The film “Woods,” written and directed by Jon Hyatt, takes two of the most difficult, most scrutinized genres, Sci-fi and horror, and expertly blends the two in a twisted story that keeps you guessing until the eventual, ultimately satisfying pay-off. I spoke with the writer, director, Jon Hyatt, about this film, his film making processes, and his big plans for the future. You can read the entire text of the interview below after the review.
Woods works as a sci-fi thriller because of its minimalist approach to what life might be like 30 years in the future. While modern technology seems to be rapidly advancing, the basics in our life have remained essentially the same. Our cars, our homes, our man-made environment, while they do undergo change, are essentially the same as they were 50 years ago. One can't say the same thing for communication technologies, computing technologies, and a whole host of other types of tech that have sprung up in the last few decades. The sets used in Woods could be any home, anywhere, and that’s why it works. That feeling of connection and intimacy that we get from the familiarity with the surroundings only adds to the suspense of a story about a man named Richter (Jon Hyatt) who has lost his wife (Lawrene Denkers) under mysterious circumstances. The technology that has changed gives us a sense of the future without spoiling the aesthetic with over-the-top special-effects.
The one big difference between the reality of the woods and the present day is the existence of home-help androids. The main character is given an android (Amy Wallace) by the board of his company as a stipulation for his remaining a controlling member as he continues to deal with the psychological trauma of losing his wife. The android seems to be the first real contact he’s had with another consciousness in some time, and she soon starts to play a role in unraveling the mystery behind the disappearance of Richter’s wife.
This 17-minute short film does an excellent job using camera angles and the environment to create both a feeling of isolation and claustrophobia for the viewer. The acting was solid and the story was interesting, compelling, and ultimately gratifying at the end. There were only a couple of times when I felt the sound design, especially in conversations between characters, could’ve been better, but that didn’t diminish my enjoyment of the film. Woods is an A+ effort from a young filmmaker with a bright future.
My interview with Jon Hyatt:
Can you tell us a little bit about the idea for Woods?
Actually, in the beginning I wanted to make a story about an old man in apartment who has android that takes care of him, but it malfunctions and ends up killing him. It just milled around in my brain for about five months and eventually it turned into Woods. It started getting more complex and I thought it would be better for them to be out in a forest rather than an apartment.
It’s interesting that you went from the “claustrophobia” of an apartment to the expanse of the forest but kept the same concept.
Yeah, when I was a kid we had this large wooded area near my house and I would spend a lot of time in the woods walking my dogs. There are always things lurking in your imagination, behind the trees, but it’s also kind of inviting place. I always love shooting out in the woods, out in the wilderness, and I can see it being a theme and some of the other things I’ll do.
What types of films did you make before Woods?
I made a bunch of comedy shorts before this, but nothing on the scale of Woods. They were all kind of these dorky little YouTube comedy things, a bunch of viral videos. I was also doing standup comedy for a bit, but I really just sort of stopped and said, “I want to make a feature.” Making a good short film was the first logical thing to do and Woods is really the first film of that caliber that I’ve made, everything else was just dorky little fun stuff. It was still made on the shoestring budget, but we managed to pull it off.
How did you decide to play the role of Richter yourself?
Basically, we had an actor pinned down for the role and the night before we began shooting, he told me he had shingles. We were terrified, we call the bunch of actors but it’s too short notice for most, and a good actor friend of mine said “why don’t you do it?” I’ve acted before but I thought I can’t produce, direct, and star in a movie, it would be too much. I called Bruce, who is the cinematographer, and he said “go for it!” So then he took on more of a co-director roll.
Is this the first sci-fi/supernatural film that you’ve worked on?
Yes it is, and right after we finished Woods we started a collaboration with this group from Waterloo, Ontario “12 angry filmmakers,” basically they made us the Toronto arm of it. We then shot another movie called “Return,” which will be hitting the film festivals around December. We will probably be making another short in the next couple of months. Then after that it’s “feature time.”
