Saul’s Pupils causes offense at festival

Last Friday evening, Andrew and I were invited to participate in a Halloween Festitval at the seaside town of Ballycastle. The first evening consisted of a large-screen showing of our 2002 film, Saul’s Pupils, followed by a Q&A session. About 1000 leaflets had been distributed, promoting the event. We discovered that the printing company had made a serious blunder on the leaflet. Instead of writing “18+”, they wrote “12+”. Now, anyone who has seen Saul’s Pupils will know that it’s not exactly what you’d call family friendly; it contains a lots of unnecessary cussing and lots of gore.

We had about twenty-five bums on seats, and several of them didn’t look a day over thirteen. Oh dear. Anyway, what could we do but get on with showing the film? Everything went well until about halfway through, when a woman in her forties suddenly got up and left. Ten minutes after that, a row of three girls in their late teens got up (right after the scene where Trent disposes of a body by cutting it up into smaller pieces). I was standing around at the back of the hall at the time, and one of the girls approached me on her way to the exit, saying, “This is definitely not for 12-year-olds.” I shrugged and said, “It wasn’t my decision.” Thankfully, the rest of the audience stayed put (including the youngsters, who appeared unfazed by the violence), and we received a hearty round of applause, and a few cheers, as the credits rolled.

I don’t feel particularly bad about the walk-out. Part of me is amazed, because it’s the sort of thing you expect from a big-budget movie like The Exorcist, not a shoe-string outfit like Midnight Pictures. The funny thing is, during the original premiere of Saul’s Pupils, there were about one hundred and fifty persons present, and nobody walked out. I guess Friday’s experience illustrates how important is it to tell your audience what to expect. “Contains graphic violence and bad language” is a pretty important piece of information to include on any advertising.

This has got me thinking about the issue of good and bad taste. As a Christian, you would expect me to take a fairly conservate view, but the truth is I struggle to make my mind up. Usually, I want to avoid anything gratuitous, because it’s hard for me to defend it, and these days I don’t think I’d want to make a film quite like Saul’s Pupils. However, I also think it’s important to show death as death (if it’s part of the story). Watering it down minimises how devastating it is. The violence of the likes of The A-Team – where bullets fly and nobody ever gets killed – is more questionable than the back of somebody’s head being blown off by a shotgun blast. Showing the latter to under 18s is regarded as questionable (even though it’s the truth), but nobody ever questions the dangerous subtext of The A-Team, which is aimed at children: “Shooting real guns never kills anybody.” The truth is, western civilisation has certain hang-ups. I find it interesting to watch films from other countries (especially Japan), because different cultures have different hang-ups … and different permissions. We’re sitting here in the west thinking that we have to be oh-so careful about this and that, when all we’re really sitting in is a culture trap. The most offensive scene in Saul’s Pupils, where a body gets dismembered, is pretty hard on the senses. And sure, it could have been cut, and maybe it should have been cut. But it actually has something to say: “Look, everybody. If you murder someone, this is what you have to go through to get rid of the evidence. It ain’t nice to watch, and it ain’t nice for the murderer, either.” Another point of possible offense in our film is that it’s women who get targeted for murder, not men. We could be accused of being mysogynistic, but Andy and I actually had an important discussion about this: if you were a man and you were planning to kill somebody – it doesn’t matter who – would you target a man or a woman? You’d choose a woman, because the kill would be easier (statistically, at least). And that’s the truth.

Then there’s that part of me that sometimes does want to include graphic violence, in special cases where the gag is just too good to pass up. In a (possibly) forthcoming film, Shadow of the Dead, we’ve got a scene where a zombie gets its head blown off with a shotgun in a totally original and shocking and hilarious context. Is this explosion of brain matter really necessary for the story? Nope. But it is a hoot? You betcha. I have to ask myself, is it right to turn grisly death into a source of humour? Is it a reflection of how messed up we are, that we laugh at it? Should I be trying to rise above this instinct? But then, in the interests of consistency, consider the school movie, Cat Trap (which you can download on the sidebar), a film that would never offend anyone. It finishes with a schoolboy being dragged off-camera by a panther and eaten. It might be non-gratuitous, but the event is the same kind. And clearly, it’s designed to make the viewer laugh. Why should the same idea – laughing at a grisly death – be offensive in one context and not another. When you break it right down, it’s simply a matter of western civilization having a hang-up about gore.

