” Beglaryan were LA City Councilman, Paul Koretz (@PaulKoretzCD5), representing the 5th Council District, Councilman Kevin de Leon (@kdeleon), representing the 14 Council District and Councilwoman Nithya Raman (@nithyavraman) representing the 4th Council District. These three LA City Councilmembers must also consider the points made here.

The Link Is Paul Krekorian

Paul Krekorian, currently serving as a member of the Los Angeles City Council, representing the 2nd Council District, is the first Armenian-American to be elected to office in the City of Los Angeles.

Councilman Krekorian, a huge supporter of the radical Armenian Dashnaks, arranged the LA City Council councilmembers’ meeting with the visiting “Artsakh minister.”

Armenian Nationalist and Socialist Political Party

The Dashnaktsutyun Party, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, collectively referred to as Dashnaks for short, is an Armenian nationalist and socialist political party founded in 1890 in Tiflis, Russian Empire, now Tbilisi, Georgia. Today the party operates in Armenia, Lebanon, Iran and in countries where the Armenian diaspora is present, which includes the large Armenia expat community of the vast Los Angeles County.

During World War II, Dashnaks supported Hitler and his murderous agenda – the Holocaust. The active Dashnak leaders even became Nazi collaborators. Today, those Nazi collaborators are celebrated as national heroes, both in Armenia and among Dashnaks in Los Angeles and beyond.

More so, JCAG (Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide) – an Armenian terrorist organization that claimed the lives of 25 innocent civilians, has been acting as a terrorist arm of Dashnaks. Their main lobbying arm is the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), who, through their members, fund the election campaigns of many U.S. Senators and Congresspersons, as well as California legislators and Los Angeles City Councilmembers, like Mitch O’Farrell, Paul Koretz, Kevin de Leon and others could be named.

Do American Politicians Understand Who They Align With?

Among the guests at a reception held for the “Artsakh minister” at the Armenian Consulate in Glendale, California, where a large number of Armenian expats reside, were California Senate delegates, Democrat Party Senators Anthony J. Portantino, representing the 25th Senate District, which encompasses portions of the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys and Maria Elena Durazo, former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Vice-Chair, representing the 24th Senate District, which encompasses Central Los Angeles and East Los Angeles.

Via his Twitter account, Nasimi Aghayev, Consul General of Azerbaijan in Los Angeles, addressed this question to the elected officials of California, who met with Artak Beglaryan: “Did you discuss Armenia’s internationally condemned crimes? Or, the continued election campaign support from Armenian special interests in LA was the number one issue of the meeting?

California citizens who are now informed of the facts of the Nagorno-Karabakh two wars and the Armenian lobby at work in their city and state, should condemn the connection between their elected state and city of Los Angeles officials and the fake “Artsakh minister” and their support for Armenia’s despicable crimes.

Read More

Source Here: newsblaze.com

Global

‘The Great and Terrible Day of the Lord’ Streaming Dec. 28th

Published

on

Something Holy This Way Comes …

Horror film ‘The Great and Terrible Day of the Lord’ starring Swayde McCoy and Jordan Grier is being released on all digital streaming platforms December 28th.

Directed by Jared Jay Mason and Clark Runciman, ‘The Great and Terrible Day of the Lord’ follows Gabby and Michael, as they take their first romantic get-away as a couple to a remote, upscale cabin in the mountains. The first night takes a terrifying turn when Michael slips into an alternate persona that claims to be God, speaking through Michael’s body. He delivers the message that Gabby will die before the end of the trip and is destined for Hell – unless she will believe what Michael says is true, repent, and worship him. Is Michael a manipulative psychopath, intent on gas-lighting her? Is he mentally ill? Or could the impossible really be happening-a direct experience with her creator, offering one last lifeline out of an unthinkable eternity?

‘The Great and Terrible Day of the Lord’ has been a film festival favorite at Prison City Film Fest winning ‘Best Actor in a Feature Film,’ and ‘Best Screenplay’ and at Houston Horror Film Fest collecting ‘Best Actor in a Feature Film’ at Hollywood Blvd Film Fest for ‘Best Drama Feature 2021’ and at Cinema World Fest winning Best 1st Time Filmmaker’ and ‘Best Feature.’

https://thegreatandterriblemovie.com/

Read More

Original Article: newsblaze.com

Continue Reading

Global

The United States Supreme Court Concealed Carry Postgame

Published

on

The following is a transcript of a video I published on Monday, November 8th. The oral argument in NYSRPA v. Bruen took place on November 3rd. The video can be viewed at Rumble, Bitchute, and Odysee.

The decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen has now been made.

Unfortunately, the only ones who know what that decision is are the Justices and their clerks. And they aren’t talking.

Until the opinion is published, we can only speculate about what it might say.

The range of possibilities is from nothing, which is to say the case could be dismissed as improvidently granted, to whatever the majority of justices want the opinion to say.

One very real possibility is that the proper cause requirement for a concealed carry permit does not violate the Second Amendment.

In oral argument, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor reminded their fellow justices that the Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller said that prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Heller opinion decides this case. If that is true then his vote added to Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor makes four justices and only one more vote is needed to uphold the New York state proper cause requirement for a concealed carry permit.

One very real possibility is that the Justices don’t extend the Second Amendment outside of the home.

Another possibility is “Constitutional Avoidance.”

For some unknown reason, judges seem to think that they are obligated to avoid constitutional questions if they can.

One aspect of the proper cause requirement for a concealed carry license in New York State is that there are no objective standards when it comes to issuing a license.

The issuing officer has the unbridled discretion in what constitutes proper cause.

There isn’t even a written policy created by some legislative body that establishes guidelines for issuing licenses.

That is reason enough for even the liberal justices to say that the petitioners’ due process rights were violated, and if they can get two other justices to go along with them then the justices can avoid answering the Second Amendment question.

It is unlikely that the Second Amendment question presented to the Court will be avoided but it is a possibility.

Assuming that there are not five justices who would avoid the question then this is the question SCOTUS will be deciding in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

The following is NOT the question #SCOTUS will be deciding in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

Oral argument in NYSRPA v. Bruen took place on Wednesday, November 3rd. On Friday, November 5th, the nine justices met in private conference to discuss the case, and vote on its outcome.

The case has been decided and the decision assigned to a justice to write the majority opinion.

But we won’t know what the decision was or what the opinion says until it is published.

If Chief Justice Roberts was in the majority then he will assign the writing of the majority opinion to another of the justices in the majority or he can write the opinion himself.

If Chief Justice Roberts is in the minority then the senior-most judge in the majority will assign the opinion to a justice or write the opinion himself. Justice Breyer is the senior justice on the liberal side of the bench.

It is very rare but a justice can switch sides between the time the decision is made and assigned to the justice who will write the majority opinion and the time the opinion is published.

If it is a 5 to 4 opinion then the decision on who will write the opinion lands in the lap of the senior-most justice in what is now the new majority.

The time for oral argument was allotted as follows: 35 minutes for the NYSRPA petitioners, 20 minutes for the New York State respondents, and 15 minutes for the Acting Solicitor General.

That adds up to one hour and 10 minutes. Oral argument ran long. It ran for one hour and fifty-seven minutes.

NYSRPA v. Bruen was supposed to be a very simple case.

Remember, the justices rewrote the question presented by the petitioners from “Whether the SecondFortun Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense. to “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Most people don’t think there is a difference between the two questions. If there were no difference then the justices would not have rewritten the question presented to the Court for it to decide.

Supreme Court Rules 24 and 14 limit the scope of the opinion to the question presented. The Conservative justices are sticklers for sticking to those rules and have criticized their fellow liberal justices for answering a different question than the one that was presented.

And so whatever else the justices might say in their opinion, it is as certain as one can be that they will answer the limited concealed carry question they rewrote.

The late Justice Scalia once filed a partial concurrence and partial dissent to a case. He said that he concurred with the opinion in order to provide the five-vote majority, but he also dissented in order to criticize the four justices for violating the rules by not limiting the scope of the opinion to the question presented.

I am not aware of any justice on the current court who has ever done that.

In the past, the liberal justices simply ignored the criticism of the conservative justices for answering a question that was not presented, and the conservative justices don’t answer different questions than the one presented to the Court to decide.

We will have to wait to see whether or not the opinion, in this case, is limited to the rewritten question presented to the Court.

Instead of answering the question presented to the Court, the NRA lawyers filed its brief on the merits that argued in support of the question it had originally presented in its cert petition.

Which was a question the justices rejected and substituted with their own.

