Adventures in Modeming

Helping an author with some background info on Ernest Lehman, I ran across this article about the WGA's BBS system from October 1991. (Early days of the internet.) 

As published in “Written By” October 1991.

Ah, VHS.

ADVENTURES IN MODEMING

It was over a year ago when I discovered the voice in my phone Modem. I was recovering from the stinging reviews of a film I had co-written and directed called Limit Up when I discovered that Gene Siskel was the resident critic for Prodigy - the Sears computer network that includes subscribers from across the country.

I thought that Siskel had been overly critical of the film in his review, and owing to the fact that he and Ebert disagreed on every other film on their show but mine, I realized he might have been giving it a "thumbswayyyy down" in the excitement of being able to agree with Ebert on anything.

Dean Stockwell, Nancy Allen

But I was able to tell him so in front of a national audience. I posted a letter to him on the Prodigy service using my computer and phone modem, telling him what I thought of his review, and specifically what I thought he had missed in the story. And at computer terminals all across America, subscribers signed on co find the writer/director of a film publicly proclaiming that a reviewer was wrong and it was up to the audience to make up their own minds.

Siskel posted a reply that he hoped he would appreciate the next movie I make more, and explained that he wasn't paid to root for films, only to critique them. But nonetheless, what I felt had been a mean spirited attack on a friendly spirited film had been countered by the film's parent.

Ray Charles, Danitra Vance

Finally a film critic could be criticized in public for his critique. After that, Gene Siskel didn't app ear on the Prodigy service for a couple of weeks; perhaps he had a vacation coming to him. I prefer to think that he took time off to cool his hot toes.

Not much later I signed up for the MCI mail system so I could file my occasional music reviews that I was writing for Variety (which I approach with trepidation and over conscientiousness), and in perusing the MCI system I found Roger Ebert's mailbox.

Ray is God. Nancy is a Soybean Trader.

I sent him a copy of the rave Limit Up re¬ceived from Entertainment Today, rating it a B+, and asked him to consider giving the film a second viewing for his next foray into compiling movie reviews. He replied that he felt he had bent over backwards to give the film a fair review, I said that I thought calling it 'dumb, dumb, dumb' hardly constituted bending over backwards. He eventually told me that he, too, was stung by the reviews of his book about Cannes from his own newspaper.

I was happy to be able to discuss it. Usually the artist is skewered, his work ridiculed, his fortunes dashed - perhaps justifiably so, perhaps because the reviewer wasn't in the mood for that type of film on that given day - without any recourse but an angry letter to an editor or a pithy telegram.

One of our movie posters

I'll leave the values of honesty in reviewing to an in-depth study of criticism in general, I was just happy to find a voice through my computer, enabling me to have a dialogue with those who review my work.

But there are other voices to be found in my phone modem. Recently I was auditing a writing class at USC, when the subject of act breaks came up regarding the film North By Northwest. The teacher handed out an outline of where he considered the act breaks to occur, and I didn't agree with him about the end of the first act.

Ernie

So when I got home to my computer I dialed up the Writers Guild BBS and left a note to Ernest Lehman, the screenwriter of North By Northwest. What ensued was a series of letters and an on-line discussion of what constitutes an act break and whether these rules apply to his film, as well as some great stories about what it was like to work with Hitchcock and Grant. (About the first act, Ernie happened to agree with me, and I was able to report back to the class, a la Woody Allen pulling Marshall McLuhan out of a ticket line to refute a point in Annie Hall; I was able to find the voice of irrefut¬able proof inside of my modem.)

The realm of communication that was first dominated by long distance runners, then handwritten wax sealed envelopes, Western Union telegrams, and eventually faxes, now has a faster, farther-reaching, and more convenient carrier.

Ernie and Hitch

The modem has provided a way to have a long distance conversation- or at least an exchange of letters in a short amount of time - so anyone with a phone modem, computer and an ounce of determination can participate. And perhaps all parties can come away with a better understanding of each other's point of view. It may be just a matter of time before they launch a United Nations BBS so world leaders can chat each other up from time to time, and find out exactly who meant what, when, and why they said it.