You know, when all’s said and done, I think the best advice to myself is “Lighten up, Sloan.” There’s nothing morally upright about been squeamish to gore. In fact, if surgeons had that trait, a lot of people in their care would die. With Don’t Look in the Attic, Midnight Pictures has moved away from gory material for the time being. But if we ever make Shadow of the Dead, it’ll be impossible to stay away from it. Can you imagine a zombie film without gore? Flesh-eaters without the flesh-eating – that would be very odd.

Of course, I’ve seen movies that are simply about gore and nothing else. Good story-telling is sacrificed, and a collection of brutal set-pieces are strung together and called a movie. I have no respect for this kind of film. I guess my take on the whole thing is that I want to tell entertaining stories that surprise the viewer/reader. And if those stories happen to have brutal elements, so be it. The only way to please everybody would be to rip the heart and soul out of everything you come up with.

I should say that I am not guilty of the honour of writing Saul’s Pupils. That was one sick and twisted individual called Glenn Poole. 😉

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Saul’s Pupils causes offense at festival

  1. James Maxon says:

    I don’t know Darryl, I wouldn’t feel right about exposing my youngster (if I had one) to foul language and intense violence. Stephen King would say it’s just staying true to the characters he created. But in an interview when asked, “Do you believe that the use of filth and obscenity is necessary in order to establish a realistic atmosphere in contemporary literature? “ C.S. Lews responded, “I do not. I treat this development as a symptom, a sign of a culture that has lost its faith. Moral collapse follows upon spiritual collapse. I look upon the immediate future with great apprehension.”

    I ask which of the two really followed/follows a Christian life? I’d say Lewis of course. A Christian also has to ask, is it really honering God? This is a hard question to answer. I’ve often said there is so much trash in this world that I’d hate to contribute to it. If one fills their mind with trash, they are going to think trash. As the Bible says: our bodies are the temple of God and we are to honer honor Him with our body, which I believe includes our eyes (there are a lot of other verses that can go with this, but this came to mind).

    BUT I also go back to my childhood and see how sheltered I was raised, and all the follies which that brought too. So really, this is a HUGE debate, with things I agree with and disagree with on both sides of the spectrum.

    In this case, there is the fact that children should be limited on certain types of exposure in their development. Research has been done to prove ratings are in place for a reason. We’ve gone from chewing bubblegum and running in the halls to school shootings. This has to do with several factors, but one of them being desensitizing children at an early age. This being said, I know you meant to say 18+, which was right, it wasn’t your mistake. I agree putting the full disclaimer would have been best (like you said).

    So to conclude: there is an extreme between becoming desensitized and callus, and another with being naive and ill prepared for the onslaught of this world. I believe it is a balance, and know it sometimes becomes hard to know when the gray line is getting crossed. I guess all we can do is what we believe is best based on our personal convictions and understandings of the Bible, and leave the rest up to God.

  2. Darryl Sloan says:

    If I had kids, I also wouldn’t feel right about exposing them to foul language and violence (when those elements form the bulk of the movie), not because I think those elements would harm them but because I’d feel a certain shame in doing so. “Is this the sort of movie that Daddy likes?” they’d ask themselves. It’s like seeing one’s kids as an external conscience. Now, bear in mind I’m talking about extreme films here. If I cast my mind back to when I was about ten years old, I have very fond memories of watching the likes of The Thing and Halloween on TV, which had some violence, swearing, and even a little nudity. But the films were not an excuse to show those things. I think a good rule to live by is, “If you’re ashamed to show it to your kids, it’s probably something you shouldn’t be watching as an adult.”
    Although, I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t always live by that rule. But I think it’s a good rule.

    Also, it’s worth remembering that film classification is not based on Biblical morals; it’s based on the current moral climate of the culture. Our culture says that letting kids see anything violent is bad for them. It says that making kids knowledgeable about sex is tantamount to some kind of fall from innocence (that one’s ridiculous, and yet so many hold to it). Most parents believe that a kid dropping an F-bomb is a far worse sin than a kid saying words that hurt someone’s feelings.

    These are some of the misnomers that decide whether “12” or “15” or “18” gets slapped on the cover of a movie.