By the NRA doing this the NRA, for all intents and purposes, handed victory to the State of New York by defaulting on the question, and it raised the possibility that the justices would dismiss the case as improvidently granted.

But then New York did something even more inexplicable than the NRA.

Instead of limiting its brief on the merits to the concealed carry question presented to the Court, the New York lawyers took a very high dive into a very deep rabbit hole by answering a different question from the one presented to the Court.

And to add one more Mad Hatter to the rabbit hole, the Biden Administration filed an Amicus brief and asked to participate in oral argument. Its request was granted.

Oral argument was interesting if for no other reason than it gave us the opportunity to hear what the justices who were not on the bench when the Heller or McDonald opinions were argued and decided had to say about the Second Amendment.

Justice Kagan, who was not a justice when Heller and McDonald were argued and decided, did ask questions in NYSRPA v. New York City but they were mostly procedural questions.

Justice Gorsuch had already indicated that he is a supporter of the Second Amendment.

This is the first Second Amendment case for Kavanaugh and Barrett as justices.

Justice Barrett in her confirmation hearing promoted herself as another Justice Scalia.

But in the NYSRPA v. Bruen oral argument, she asked two worrisome questions that Justice Scalia would never have asked because the answer was obvious to him.

One of Justice Barrett’s questions wasn’t so much a question as a statement that Times Square on New Year’s Eve is a sensitive place and therefore not a place protected by the Second Amendment.

Another of Justice Barrett’s questions was just as worrisome. Justice Barrett asked the New York Solicitor General if the justices were bound by the Heller opinion.

Fortunately, Chief Justice Roberts near the end of the oral argument said there was no need to revisit the Heller opinion.

So Chief Justice Roberts cancels out Justice Barret if she is inclined to overrule the Heller opinion.

And if what Justice Barret said in oral argument truly reflects a weak-kneed support of the Second Amendment then she won’t be writing the majority opinion if there are five justices who are strong supporters of the Second Amendment.

Justice Kavanaugh revealed that he is a textualist, not an originalist. Justice Kavanaugh also revealed that he believes the right to bear arms is a right bestowed by the government.

A right that comes from the government is a right the government can take away.

Justice Scalia was not an originalist, he was a textualist. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Justice Kavanaugh said that a permit can be required, which is both worrisome and telling given that the NYSRPA did not and is not challenging any requirement that one have a permit. The only thing the NYSRPA is challenging is the applications of the New York State “proper cause” requirement for being issued a permit to carry a handgun concealed.

Fortunately, Chief Justice Roberts opposes a permit requirement when an enumerated right is involved.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court invited Alan Gura to challenge the District of Columbia permit requirement but Gura refused. And so the majority opinion in Heller said that it was not going to address the licensing requirement when it could have said that the government cannot condition the Second Amendment right on a government-issued permission slip.

Given that the NYSRPA does not challenge the license requirement in this case, it is likely, but not certain that the opinion, in this case, will likewise say that it does not address the requirement to first have a license.

Before the oral argument took place, I predicted that Justice Kagan, being a clever justice, would point out that the Heller opinion had already held that prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment. Which she did. I also predicted that Justices Sotomayor and Breyer would also hammer the other justices on that point.

Justice Sotomayor weighed in but all we got from Justice Breyer was a remark that he voted against the Heller opinion, along with a lot of gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Justice Kagan did note that according to the Heller opinion, Open Carry is the Second Amendment right even though she doesn’t like Open Carry and suspects that most people, or at least most New Yorkers don’t like it either.

Justice Thomas’ questions were puzzling. If he hadn’t been a justice strongly in support of the Second Amendment since, and including, the Heller opinion, I would be very worried.

Justice Thomas sounded very tired during the oral argument. I’ll chalk it up to that.

On the whole, the justices were debating a case that was not before them.

The justices were debating a challenge to the New York city licensing scheme, which was not before them.

If the two NYSRPA petitioners win and get their unrestricted concealed carry licenses they still will not be allowed to carry any firearm in Times Square, or in a New York subway, or anywhere in New York City.

Indeed, the NRA lawyer half-jokingly said that he can wave subways as a place where his clients seek to carry a handgun presumably because there is no subway in the state outside of New York City.

Unsurprisingly, the NRA lawyer, Paul Clement, once again argued that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.

Justice Kagan asked him to explain why?