Richard Martini wrote an directed “You Can't Hurry Love,” and co­wrote (with Lu Anders) and directed “Limit Up.” His modem resides in Santa Monica.

Being On The Right Path

I normally try to avoid reading reviews. 

After my film "Limit Up" opened, I asked Luana Anders (my co-writer) to read me an "edited review" over the phone (From Roger Ebert "thumbs way down") 

She read ""Limit Up"... was directed... by Richard Martini." ...followed by silence. 

(Ha! I think it's still funny, timely, included a chapter on Roger in "Flipside" proving he was more familiar with the afterlife than he imagined) 

Came across this review for "Hacking the Afterlife" today, and well, decided to share:

5.0 out of 5 stars "Life changing read...."

By E. Kepneron July 6, 2017
Format: Audible Audio Edition

"This is my first book by Richard Martini and my first book on past life / between life regression therapy. I love the fact Richard is a film maker and researcher and not a medium or hypnotherapist. There is an honesty, a purity to his writing and to the reading of his book as well. 

I listened to the Audible edition and am grateful he recorded this book for those of us who only have time to listen to books these days. He speaks as a person who has heard the same stories over and over. He isn't trying to sell anyone on any of his ideas. 

In fact, he says multiple times in the book for people to "get their money back, PLEASE" if this book bothers them or doesn't ring true for them. 

As a Christian with more universal beliefs, I have long wondered about souls I've loved who have passed on and seem to help me from the other side, about my purpose for my time and my family's time on the earth, about Christ and our obsession with his birth and death instead of his life, and about how different religions seem to teach so many of the same concepts and carry the same energy. 

Often many of my thoughts on these topics seem to be disconnected and unrelated. This book has helped me integrate these concepts for my own life while providing a reassuring and peaceful vision of what was before and what awaits on the flip side. 

This is a long book full of fascinating verifiable stories. I will likely listen to it again and I know I will gain more insight each time I hear from Richard and his research. Definitely life changing and definitely worth the read, if you are open."

At some point I've realized, I will never ever, not ever - get reviews in my film career with the headline "Life changing film." 

I guess I'm on the right path after all. 

Thanks E. Kepneron for reminding me, wherever you are!


https://www.amazon.com/Hacking-Afterlife-Practical-Advice-Flipside-ebook/product-reviews/B01J63P3R6/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewopt_srt?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&sortBy=recent&pageNumber=1

End of the World Rumors and the Elaborate Hoax

Our daughter asked if I'd heard these "rumors the world was going to end next month."

Before... and after we blow up.

I had not - so I had to look them up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1052354/Are-going-die-Wednesday.html

Are we all going to die next Wednesday?

Two nightmare scenarios, two ends of the world. In the first, there is little warning. For maybe a month there would be no sign that life was about to come to an abrupt and nasty end for all living things on Earth. Then, earthquakes would start unexpectedly, alerting geologists that something terrible, unimaginable, was amiss. After a few days, these seismic disturbances would reach catastrophic proportions. Cities would be levelled, the oceans would rise and wash in a series of mega-tsunamis that would attack the world's coasts, killing millions.

I have some good news and I have some bad news with regard to this research.

You want the bad news first? Okay.  

"We don't die."

What I mean by that is literally, we don't die.  So even if the planet blew up tomorrow, we don't die.  So we would go and populate some other planet in the Universe. (and perhaps screw that up too) I've had at least one person speak of an apocalypse on "another planet" during a lifetime she remembered prior to this one on Earth. (In "Flipside").

She said that the citizens of the planet had allowed science to get out of control, (no, it wasn't called "Krypton") and in their search to design some kind of energy mechanism, had caused the destruction of their planet.

Just like in the movies.

I'd hate to see it go. So much work involved!!

So is it possible for us to destroy the Earth by doing an experiment on it?

Well, according to these eyewitness accounts, it's happened before, just not on this planet.  So technically, sure.

And, the good news?

There are reports of people out there who keep an eye on us so we don't screw up the planet.

Wondering why we haven't been hit by an asteroid in the past million or so years?  I have too.

I've interviewed more than one person who under deep hypnosis has spoken of how the Earth came into being - how there are "entities" or "energies" that oversaw the process, that planned these events "in the future" and that "continue to guide it."