    I’ll tell you what really concerns me, when kids watch films: is the movie giving any of the following messages? “God does not exist.” “Marriage isn’t supposed to last.” “Unprotected sex never makes babies.” “Gay sex is normal.” “Fooling with magic is cool.” These are the kind of things that can slip through the ratings net into PG territory, because the only thing people ever look at is surface. Gasp! He said f*ck; cover your ears. His brains are splattered all over the road; cover your eyes.

    I veer towards the notion that the western world’s preoccupation with violence and swearing is a load of fuss over nothing, and that we have greater matters to attend to – matters of theme and subtext.

    Another reason why I believe this is because the likes of The Book of Judges is included in the Bible. The book is a brutal read. The brutality is included and left unsanitised, with no apology to the reader, and no instructions about what age you have to be before you’re allowed to read it.

  3. James Maxon says:

    I agree that the other things you mentioned are huge concerns as well, but if you ask someone else they may disagree that some of them are good not bad. So who picks and chooses what is and isn’t right for a kid to view?

    Should a child be exposed to a brutal murder, and call that education? Are the people who study the brain development of a child just quacks? Even though they find children process information differently than an adult, and should not be exposed to certain things – due to their lack on an ability to correctly process the data in a healthy manner. I have a hard time accepting this, but agree each child may develop differently, so for some it might not be a problem.

    My sister-in-law lets her 3 & 5 year old watch rated R movies, and curse as much as they want to. Is that right? I believe it is wrong. On the other extreme my sister who home-schools her kids had a problem with her daughter who cried when the big bad wolf blew the piggy’s house down. Is that too sheltered?

    My friend wants to teach his girlfriend’s 12 year old son about sex by showing him a porn video, is that right? If not, who draws the line? Who picks what is right and what isn’t?

    I have friends who have banned Harry Potter because, as you say, the message of “Fooling with magic is cool.” is not a good one. But who says it isn’t? Who determines that Harry Potter is bad, but Dracula is okay?

    I don’t think it’s good to shelter a kid too much, since they have to live in this world. I think rather than banning them from everything, one should explain it to them. Watch it with them, and if something objectionable happens in the show or a non-Christian worldview is introduced point it out and discuss it with them. But what draws the line of something being “too” bad?

    As I said before, I believe it comes down to an extreme between becoming desensitized and callus, and another with being naive and ill prepared for the onslaught of this world. I believe children need to be taught the difference between fantasy and reality. I think its okay for a child to watch/read Harry Potter as long as it is explained to them that it is fantasy, and that real magic is dangerous. Does that mean it is okay to show a child a prono and say, “People have sex, but you can get pregnant if you do” I don’t think that’s okay, but why? Who or what makes that determination?

    Thanks for the chat Darryl, I hope you don’t think I’m trying to be argumentative. Quite the opposite, I’m not saying I’m right and you are wrong, because I agree with much of what you said, but it’s something I wonder myself and really think it’s a hard subject to find a concluding answer that everyone agrees with.

  4. Darryl Sloan says:

    No, I don’t think you’re being argumentative. It’s good to thrash out these debates, and my own mind is open to change, too.

    The thing about discussing porn in this context is that I don’t see it as something that harms children, I see it as something that harms everyone. However, I’m fully aware that porn is a hard thing for someone in authority to study any harmful effects, because it requires human guinea pigs. So, it takes you to have been burned by it in order to have a meaningful opinion (ahem). But I’m with you on this one. Get it away from children. In fact, I’ll go further. Get it away from adults. Get it away from me. I have fond memories of the internet-less society of the 1980s, where temptation wasn’t just a mouse-click away.

    On my statement that “fooling with magic is cool,” I was actually thinking more along the lines of Buffy and Charmed, than Harry Potter, because they incorporate elements of real magic (Wicca). If you’re a “believer” like me, then the last thing you want is a kid saying, “I wish I could be as cool as Willow.” The next thing you know, they’re reading occult literature. But, heck, I’m as guilty as anyone of watching the Buffy!

    To sum up, on violence, for everyone who says that violent and movies and games breed violent behaviour, there is someone else who will claim that violent movies and games provide a safe outlet for violent people to “let off steam,” and thus be less violent in day-to-day life. Which is true? I’m inclined to think that both are weak arguments, and it’s a whole load of fuss over nothing. On the “scientific study” front, the jury is out.

    All I know is no harm ever came to me or anyone I know over exposure to violent media at a young age.