What was the hardest part about making this film?
It was definitely wearing all these different hats, like I said I didn't plan on acting in it and so jumping in and acting on it, but also directing and producing it. When we got there we didn't even have a craft-person, so we're throwing cheesy doodles in the oven or whatever. I actually think that added to the character being completely exhausted, I actually really felt like he did. I was really lucky I had such a stellar crew, everyone was just amazing, they just took all the punches and went with it, you know?
Is science-fiction the direction you’re going to go with features?
Actually, I really like the horror genre, I mean, I like science fiction and horror, and I could see doing drama down the road, but I just really like the traditional horror films. I’m not really into the whole “blood and guts” kind of thing, I’m more of a Hitchcock and Kubrick guy. That’s how I want to move into film, I want to make little pieces of art, not a gorefest.
Is there anything else about the process of making this film that if you were might be interested in?
Not really, pretty much what you see is what you get. Every shot was planned out, the cinematographer and I walked around the property well before production began and lensed the entire film before we shot. We walked around with the exact lenses that we were going to use for each shot because were both cinematographers and basically we knew exactly where we wanted to shoot everything. That makes the process of making a film that much easier, even if you seen the place if you just sit down with the DSLR, it makes it work that much better. I don’t think you can never be too prepared to make a film.
Cool, thanks for the time and good luck!
Thanks, great talk!
Access to state of the art health care services is something we can all agree would be a good thing for this country. Experiencing a serious illness is one of life's major challenges and to face it without the means to pay for it is positively frightening. But as we shall see, once we know the facts, we will find that achieving this goal will not be easy without our individual contribution.
These are the themes I will touch on to try to make some sense out of what is happening to American health care and the steps we can personally take to make things better.
A recent history of American health care - what has driven the costs so high?
Key elements of the Obama health care plan
The Republican view of health care - free market competition
Universal access to state of the art health care - a worthy goal but not easy to achieve
what can we do?
First, let's get a little historical perspective on American health care. This is not intended to be an exhausted look into that history but it will give us an appreciation of how the health care system and our expectations for it developed. What drove costs higher and higher?
To begin, let's turn to the American civil war. In that war, dated tactics and the carnage inflicted by modern weapons of the era combined to cause ghastly results. Not generally known is that most of the deaths on both sides of that war were not the result of actual combat but to what happened after a battlefield wound was inflicted. To begin with, evacuation of the wounded moved at a snail's pace and this caused severe delays in treating the wounded. Secondly, many wounds were subjected to wound care, related surgeries and/or amputations of the affected limbs and this often resulted in the onset of massive infection. So you might survive a battle wound only to die at the hands of medical care providers who although well-intentioned, their interventions were often quite lethal. High death tolls can also be ascribed to everyday sicknesses and diseases in a time when no antibiotics existed. In total something like 600,000 deaths occurred from all causes, over 2% of the U.S. population at the time!
Let's skip to the first half of the 20th century for some additional perspective and to bring us up to more modern times. After the civil war there were steady improvements in American medicine in both the understanding and treatment of certain diseases, new surgical techniques and in physician education and training. But for the most part the best that doctors could offer their patients was a "wait and see" approach. Medicine could handle bone fractures and increasingly attempt risky surgeries (now largely performed in sterile surgical environments) but medicines were not yet available to handle serious illnesses. The majority of deaths remained the result of untreatable conditions such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, scarlet fever and measles and/or related complications. Doctors were increasingly aware of heart and vascular conditions, and cancer but they had almost nothing with which to treat these conditions.
This very basic review of American medical history helps us to understand that until quite recently (around the 1950's) we had virtually no technologies with which to treat serious or even minor ailments. Here is a critical point we need to understand; "nothing to treat you with means that visits to the doctor if at all were relegated to emergencies so in such a scenario costs are curtailed. The simple fact is that there was little for doctors to offer and therefore virtually nothing to drive health care spending. A second factor holding down costs was that medical treatments that were provided were paid for out-of-pocket, meaning by way of an individuals personal resources. There was no such thing as health insurance and certainly not health insurance paid by an employer. Except for the very destitute who were lucky to find their way into a charity hospital, health care costs were the responsibility of the individual.