The reason the NRA lawyer gave was that modern views have changed.

And because modern views have changed then states can ban what has always been the right protected by the Second Amendment — Open Carry — in favor of something which has never been a right protected by the Second Amendment — concealed carry.

Millions of gun-owning morons applaud that but because they are morons they have not considered the ramifications of subjecting fundamental, individual rights to popular opinion.

If popular opinion is what decides what the Second Amendment means then New York, and California, and every other state and the Federal government is free to ban the possession of handguns as well as the possession, use, and carrying of all firearms.

And ban the mere possession of all arms for that matter.

Given that New York State does not ban the Open Carry of most rifles and shotguns, and nobody is challenging or defending New York City’s ban on all Open Carry, or even challenging the license requirement that handguns be carried concealed, there is no live case or controversy involving Open Carry, and without a live case or controversy, the justices do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of a law not challenged.

But that doesn’t mean that they can’t otherwise give their reasoning in support of their position and to the extent that their position casts any doubt on the Second Amendment right to Open Carry defined in the Heller opinion, the lower Federal and state court judges will use it as an excuse to eviscerate the Second Amendment right.

I don’t know what the majority of justices will say in the opinion but one thing seems pretty clear, at least seven of the justices recognize that there is a right to bear arms in public for the purpose of self-defense and if they say so in their opinion in this case then I win my California Open Carry lawsuit.

If the justices say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry, that would not necessary doom my California Open Carry lawsuit because it is an undisputed fact in my lawsuit that concealed carry substantially burdens my ability to defend myself even if I lived in a jurisdiction that issued concealed carry licenses and even if I had a concealed carry permit.

Given that self-defense is the core of the Second Amendment right and given that the State of California does not dispute that concealed carry licenses substantially burdens my core right of self-defense, and given that the State of California by its own admission did not submit any defense of California’s Open Carry bans then procedurally. I don’t see how the state wins without the three-judge panel assigned to my lawsuit making something up.

But I don’t think that will happen. It will take the vote of five justices in order to overrule the holding of the Heller and McDonald opinions that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and to overrule the holding of the Heller and McDonald opinions that prohibitions on concealed carry are constitutional.

Ironically, Justice Breyer is not going to write or join in an opinion that says Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. And without Justice Breyer’s vote, I don’t count five justices who would vote to overrule the Heller and McDonald opinions.

But I could be wrong. I did not count five votes in favor of Dick Heller winning his case or five votes in favor of applying the Second Amendment to the States. Justice Scalia was the surprise vote, and the fifth vote needed to those narrow 5 to 4 victories for the Second Amendment.

My California Open Carry lawsuit was filed on November 30th, 2011.

As of today, my lawsuit is still pending before the 9th circuit court of appeals and is on hold pending the Supreme Court decision on whether or not to grant the cert petition in Young v. Hawaii, which in turn appears to be on hold pending the publication of the opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

You should know, but just in case you don’t, my lawsuit (Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al) has priority over the NRA/CRPA concealed carry lawsuit (Flanagan v. Bonta).

There will be a decision in my case before there is a decision in Flanagan v. Bonta.

If I win then the NRA/CRPA loses its concealed carry case even if the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen publishes an opinion in favor of NYSRPA.

All I need to win my lawsuit is for SCOTUS to say that the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the doors to my home.

Contrary to what you might have heard, my lawsuit is not stayed, but it is being held pending the SCOTUS decision on whether or not to grant the Young v. Hawaii cert petition.

There is a three-judge panel assigned to my case, and I have already fully briefed and argued my case before the three-judge panel.

Flanagan v. Bonta does not even have a three-judge panel assigned to the case and won’t until approximately 14 weeks before oral argument is calendared to take place.

If the Young v. Hawaii cert petition is granted and argued on the merits then it is pretty much guaranteed that my lawsuit will be put on hold until SCOTUS issues its decision in that case which in turn means that the NRA/CRPA concealed carry lawsuit will likewise have to wait for both the decision in Young v. Hawaii and for the three-judge panel opinion in my California Open Carry lawsuit, Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al.

For there to be oral argument in Young v. Hawaii this term, which ends in June of 2022, its cert petition will have to be granted by early January if SCOTUS follows the normal briefing schedule.

But as we have recently seen, SCOTUS is free to expedite briefing and oral argument.