  5. James Maxon says:

    I guess what bother’s me is the “You shouldn’t do this, but here’s how!” type of thing.

    * You shouldn’t kill anyone – but look at this guy killing someone.

    * You shouldn’t get into fights – but here are guys fighting.

    * You shouldn’t have sex in adolescents – but this is how you do it.

    * You shouldn’t cheat on your wife – but watch these people doing it.

    * You shouldn’t practice magic – but watch the cool stuff you can do.

    The list goes on. Well if I shouldn’t then why for entertainment purpose are we showing it?

    With pornography, scientifically they have discovered it releases the same chemicals into the brain as cocaine. It’s extremely addictive and unhealthy. Trust me I’ve struggled here in my lifetime too. But I had to argue to my brother-in-law who thinks it is harmless, just as you think violence is harmless. I guess my point was we pick and choose as individuals what we believe is or isn’t harmless, then defend it. So who has the final say?

    Personally I love Willow, and the soundtrack rocks. I watched it as a kid and never wanted to do magic. So if you argue that with me, I disagree, because as you say violence never affected you, then magic never affected me. But to me that isn’t a good argument, as I know both can be harmful. The Christian community found 64 in the first Harry Potter book alone that had Wicca or Occult references. They also make symbolic references to abortion as being good. So, is it really harmless and Willow isn’t?

    To be honest I really like some movies with all the “you shouldn’t” stuff in them, and I love anime – something that contains lots of that too: just watch Fist of the North Star and count the heads that explode. So to answer my own question, I go back to separating fantasy from reality, but that could just be my own personal justification. But if two people are not really having sex, and just look like it…You can see where the gray line can be confusing, and opinion adapted.

    I think the real thing we disagree with is the development of children, and how it affects them differently than adults.

    Anyway, thanks for challenging my responses, it’s always good to grow in my understandings.

  6. Darryl Sloan says:

    In reply to your quote: “Well if I shouldn’t then why for entertainment purposes are we showing it?”

    I think that’s a far too restrictive outlook. Almost all storytelling is based around the idea of conflict. Conflict means we include good guys and bad guys in the story. And having bad guys requires bad behaviour in one form or another. Since film is a visual medium, we have no choice but to show that behaviour. Where would Star Wars be without Vader? He gets to crush a few necks, torture Princess Leia, even destroy an entire populated planet.

    What I’m getting at is that showing doesn’t mean approving. A good movie is able to include violence and still keep its moral compass pointed in the right direction.

    I don’t believe any theme on the planet is taboo; it’s all in how the filmmaker approaches his material and what message he’s trying to convey.

    When I was writing Ulterior, there was a difficult scene where a thug was holding a knife to a little girl’s throat. Then he nibbles her ear (a deliberately sexual overtone). I left the scene in, even though I knew I would be selling the book to loads of kids in the school where I work, and I knew that some parents would also read it. I had to ask myself, was I inviting complaints on my doorstep? Was I putting my job in jeopardy?

    The thing is, I had already toned the scene down from what I really want to write. I wanted the man to put his hand somewhere he shouldn’t. Not because I’m perverted, not because I wan’t to give an illicit thrill to the reader, but because, damnit, my character is a bad, bad man, and he does not care on iota for this little girl, and I want the reader to have no doubt about that.

    Instead, I toned the scene down. I made him a paedophile with manners. I lessened the fear that I could have instilled in the anticipation of this character’s return later in the story. I cheapened the story a fraction, because I gave in to my own fear. Instead of saying, “What kind of story do I want to tell?” I said, “What kind of story do a handful of prudish parents want me to tell?”

    This is why I feel strongly on the point of having greater freedom with content. The stories you tell are the stories you pull out of your own heart, and they are a reflection on the kind of person you are. I want to allow myself to be myself when I’m writing, not what everyone else wants me to be.

    Always having to question what you put into your writing is never good for the story. It’s like I said: in order to please everybody, you have to destoy your story.

  7. Chris says:

    I think there’s a danger of being too much of a relativist here. Yes, horror, gore, violence didn’t affect you personally when you were growing up, but does that make it universally ok? As James has pointed out, if one takes this approach, then where is the line drawn, and by whom? Who is to say how much is too much?