What does health care insurance have to do with health care costs? Its impact on health care costs has been, and remains to this day, absolutely enormous. When health insurance for individuals and families emerged as a means for corporations to escape wage freezes and to attract and retain employees after World War II, almost overnight a great pool of money became available to pay for health care. Money, as a result of the availability of billions of dollars from health insurance pools, encouraged an innovative America to increase medical research efforts. More Americans became insured not only through private, employer sponsored health insurance but through increased government funding that created Medicare and Medicaid (1965). In addition funding became available for expanded veterans health care benefits. Finding a cure for almost anything has consequently become very lucrative. This is also the primary reason for the vast array of treatments we have available today.
I do not wish to convey that medical innovations are a bad thing. Think of the tens of millions of lives that have been saved, extended, enhanced and made more productive as a result. But with a funding source grown to its current magnitude (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) upward pressure on health care costs are inevitable. Doctor's offer and most of us demand and get access to the latest available health care technology in the form of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tools and surgical procedures. So the result is that there is more health care to spend our money on and until very recently most of us were insured and the costs were largely covered by a third-party (government, employers). Add an insatiable and unrealistic public demand for access and treatment and we have the "perfect storm" for higher and higher health care costs. And by and large the storm is only intensifying.
At this point, let's turn to the key questions that will lead us into a review and hopefully a better understanding of the health care reform proposals in the news today. Is the current trajectory of U.S. health care spending sustainable? Can America maintain its world competitiveness when 16%, heading for 20% of our gross national product is being spent on health care? What are the other industrialized countries spending on health care and is it even close to these numbers? When we add politics and an election year to the debate, information to help us answer these questions become critical. We need to spend some effort in understanding health care and sorting out how we think about it. Properly armed we can more intelligently determine whether certain health care proposals might solve or worsen some of these problems. What can be done about the challenges? How can we as individuals contribute to the solutions?
The Obama health care plan is complex for sure - I have never seen a health care plan that isn't. But through a variety of programs his plan attempts to deal with a) increasing the number of American that are covered by adequate insurance (almost 50 million are not), and b) managing costs in such a manner that quality and our access to health care is not adversely affected. Republicans seek to achieve these same basic and broad goals, but their approach is proposed as being more market driven than government driven. Let's look at what the Obama plan does to accomplish the two objectives above. Remember, by the way, that his plan was passed by congress, and begins to seriously kick-in starting in 2014. So this is the direction we are currently taking as we attempt to reform health care.
Through insurance exchanges and an expansion of Medicaid,the Obama plan dramatically expands the number of Americans that will be covered by health insurance.
To cover the cost of this expansion the plan requires everyone to have health insurance with a penalty to be paid if we don't comply. It will purportedly send money to the states to cover those individuals added to state-based Medicaid programs.
To cover the added costs there were a number of new taxes introduced, one being a 2.5% tax on new medical technologies and another increases taxes on interest and dividend income for wealthier Americans.
The Obama plan also uses concepts such as evidence-based medicine, accountable care organizations, comparative effectiveness research and reduced reimbursement to health care providers (doctors and hospitals) to control costs.
The insurance mandate covered by points 1 and 2 above is a worthy goal and most industrialized countries outside of the U.S. provide "free" (paid for by rather high individual and corporate taxes) health care to most if not all of their citizens. It is important to note, however, that there are a number of restrictions for which many Americans would be culturally unprepared. Here is the primary controversial aspect of the Obama plan, the insurance mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to hear arguments as to the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate as a result of a petition by 26 states attorney's general that congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution by passing this element of the plan. The problem is that if the Supreme Court should rule against the mandate, it is generally believed that the Obama plan as we know it is doomed. This is because its major goal of providing health insurance to all would be severely limited if not terminated altogether by such a decision.