That said, the most likely outcome is that SCOTUS will either simply reverse the opinion of the 9th circuit court of appeals and remand the Young v. Hawaii case, or SCOTUS will deny the cert petition.

Regardless of what happens next with the Young v. Hawaii case, the ball lands in my court next.

That’s all for this video. Please subscribe to this video channel and please subscribe to my newsletter at CaliforniaOpenCarry.com

Charles NicholsRead More

Original Source: newsblaze.com

Continue Reading

Global

Riley J. Ewing Talks “Unplugged”

Published

on

Newsblaze caught up with writer-director Riley J. Ewing to chat about filmmaking and his latest project “Unplugged” releasing November 12th.

Congratulations on the upcoming release of your latest film, Unplugged. You have had a great run on the film festival circuit. Can you tell us about the backstory and what inspired the idea for the film?

Unplugged is a sci-fi allegory for the way we are all becoming entwined with our devices. I was riding the train home after a long and hard day in the city, and I remember looking out into the train car and all I saw was the top of people’s heads as they were slumped over into their phones. It was sad to me. When I write, I always try to leave a glimmer of hope of improving things. I sat down and the script for Unplugged poured out of me in a single afternoon.

Congrats on all the film festival laurels! What was your directorial approach to Unplugged?

Visually, I wanted the film to have a very muted palette. Our Art Designer, Denise Pascal, was wonderful at leaning into the grey, whites and beiges of this sterile world we were attempting to build. I knew visual effects would play a large part in the film from early on, and Nishant Jain was wonderful at bringing my concept of hearts flying through the sky to life. Since I knew the script so well, and was also acting in it, many days moved fast since I knew exactly how I wanted the scenes to play. I also deeply trusted the crew I surrounded myself with to do their jobs to the best of their ability. I’m very proud of what we accomplished.

Filmmaking is never smooth sailing. Were there any challenges on set for you?

It was an enjoyable time on set. Since I was lucky to work with so many of my friends, our time between setups was filled with smiles and laughter. The hardest part about making a low-budget short film on the New York City train system was the logistics of keeping a camera steady on a moving train. What you don’t see on all of the scenes aboard the train is the small team of people holding up Jacob Mallin (DP) so that he can keep the camera steady.

As an indie filmmaker, what are some of the highs and lows for you when making a movie?

The adrenaline rush of making a movie is honestly euphoric for me. You spend so much time in the early stages imagining what it could look like and planning as much as you can. To watch it all come together (even the parts that weren’t intended) is an incredibly surreal experience.

The lows of this project were the fact that all of its success came during a pandemic. This was the first time I have had a film play internationally. Due to the pandemic, I couldn’t attend any of these wonderful events. The film has (as of now) screened at 9 festivals on 3 continents. While I have loved watching the film find an audience, it’s been sad to not be there for these festivals.

What filmmakers inspire you?

I love the work of so many filmmakers. I’m a lover a movies! I’m particularly inspired by the world building of directing giants like Christopher Nolan, Wes Anderson, Spielberg, and Kubrick. In the indie world, I love the works of Sean Baker, Greta Gerwig, Sofia Coppola, and Damien Chazelle.

Do you have a specific preference of the genre or types of projects you both want to spearhead?

I have no interest in being cornered into one style or genre as a writer, director, or actor. At the end of the day, I love stories. Good stories are not defined by a particular genre, and neither is my work. I can tell you I am excited by the idea of all the different ways and mediums to tell stories. Right now, I am cooking up a few different ideas. I have begun pre-production on my first animated short in collaboration with Comic Artist Jill Burke of VV Comics. I’m also working on developing a Sci-Fi pilot with my longtime collaborators, Heerak Shah, Priyanka Shah, and Bollywood star, Omi Vaidya (Three Idiots, The Office, Arrested Development), currently titled, American Aliens.

What’s next for you?

In addition to the animated short and tv pilot I’ve been working on I have begun writing my first feature film script. I’m not quite ready to share details on it yet, but I’m very excited about how it is shaping up. During the pandemic, I worked with a small group of actors, writers and directors and created a series of three very different micro-short films which will be released online within the next year

How can people find out more about you and the release of Unplugged on November 12th?

Oh yes, you can follow me: www.instagram.com/rile.e_coyote IMDb: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8818281

Read More

Source Here: newsblaze.com

Continue Reading

Trending

OMNT.com