    As you’ve said, your writing and films are a reflection of the kind of person you are. So what are people going to say about you when they read one of your stories or see one of your films? What would you like them to say? How does that relate with your life and obligations as a Christian? Will people say of you after experiencing your works, “This man reads the life of Jesus Christ?” Or will they say something else?

    As for “prudish parents”, I for one can say that I would not let my daughter read Ulterior until she is in her teens if you’d have written
    the scene with the bad guy groping up the little girl. Does that make me a prude, a parent who is excessively proper about what my children read, watch, or listen to? Not at all. It makes me a responsible parent who is concerned that my child isn’t exposed to certain things until she is old enough for me to adequately instruct her. I’d be failing in my duties as a parent otherwise (it was St. Therese of Lisieux who said that the innocent souls of children are like soft wax, on which any imprint can be stamped, good as well as evil). Telling people what to expect from a movie or book ahead of time is important. (And perhaps if there were more responsible parents out there, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.)

    I guess the bottom line in this whole issue depends on your faith and what you believe your conduct should be as a Christian. It’s
    difficult to reconcile graphic, gratuitous gore with the Gospel message. Most horror movies these days promote the Culture of
    Death wherein life is cheap, sin is
    glamourized, and death is trivialized having become a source of humor and entertainment. However, an artistic use of gore and violence can make a point much more effective (e.g., “Passion of the Christ”).

    As Christians, we also have to bear in mind how our actions affect other people. If we do things that others may find offensive or cause them to stumble in their faith, then we’re not doing our best. Different people have different tastes and sensibilities. That’s ok, there’s nothing wrong with that. There’s also nothing wrong with writing a story about murder, and how it affects people, or using the backdrop of a zombie apocalypse to get across some message of redemption (or some other edifying concept).

    But there’s a tasteful way, and a Christian way, to tell such such stories without ripping the arse out of them. As an example, I think the corpse disposal scene in “Saul’s
    Pupils” could have been re-written to exclude the gore but still get the point across that murder has consequences. Instead of showing
    a corpse being cut up, we could have been made witness to a dialog between the murderers showing the confusion, anguish, and fear over the fact that they have a body to dispose of, and how they decide what to do. Does it really help the story if the viewer sees the corpse being cut up? Wouldn’t it be
    more meaningful if we DIDN’T see all that? After all, sin chooses to hide itself from view because of shame.

    That’s one possibility. I just can’t say I believe that you must destroy a story in order to please everyone. Not unless you’re bent on telling it in a particular way which revolves around excessive morbidity for the sake of entertainment, excitement, and shock. In that case, perhaps it’s time to start thinking outside the box?

  8. Darryl Sloan says:

    I think I’m being misunderstood in many ways here.

    Chris: “I just can’t say I believe that you must destroy a story in order to please everyone. Not unless you’re bent on telling it in a particular way which revolves around excessive morbidity for the sake of entertainment, excitement, and shock.”

    The point I was making is not the justification of excess, but that no matter how tastful you try to be, somebody somewhere will always find fault with it. There will always be somebody somewhere who accepts nothing but cute stories with fluffy teddy bears. So, I pose the suggestion: why even start down the road of trying to please everyone’s sensibilities, when it’s a fool’s errand? Why, instead, not trust your own judgment as a decent person and write what you consider to be decent. That way, it will be told from the heart. I’m just very conscious that people who write with a “holding back” attitude won’t write their best work.

    I will concede that there is more than one way to tell a story. I’ve enjoyed plenty of noir films from the fifties, and some of them were very dark, and they were able to tell a convincingly dark story without swearing and excessive violence. I honestly think many filmmakers today could learn a thing or two from the “old school.”

    Regarding the Saul’s Pupils scene, as I’ve already suggested, maybe it should have been cut. I don’t like it. It serves little overall purpose in the movie.

    On the notion that there’s something wrong with death being used as entertainment, I struggle with this. Consider the argument I presented somewhere above, regarding Cat Trap. The punchline was an off-camera joke about a boy being torn to shreds by a panther. But the film was so light-hearted that I struggle to see a sin in this ending, and yet if I believe in your principle, then I should. I’m just not prepared to be so restrictive on myself. If we held to this principle, consider what we’d have to throw out: every episode of Tom & Jerry for a start.

    Man, why is this all so complex? I just keep coming back to the notion of telling myself to lighten up.

  9. James Maxon says:

    Is there a difference between Tom & Jerry and Itchy and Scratchy?