As you would guess, the taxes covered by point 3 above are rather unpopular with those entities and individuals that have to pay them. Medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors and insurance companies all had to "give up" something that would either create new revenue or would reduce costs within their spheres of control. As an example, Stryker Corporation, a large medical device company, recently announced at least a 1,000 employee reduction in part to cover these new fees. This is being experienced by other medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies as well. The reduction in good paying jobs in these sectors and in the hospital sector may rise as former cost structures will have to be dealt with in order to accommodate the reduced rate of reimbursement to hospitals. Over the next ten years some estimates put the cost reductions to hospitals and physicians at half a trillion dollars and this will flow directly to and affect the companies that supply hospitals and doctors with the latest medical technologies. None of this is to say that efficiencies will not be realized by these changes or that other jobs will in turn be created but this will represent painful change for a while. It helps us to understand that health care reform does have an effect both positive and negative.
Finally, the Obama plan seeks to change the way medical decisions are made. While clinical and basic research underpins almost everything done in medicine today, doctors are creatures of habit like the rest of us and their training and day-to-day experiences dictate to a great extent how they go about diagnosing and treating our conditions. Enter the concept of evidence-based medicine and comparative effectiveness research. Both of these seek to develop and utilize data bases from electronic health records and other sources to give better and more timely information and feedback to physicians as to the outcomes and costs of the treatments they are providing. There is great waste in health care today, estimated at perhaps a third of an over 2 trillion dollar health care spend annually. Imagine the savings that are possible from a reduction in unnecessary test and procedures that do not compare favorably with health care interventions that are better documented as effective. Now the Republicans and others don't generally like these ideas as they tend to characterize them as "big government control" of your and my health care. But to be fair, regardless of their political persuasions, most people who understand health care at all, know that better data for the purposes described above will be crucial to getting health care efficiencies, patient safety and costs headed in the right direction.
A brief review of how Republicans and more conservative individuals think about health care reform. I believe they would agree that costs must come under control and that more, not fewer Americans should have access to health care regardless of their ability to pay. But the main difference is that these folks see market forces and competition as the way to creating the cost reductions and efficiencies we need. There are a number of ideas with regard to driving more competition among health insurance companies and health care providers (doctors and hospitals) so that the consumer would begin to drive cost down by the choices we make. This works in many sectors of our economy but this formula has shown that improvements are illusive when applied to health care. Primarily the problem is that health care choices are difficult even for those who understand it and are connected. The general population, however, is not so informed and besides we have all been brought up to "go to the doctor" when we feel it is necessary and we also have a cultural heritage that has engendered within most of us the feeling that health care is something that is just there and there really isn't any reason not to access it for whatever the reason and worse we all feel that there is nothing we can do to affect its costs to insure its availability to those with serious problems.
OK, this article was not intended to be an exhaustive study as I needed to keep it short in an attempt to hold my audience's attention and to leave some room for discussing what we can do contribute mightily to solving some of the problems. First we must understand that the dollars available for health care are not limitless. Any changes that are put in place to provide better insurance coverage and access to care will cost more. And somehow we have to find the revenues to pay for these changes. At the same time we have to pay less for medical treatments and procedures and do something to restrict the availability of unproven or poorly documented treatments as we are the highest cost health care system in the world and don't necessarily have the best results in terms of longevity or avoiding chronic diseases much earlier than necessary.
I believe that we need a revolutionary change in the way we think about health care, its availability, its costs and who pays for it. And if you think I am about to say we should arbitrarily and drastically reduce spending on health care you would be wrong. Here it is fellow citizens - health care spending needs to be preserved and protected for those who need it. And to free up these dollars those of us who don't need it or can delay it or avoid it need to act. First, we need to convince our politicians that this country needs sustained public education with regard to the value of preventive health strategies. This should be a top priority and it has worked to reduce the number of U.S. smokers for example. If prevention were to take hold, it is reasonable to assume that those needing health care for the myriad of life style engendered chronic diseases would decrease dramatically. Millions of Americans are experiencing these diseases far earlier than in decades past and much of this is due to poor life style choices. This change alone would free up plenty of money to handle the health care costs of those in dire need of treatment, whether due to an acute emergency or chronic condition.
Let's go deeper on the first issue. Most of us refuse do something about implementing basic wellness strategies into our daily lives. We don't exercise but we offer a lot of excuses. We don't eat right but we offer a lot of excuses. We smoke and/or we drink alcohol to excess and we offer a lot of excuses as to why we can't do anything about managing these known to be destructive personal health habits. We don't take advantage of preventive health check-ups that look at blood pressure, cholesterol readings and body weight but we offer a lot of excuses. In short we neglect these things and the result is that we succumb much earlier than necessary to chronic diseases like heart problems, diabetes and high blood pressure. We wind up accessing doctors for these and more routine matters because "health care is there" and somehow we think we have no responsibility for reducing our demand on it.
It is difficult for us to listen to these truths but easy to blame the sick. Maybe they should take better care of themselves! Well, that might be true or maybe they have a genetic condition and they have become among the unfortunate through absolutely no fault of their own. But the point is that you and I can implement personalized preventive disease measures as a way of dramatically improving health care access for others while reducing its costs. It is far better to be productive by doing something we can control then shifting the blame.
There are a huge number of free web sites available that can steer us to a more healthful life style. A soon as you can, "Google" "preventive health care strategies", look up your local hospital's web site and you will find more than enough help to get you started. Finally, there is a lot to think about here and I have tried to outline the challenges but also the very powerful effect we could have on preserving the best of America's health care system now and into the future. I am anxious to hear from you and until then - take charge and increase your chances for good health while making sure that health care is there when we need it.
Trying to find the best diet pill may seem like an impossible task, especially with the multitude of diet pills available for purchase. Many people purchase a diet pill only to find out that the pill makes them feel jittery, nervous, or often has no effect at all.
Diet pills frequently contain the same or similar combination of ingredients and rarely contain anything new, innovative, or undiscovered to the supplement / weight loss industry. So, how can you find the best diet pill when most diet pills are made with similar ingredients?
One of the most common problems associated with taking diet pills is that the person taking the diet pill is uneducated about the dosage, effects, and promises offered as they relate to each diet pill. The research at website finds that there are three factors that should be taken into consideration when deciding to take a diet pill.
It is important to take the pill exactly as recommended on the product label. Some people choose to increase the dosage thinking that the product will work faster or better. This is not the case, and many people become sick in response to the large dose. Reviewers at website often suggest that the recommended dosage be cut in half to give the body time to adjust to the stimulant in the diet pill. After the body has adjusted, it is fine to begin taking the regular dosage as recommended on the product label.
The effects listed on the product label are there because these are the effects that the product has had on 'some' of the test group. Some of the diet pill testers may be fine taking the product, while others may have adverse effects. The diet pill companies print this information to educate the buyer as well as to protect themselves from lawsuits. The consumer needs to read the label and educate themselves before taking the product. Many people who are sensitive to caffeine are surprised when the diet pill makes them feel nervous or nauseous, but this information is likely printed on the product, so with a little research these affects can be avoided.
If you read the fine print on product claims for diet pills and other weight loss supplements, you will see 'results not typical' printed very small somewhere where you are not expected to look. The diet pills advertised on television are responsible for some of the most outlandish claims. The results claimed in these advertisements are often unattainable within the given amount of time outlined in the ad. Don't expect to see results in two weeks like a lot of ads claim.
Wouldn't it be great if you could read reviews for diet pills from actual users of each diet pill? Diet Pill Reviews website has taken the trouble out of searching for the best diet pill. You can read reviews of over 150 of the most popular diet pills available.
Copyright 2006, Diet Pill Reviews viagra pas cher