There is a universal law of "no interference" according to these folks.  So we are free to destroy it if we want to.  However, when it comes to helping the Earth move along, these folks act like guardians, or sheep herders perhaps is more accurate - helping seed life, and creating an environment so that we could inhabit this planet.  I'd say they've done a heck of a job.

Space fotos NASA. Guardians watching over us? Cool!

I know how weird this sounds.  But I'm just repeating what they've said.  That the "reason an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs" was so that human life could come to fruition.

As if they protected the Earth in some fashion from other asteroids, but allowed one through to help with the "intelligent design" of the planet.  (And I'm not referring to the religious version of that phrase, obviously, as the only thing that atheists and evangelicals agree on, is that I must be crazy.)

It's hard to put our minds around planning "that far" into the future - but when you consider that once we're outside of this realm, we're outside the normal constructs of time and space.  

Meaning, planning on creating a habitable planet so humans could inhabit it is exactly what happened.  So - is it possible that's what occurred? I don't know.  All I can tell you is that I've talked to more than one person who described these folks who "oversee" or "keep an eye" on our planet during its journey. My job is to report whatever it is I hear (but I try to limit these reports to two or more folks who've said relatively the same things.)  

So what does that have to do with Cern starting up?  All I can say is either the doomsday folks are right - and if they are, then some event will occur so that the accelerator does not work properly or doesn't do it's desired functions. (Thank you folks who oversee our planet!) Or, it's time for us to move on to another planet.  Or the doomsdayers are wrong, and there's never been a reason to worry.

All I can tell you for a fact (from the research) is this: no matter what happens, we don't die.

A rose is a rose... unless it's a photograph.

So sorry to hear of the latest shooting of a reporter on camera. 

I'd offer that the odds are, the fired employee was on SSRI drugs given him by a shrink. (Every "mass shooting" since Columbine was someone who had easy access to guns, and had been on prescription anti depressants.) So I would lay even money that it's the case here.

Why does this happen? 

Because the anti depressants alter the behavior of the amygdala (they supress seratonin release in the brain, which has unforseen consequences).  So in people severely depressed the switch is screwed up - and (a doctor friends says up to) 15% of the people on SSRI drugs it has a deleterious effect - shuts off the "morality" switch, and something they would never have thought of outside a video game (or torrid fantasy) seems like the most logical thing in the world to do. 

I'm sorry to hear of these tragic events that caused the death of three people.  However; to sound like a broken record - we don't die.  

This dude looks like me in a past life. (Rodin) Or I look like him in this life.

The reporter is not here, but she's not gone. The cameraman is not here, but he's not gone. The shooter is not here, but he's not gone either.  No one involved is "gone" or "dead" or whatever term we have to signify "the end." 

All three stepped thru the doorway marked "afterlife" and all three are experiencing that now.  

The reporter, who is likely hanging around this realm to spread love to her father and her fiancee, family and friends - the cameraman, hanging around his family and friends to see how things play out, the shooter, who is watching all the chaos he created and lives he's wrecked. (And watching the usual nutballs claiming "it didn't happen, it's a false flag Obama trick to take away my guns.") 

When you realize we don't die, we can't die, people can't kill us it alters our prespective. If we aren't killable, then people don't have to fear death, or their guns being taken away. The hard part is to enjoy their lives and still have compassion for those that might take it away. 

We all move into the next realm - whatever that represents based on our journey here - and then if and when we feel like it we come back with the help and advice of our loved ones.  

We can argue all we want about taking away guns - it only makes logical sense to treat guns the way we treat cars - licensed, accompanied by tests and earning the privelege to own a license.  For me it's not a Constitutional issue - but one of common sense.

My pal in Darchen.  Long way from here, but always connected.

I have not watched the shooter's video of his actions because frankly, I'm not interested in indulging his view of the planet. I understand that he thought it was a good idea to use social media to focus on himself, and I understand the "tipping point" result of his choice, but I'm not interested in being forced to step into his shoes.

And the reason it's hard to judge this guy's actions is because I'm not in his shoes.  I don't know what soul contract he made before he came here - it may have been to show that people who are given SSRI drugs are dangerous to society - it may be to convince congress to change gun laws - but that was his journey, and I can't judge it because I'm not part of his soul group. (At least I hope I'm not.)  But if we knew someone in his soul group - perhaps we could ask them. And perhaps it's possible to ask him too - because he didn't die either.  (Sorry to say, but it is what it is.)

He's caused a mountain of grief to be sure. There's a mountain of pain and suffering that he participated in, and I haven't the faintest idea how or why he signed up for a lifetime what would include that. My heart goes out to this reporter's parents, her dad and fiancee, family and friends, and those of the cameraman as well.

I've been in those same shoes - when I worked for CNBC on the Charles Grodin show, I did countless "stand ups" or "man in the street" interviews all over Manhattan.  I know that world, I've had fun doing it. I know others in that world, and my heart goes out to them as well, as it will surely engender copycat incidents.  We live in a crazy world.

I worked on The Charles Grodin show for CNBC for 6 months.

On a Flipside level, the research shows we come here knowing basically what role we're going to play.  And only about a third of our energy comes here to each lifetime.  And it's that other two thirds that is always back there, always watching whats happening here, always amused, always behind the scenes - always adjusting to whatever other people do.  

So we can argue - the nature of reality is a "false flag" event.  

It's in the research, that is, it's in the actual sessions talking to people who remember past lives and the between lives realms - and their testimony is corroborated by people who've had near death experiences and are scientists and generally are considered experts in their field.  There is an architecture to the afterlife if we look for it.

Events play out the way they play out - and part of the reason is seems scripted is because on some level - it was scripted. Once you can embrace the concept that we don't die - on some etheric energetic level - we can see that everything that happens is part of the school of learning.  The question is, are we strong enough students to learn from these lessons?  Can we still have compassion in the face on tragedy?  Can we honor a person's memory by coming to the conclusion they're still here?

It reminds me of Roger Ebert's last words.  Prior to his passing - he wrote a note to his wife Chaz that said "It's all an elaborate hoax."

Roger Ebert experience the hoax paradox with Mr. De Niro

She was confused. "What's an elaborate hoax?"  I think he was referring to reality, to the nature of existence.  It's all an elaborate hoax because we don't die.  Life continues on.  Not just here, but over there as well.  I offer this by way of solace to those who can't bring themselves to go on after such tragic events. But don't shoot the reporter.  I mean that literally.

My two cents.

Two Thumbs Up For Roger

Here's a pretty dramatic "Flipside" moment, and I will endeavor to interview Chaz Ebert about it for the next book. I knew Roger Ebert, my brother Jeff worked with him at the U of I on the school paper, and Roger had given me a brutal "thumbs way down" review of my film "Limit Up" which literally killed it while it was in the theaters. I thought he'd appreciate the story about a guardian angel who helps a woman become the first female soybean trader at the Chicago Board of Trade and Ray Charles played her boss, God; I had no idea he was an atheist when I insisted to the studio that they get Roger a copy of the film for his review. One of the many errors I've made in my film career. (No really, it's a fun movie; Danitra Vance, Ray Charles, Brad Hall, Nancy Allen - just hard to find.)

However, he was always friendly when I saw him at Cannes or other fests. I met his wife Chaz a few years back as well - a lovely couple. So when he was pronounced dead and then revived some years ago, he wrote how Chaz reported she heard him saying "I'm still here." She insisted the Doctors revive him - and they did. He went on to live another four or five years with her. It didn't change Roger's opinion of an "afterlife" as he wrote a column about what happened - how he wasn't conscious of calling out to her, but she was. I noted how funny it was that the proof there is "consciousness after life" actually happened to him - and to the person he loved the most on the planet - but he was blind to it. And six days ago, this appeared in Esquire, Chaz's recollection of his final days. He was experiencing what so many have experienced - some in near death experiences - and some while under deep hypnosis as pioneered by Michael Newton and outlined in my first book "Flipside."

Take a moment to read this description of Roger's last moments on the planet. "The one thing people might be surprised about Roger said that he didn't know if he could believe in God. He had his doubts. But toward the end, something really interesting happened. That week before Roger passed away, I would see him and he would talk about having visited this other place. I thought he was hallucinating. I thought they were giving him too much medication. But the day before he passed away, he wrote me a note: "This is all an elaborate hoax." I asked him, "What's a hoax?" And he was talking about this world, this place. He said it was all an illusion. I thought he was just confused. But he was not confused. He wasn't visiting heaven, not the way we think of heaven. He described it as a vastness that you can't even imagine. It was a place where the past, present, and future were happening all at once. (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/roger-ebert-final-moments)

Funny how he reviewed his glimpse of the nature of reality; "It's all a hoax." He could have said "It's all a movie" or "It's all a theatrical piece" which would have been a bit more accurate (according to the research). "Hoax" implies there's someone behind the curtain pulling the strings, and pulling something over on people. "Illusion" is accurate, but again, so is film; funny he didn't make that connection. But when you examine the "Flipside" you find that there's no one but you pulling the strings - albeit with help from spirit guides and other resources - but we experience events and problems in our paths because we put them there, to examine them, to learn from them - to learn compassion for others. We are directing the hoax, so to speak, and when we experience the vastness, the "stepping outside of time" that one can experience during a near death experience or under deep hypnosis, we see the past, present and future as other events to experience. And we experience the vastness, as Eben Alexander did in "Proof of Heaven" as a "glittering darkness" where we are all connected at the same moment. But don't take my word for it; take Roger's. Two thumbs way up.

http://www.gofundme.com/FlipsideTheSequel

Limit Up

I made this film in 1989.   The other day, a technician at a lab and I were chatting about it, and he asked to see it.  He's 26, African American, grew up in the projects and made his way to LA.  I gave him a copy and he raved about it; he wants to show it to his church, he wants to show it to his pastor father in law; he wants everyone in his life to see it.  Needless to say, I was moved.  Twenty years ago, a group of people came together to make a little fable about capitalism, about how hard it was for a woman to become a soybean trader at the Chicago board of trade, about racism. The cast includes the amazing Danitra Vance (Colored Girls on Broadway in the 70's), who plays the guardian angel of Nancy Allen.  Ray Charles plays God.  It's a paean to Chicago, an homage to the soybean pit where my brother toiled for many years.  The original cast was Daymon Wayans and Sharon Stone, but the producer wouldn't let me cast them.  Either way, it's a PG13 family flick, Brad Hall, Ron Howard's dad Rance are hilarious - Dean Stockwell, Nancy Allen are a hoot - "cornball" as Ebert puts it, but hey, something to be said for the only film ever made about soybean trading.. I still have no idea why anyone would hate this film.  Entertainment Weekly gave it a B+ - but sadly, it's disappeared into the great cinema vault in the sky.

Here's a clip I put on youtube of Danitra and Ray in the final scene, sadly, both not on the planet anymore:

Here's a clip from the ending with Danitra and Ray:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhQzQ3opivE

Here's the Entertainment Weekly Review:

VIDEO REVIEW

Limit Up (1990) B+

Reviewed by Cynthia Grisolia | May 04, 1990

Who would have thought that someone could make a feature film about a subject as unsexy as soybeans and it could turn out to be as charming as this.

Limit Up stars cherubic Nancy Allen (who shifted from sexpot to Kewpie doll somewhere between Dressed to Kill and Robocop) as Casey Falls, a ''runner'' on the floor of Chicago's Midwest Grain Exchange, where traders, in a wild jitterbug of coded hand signals and general pandemonium, control the output of America's No. 1 cash export: soybeans.

In a facetious bending of the Faust tale, Casey sells her soul to a delegate from the devil (Danitra Vance, in a role undoubtedly written for Whoopi Goldberg), and soon is rolling in high-protein dough.

If you're thinking of stopping here because you've heard this before, don't. Limit Up may have an oddly misleading title (''limit up'' is commodity-trader jargon indicating prices are frozen and trading has stopped), but it's really a splendid comedy with just enough corkscrew turns and wry jokes to make thisfaux Faust pretty sprightly.

All the elements are here: good cast, good script, tidy direction, and an ending that's sunny but not so much that it will make skeptics gag. And Allen is particularly delightful as the ambitious trader forced to make a tough decision when her marker comes due. Also, look for Ray Charles in a small but significant role and a cameo by Sally Kellerman.