    I guess I agree with Chris who said, “But there’s a tasteful way”. True some people will have problems with the tasteful way too, but like Tom & Jerry – it is a bit more tasteful than Itchy and Scratchy (which was overdone deliberately to show how desensitized children have become).

    When there’s a sex scene do we really need to show it? We all know what they are doing, just fade to black already. For children they won’t be exposed to it, for adults we know what’s happening, no need to show it. With your book, couldn’t you have said “His grotesque breath and groping hands sent chills of repulsion down her spine” do you really need to say, “He nibbled her ear as his hand slowly moved down to her…” Can’t you just leave it to the imagination of the reader? I think referring to something gives those who are innocent a chance to be free of indecent exposure, and those who are older, use of their imagination – whether they are an extreme sicko or prude.

    There are a lot of movies that have done well, and kept things tasteful. As you say, StarWars. Do they show Anakin getting the Princess pregnant? No, but when we find out she is, we know what happened. When Anakin killed the Jedi children did they show their heads getting split in two? No, we know he killed them, but do we really need to see how he did it?

    It goes back to what I said before: “this is a HUGE debate, with things I agree with and disagree with on both sides of the spectrum… so WHO decides what is right? Who draws the line?”

    I don’t know. It’s good to be lightened up, but not so much that we forget the spiritual battle that goes on for our young ones every day. I guess I’ll leave it at that, and stop bugging you about it 😉

  10. Darryl Sloan says:

    I need to say a few closing words, too, because I think I’ve given the impression that I’m a bit of a gorehound. But anyone who has watched Don’t Look in the Attic knows, good taste is what I am about. That movie was a turning point for Midnight Pictures, where Andy and I had a proper heart to heart about what I would or would not be prepared to tolerate as a Christian making films. I don’t imagine we will ever return to the type of film that Saul’s Pupils became. No criticism of the writer intended; the movie’s flaws are more those of execution.

    You do have a point about there being a tasteful way to tell every story, and I think I’m being a touch melodramatic about the scene in Ulterior. On the flipside, writing under the pressure of potential threats from angry parents is possibly a good way to keep your writing on the straight and narrow.

    A fantastic example of a violent story told tastefully is A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. Can’t say the same about the Kubrick movie adaptation (even though I’ll admit to liking it!), but the book is a great read and totally non-offensive.

  11. Simon Slator says:

    As a Christian myself, I have no problem with excessive gore and violence in films because I can differentiate between fact and fiction, yet I know many fellow Christians who would not hesitate to protest outside of a cinema that’s showing such a film – it brings back visions of Father Ted handcuffed to railings waving a placard that says “Down with this sort of thing”! Christian doesn’t have to mean Conservative (Alice Cooper is living proof!) and it would be a very boring world if it did.

    It’s more down to the personality of the target audience – if someone goes to watch a Midnight Pictures movie and then goes and blows someone’s head off with a shotgun, it’s not the fault of the film-makers because that person obviously has mental health issues and should’ve been under medical supervision. Sure, the movie would become the scapegoat because that’s what the media would pick up on first.

    And those who walked out during the film, it obviously wasn’t their sort of thing. We can’t all like everything and, if they didn’t turn up to watch it, they’d never know if they’d like it. To date, I’ve only walked out of one movie in disgust… Titanic! Seriously! I’d seen James Cameron movies like Aliens and The Terminator, so was expecting a lot of really good action and drama. When it started turning into a 3hr sap-fest, I walked out. I’d have walked out 5 minutes from the end anyway to spare myself from the evil that is Celine Dion, crooning that sickly, over-played schlock.

    It really is down to target audience and, in their defence, the copiers’ cock-up did manage to bring in an audience who enjoyed the film and wouldn’t normally be allowed to see it. So it offended a few people – doesn’t matter – it’s each to their own!

  12. Darryl Sloan says:

    Hey, Simon!

    It’s really great to hear from you after all this time. I’ve actually emailed you a couple of times in the past two years, but your address was defunct and so was your website. Nice to see you’ve been busy as a musician. I’ll be downloading your new material shortly.

    You’re probably not aware of this, but I took the liberty of using one of your tracks in an old podcast of mine called “The End of the World and Beyond.” If you head over to archive.org and search for that term, you’ll find the episodes.

    Keep in touch, man!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: