Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Archetypes of a Generation

PART I

In my childhood, there were many action/adventure teams on television for imaginative young lads like myself to insert themselves into. There were the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, Captain Planet and the Planeteers, the Rugrats and countless others. But the one that had the biggest impact on me (and, in some way, everyone born between 1980 and 1995) was the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (TMNT). Even as a 5 year-old, I was able to easily identify each turtle with a unique personality type and see how each was an important part of the whole.


Cut to 15 years later. I was a budding pretentious intellectual obsessing over foreign film and Hunter S. Thompson, I stumbled across the works of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. One of the most interesting ideas first posited by Jung and later used in Campbell's theory of the monomyth is that of archetypes. Archetypes are mental images inherited from the earliest human ancestors, and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious.

Carl Jung (left), founder of Analytical Psychology and all-around influential thinker.
Joseph Campbell (right),  American mythologist known for his work in comparative mythology and religion.

In mythology and religion, each character can be seen as an archetype representing an aspect of the individual. The "hero" depicts our aspirational self, the qualities that give us potential for greatness; the "villain" embodies the negative aspects of ourselves we are ashamed of or frightened by; and so on. This concept forms the foundations of everything from screenwriting and narrative structure to dream interpretation and the language of the subconscious. So, naturally, I thought of the Turtles.


You see, for as long as I can remember I've had this... gift: Within minutes of meeting someone in my approximate age-range, I can accurately determine which Ninja Turtle was their childhood favorite. It seems to me that each of the heroes in a half-shell represent a different personality type,  each with their own skill sets and quirks that are essential to the ideal group dynamic. TMNT (specifically in the live-action films and animated series of the late '80s to mid-'90s) divided the wide range of human temperaments and dispositions into four distinct character archetypes: Leonardo, Donatello, Michelangelo, and Raphael.

(left to right) Michelangelo, Leonardo, Donatello, and Raphael

As a result, anyone who grew up watching the Turtles immediately latched onto the one that rung truest to our own subconscious perspective. Without really knowing or understanding it, our preference of testudine kung-fu warrior was actually our way of identifying which type of person we were and would be through adulthood. It didn't make us who we are, but it provided a rudimentary outline of the four subjective approaches to life and its challenges. Somewhere in our tiny developing minds, we each recognized ourselves reflected in one of them and learned to appreciate its unique strengths. More importantly we learned how our subjective approach, while totally radical in it's own awesome way dude, is only capable of true greatness when working in conjunction with the other three.


The subliminal force that draws us to one Turtle over another is part of the same basic, inborn element influencing the ways in which we choose to carry ourselves in the outside world and interact with others. It all leads back to the building blocks of our individual personality. I propose that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are the Jungian archetypes of my cultural generation; the allegorical heroes in the mythology of the Information Age.




Tomorrow in Part II: Prepare to delve even deeper into an already well over-thought subject as we examine the core characteristics of each TMNT member and the personality types they represent!

Humpday Horror with the Jolly Goblin: "[REC]"

[REC] (2007)

Starring: Manuela Valasco, Javier Botet, Claudia Silva, Pablo Rosso

Directed by Paco Plaza and Jaume Balaguero

Before I begin the review, there is something I must address.  Many of you may remember a 2008 handheld zombie flick named Quarantine, either fondly or woefully.  What many of you may not know, however, is that Quarantine was actually a shot for shot remake of a vastly superior Spanish movie named REC (short for "Record," pronounced like, "wreck").  The changes between the original and remake are minor, but important, and include much worse acting, a complete lack of tension (especially in the final scenes), and a terribly hackneyed explanation that involves *cough* "super rabies."  Other than that, the movies are nearly identical, which is the greatest crime of all.  If you have already seen Quarantine, much of the tension in REC will be lost on you, since for the most part, you already know what's going to happen next, and that's a major tragedy.  Still, REC is worth a watch, since you've basically just been given a lackluster high school shadow cast version.  Spoilers aside, it's still a pretty scary movie, even on repeat viewings, and a few things that carry over into the remake with make a hell of a lot more sense.

End rant.  Begin review.

REC opens on a reporter, Angela (Manuela Velasco), doing a special documentary on the lives of firemen.  They get a rescue call to an apartment building and head out immediately, with Angela and her cameraman Pablo (Pablo Rosso) following, recording everything.  It all seems standard and routine, until the rescue call turns foul and one of the firemen gets a big chunk bitten out of his neck by an old blood-soaked woman.  They all soon realize that the building is surrounded by police officers who are dead set on keeping everyone inside the building, by force if necessary.

It starts off slow, with few scares occurring in the early portions of the movie, but there is a growing sense of confusion and dread, as there is no way out in sight and bodies keep piling up.  Eventually though, everything hits the fan, and you realize exactly why they are being held up inside the building.  This is basically the claustrophobic cousin of 28 Days Later and from that moment until close to the end, the movie is nonstop panic and terror.  I won't go into what sets everything off, and I won't go into any specifics on this part, because this needs to be experienced, not merely read about.

The movie is filmed handy cam style, and you're probably familiar with it by now.  Don't think of this in terms of The Blaire Witch Project or Paranormal Activity, though.  Think of this in terms of the subway scene in Cloverfield.  The handy cam aspect of the movie works in its' favor very well, really making you feel like you're in that apartment building.  It adds to the claustrophobia greatly.

In the brief moments of rest that the movie allows you to have before forcing you to relieve your bowels all over your pants one final time, you receive the only scraps of exposition that you're going to get.  Angela stumbles across a nest of newspaper clippings and an old tape recorder (similar to the one in The Evil Dead).  The explanation is there, but the movie doesn't hold your hand.  It expects you to pick it out.  What's written on these clippings and said on this recorder are about as much as you're going to get.  It suggests something sinister, and something never before done in a zombie movie, but again, I won't go into specifics.

The final scene of this movie remains one of the scariest final scenes in any movie I have ever seen, and it is entirely based on the execution.  This scene, above all else, is why I regard REC so highly.  It's almost entirely in the dark, you see almost nothing, and half of the time is spent holding your breath, waiting to see if someone gets their face ripped off (figuratively speaking).

Overall, there's really not a lot I can explain about the movie that will do it justice.  It's a terrifying thrill ride from the second it kicks in until the final pants-crapping moments.  Watch it alone in your bedroom in the dark for the full effect.

4.5/5




Zak "the Jolly Goblin" Greene is a Connecticut-based artist and film enthusiast. Aside from his weekly reviews for Nergasms & Geek-Rage, he posts his own video-reviews over at ReelCreepy. Check it out!

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Archetypes of a Generation (Part 2)

PART II

"Leonardo leads,

Donatello does machines,

Raphael is cool but crude,

Michelangelo is a party dude."

In Part 1, I provided a brief summary of my "Ninja Turtles as Modern Jungian Archetypes" theory. In this section, I will examine each individual turtle and the dispositions they personify. I will point out the values and flaws of each archetype and provide examples of each found elsewhere in popular culture. In the end, I hope to leave you with the knowledge to discover your own inner Turtle and seek out those who match the other archetypes. In doing so, you too can form a team with which to take on life's Tokkas, Razors, Shredders, and Foot clans.


A short disclaimer before I go on: There are many teams in contemporary fiction that fit a similar dynamic to the TMNT. I'm sure every generation has a ragtag group of ruffians up to any challenge. For some, it may be the A-Team. For others, it may be the gang from Scooby-Doo; but for those in my age group (those born roughly between 1980 and 1995) it is undoubtedly the Turtles, and I think they are the most clearly defined iteration of these timeless character types.




LEONARDO

• Character Type: Team leader. The Samurai. The General. The White Knight.
• Description: Leonardos get all the glory. Defined by their devotion to duty and purpose, and usually singled out as the glue that holds the team together. They are often seen as the "face" or "frontman" of any group to which they belong. Leo's mask is blue (a symbol of masculine virtue) and his weapon of choice (the katana) is that of a Samurai warrior, representing a dedication to honor above all else.
• Strengths: Unwavering confidence and determination. Leonardos can rally the troops no matter how bleak the odds. Their infectious enthusiasm enables them to connect with and relate to the other personality types, allowing them to inspire and maintain confidence and drive within the group.
• Weaknesses: As natural leaders, Leonardos have only themselves to look to for guidance. Even if there is a higher authority to consult in times of crisis (Master Splinter, for example) their cryptic wisdom is meaningless in the moment, and can only be deciphered through the hardships of personal experience. In moments of self-doubt, Leonardos often struggle to maintain the optimism needed to bring out the best of their teammates.
• Analogous Characters: Harry Potter; Tommy Pickles ("Rugrats"); Henry V (Shakespeare); Aragorn ("Lord of the Rings"); Dr. Raymond Stantz ("Ghostbusters"); Danny Ocean ("Ocean's 11"); Jason the Red Ranger ("Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers"); etc.

DONATELLO

• Character Type: The Brains. Scientist. Bookworm. Scholar. Tech-Savvy Wiz-Kid.
• Description: More concerned with intellectual fortitude than physical combat, Donatellos are often the unsung heroes of the group. Donatello's weapon of choice (a simple Bo staff) is itself a symbol of his utilitarian intelligence, as if to say "Bring it on, with your adorable bladed weapons. I've figure out how to take you out with a FUCKING STICK, you ingrates!"  His purple bandana indicates that his genius includes an impeccable fashion sense.
• Strengths:  While able to hold their own in battle, a Donatello's true value becomes apparent during the moments between fight scenes, when only a sharp mind can succeed where kicking some serious shell just isn't enough. Their greatest contributions are born out of a penchant for absorbing and applying the vast knowledge at their disposal. Whether building/operating advanced technologies, uncovering obscure but essential factoids, or using science and deductive logic to unlock the secrets of the ooze, Donatellos epitomize the concept of brains over brawn.
• Weaknesses: In real life, those who fit the Donatello archetype would be shoved in a locker before you could say "Cowabunga" without backup from the other three. Their inherent weaknesses are similar to those of the common nerd (i.e. confrontation, pretty girls, pet dander, etc.)
• Analogous Characters: Q ("James Bond" franchise); The Doctor ("Doctor Who"); Hermione Granger ("Harry Potter" franchise); Dr. Egon Spengler ("Ghostbusters"); Velma ("Scooby-Doo"); every "hacker" character in popular fiction; etc.

MICHELANGELO

• Character Type: The Comic Relief. Clumsy Jester. Light-Hearted Hedonist.
• Description: The class clown, equally amusing and obnoxious. Michelangelo's signature Nunchuks incorporate a lot of comedic spinning and flailing in combat, implying that even the intensity of violence is laughable. Orange, the color of his bandana, is associated with safety and often used to set objects apart from their surroundings (warning signs, traffic cones, etc.). This represents both his function as a "safety valve" on any tension within the group and his over-the-top, extroverted personality.
• Strengths: Michelangelos make sure we don't take ourselves or the challenges we face too seriously. No matter how dire the situation, a Michelangelo is never without some low-brow quips and a silly face to make light of it. The levity they contribute is a vital component in the optimum group dynamic. Michelangelos act as social lubricant, greasing the wheels for collaboration and ensuring that we don't take ourselves too seriously. In times of crisis, their goofy one-liners allow us to laugh in the face of insurmountable odds. Though their foolishness is often looked down upon, Michelangelos are the key to maintaining motivation and morale.
• Weaknesses: If you've ever stood in a soul-crushingly long line after an even longer day and the person behind you feels compelled to make loud obnoxious "jokes", amusing only themselves as you grind your teeth and strain to avoid eye contact, then you are familiar with the downsides of the Michelangelo personality. Arguably the most self destructive of the four, their pathological need to be a one-man-party tends to get on everyone else's nerves at one point or another, but as long as they are entertained by their own antics, they see no reason to curb their behavior. This self-satisfied disposition, if unchecked by a group dynamic, will eventually manifest as a lethargic disregard for self-improvement.
• Analogous Characters: Shaggy ("Scooby-Doo"); Dr. Peter Venkman ("Ghostbusters"); Chandler Bing & Joey Tribbiani ("Friends"); Ronald Weasley ("Harry Potter"); R2-D2 ("Star Wars"); Eric Matthews ("Boy Meets World"); Ed ("Shaun of the Dead"); etc.

RAPHAEL

• Character Type: The Loose Cannon. Hot-Headed Renegade. Brooding Anti-Hero. 
• Description: While Michelangelo is cracking wise about the problem at hand, a Raphael will always be first to say: "That's real cute and all, but we're kinda in some deep shit here." They deal strictly in harsh truths and have little patience for anything less. His use of the Sais (a pair of three-pronged daggers) in combat represents his up-close-and-personal approach to confronting adversity and a willingness get his hands dirty where others might hesitate. His bandana (being red) is universally understood as a symbol of passion and emotional intensity.
• Strengths: Raphael's fiery temper and perpetual pessimism hint at a passionate personal commitment to constant improvement. Their anger and negativity are merely the byproducts of a deeply emotional attachment to the group and it's goals. Their intense focus and determination, unrivaled by the other types, manifests as antagonistic skepticism. In the planning stages, a Raphael takes it upon themselves to play devil's advocate and find flaws in everybody's ideas (including their own). Raphaels are never satisfied. They keep us striving for perfection, even if that means pissing everybody off. And when the shit hits the fan, a Raphael relishes the opportunity to throw themselves into said shit,  guns blazing.
• Weaknesses: Dealing with a Raphael is not only frustrating, but the value of their input is rarely apparent. The blazing passion and intensity that form the basis for their unique assets is largely internal and thus not always apparent. 99.9% of the time, they come across as buzz-killing Debbie-Downers. No matter what the group may accomplish, the Raphael always has a few "Yeah, but..." derisions to drag us back to earth. Their constant criticism may appear to be holier-than-thou proclamations of superiority, but are actually projections of a constant internal struggle between an insatiable need for improvement and a crippling self-doubt. The time and effort they put into second-guessing themselves in the interest of perfection is usually externalized as hostility and resentment for those who don't seem to be taking things as seriously. In their defeatist psyche, none of us are up to the task at hand (least of all, themselves).
• Analogous Characters: Wolverine ("X-Men"); Holden Caulfield ("The Catcher in the Rye"); John Bender ("The Breakfast Club"); John McClane ("Die Hard");  B.A. Baracus ("The A-Team"); Severus Snape ("Harry Potter"); etc.

The united, indomitable force.

And there you have it! The four personalities essential to achieving a unified force greater than the sum of it's parts; the archetypal models for the generation now facing adulthood. Look closely at your peers and the color of their metaphorical bandana will show through. While it may be easier to make friends with those who share your inner turtle, surrounding yourself with the other three can be infinitely more effective. If you can put your differences aside and learn to play off of each others strengths, you will find that the resulting collaborative energy can be applied to anything the group sets out to achieve. It's not always fun, but the eventual results will consistently prove fruitful for those willing to stick it out.

So, which Turtle are you? Who are the Michelangelos, Leonardos, Donatellos, and Raphaels in your life? How do you/can you apply this archetypal structure to your day-to-day? Is this just a bunch of drawn-out bullshit? Please continue the discussion and leave your comments below!

Humpday Horror with the Jolly Goblin: "Automaton Transfusion"

Automaton Transfusion (2006)

Starring: Garrett Jones, Juliette Reeves, William Howard Bowman

Directed by Steven C Miller

Low-budget movies are a bit of an anomaly to a critic.  Am I to judge a movie that was filmed in nine days for $30,000 in the same way that I would judge a big summer blockbuster?  If movies like The Evil Dead or the more recent Paranormal Activity have taught us anything, it's that you don't need a boatload of money to make a compelling piece of cinema.  Miller knows this, and set out to make a movie far bigger than his budget aloud.

The movie opens to introduce a pretty generic cast of characters, with the most interesting part being a couple that includes a popular girl named Jackie (Juliet Reeves) and punk rock dude named Chris (Garrett Jones).  Clearly, their groups of friends don't see eye to eye and that causes a bit of tension.  They end up going their separate ways for the day, with Jackie going to a big party and Chris going into the city to see a band.

Soon, they both come to discover that there are zombies afoot, and bloody carnage ensues.  Everything is set up for either Chris or Jackie to go on a mission to save the other, but this movie doesn't go with a plot quite that predictable.  Unfortunately, it doesn't really replace it with anything else.  The couple reunite fairly quickly and the movie just meanders for the remainder of the runtime.

The opening scenes remain my favorite part of the movie, despite the fact that when zombies occasionally show up, nobody seems to notice.  These opening scenes have something that no other part of the movie has, though.  They have a camera that actually sits still.  The "shaky cam" in this movie is offensively bad and only succeeded in pissing me off every time zombies came on screen.  This is especially a shame because the gore is the one highlight of the film.  There's a lot of it, and it's rather new and interesting in some cases.  I just wish we could actually see it.

The plot is loose at best, and the script is pretty atrocious.  Like I said, it meanders after the first act, and I can't honestly say I understand why the characters did any of what they did throughout the film.  On top of that, the editing is terrible to the point that I couldn't really understand what was going on at certain points.  It was like there was an extra part that they forgot to shoot, which, given how quickly this movie was shot, is very likely.

The acting isn't any better, and the characters come off about as flat and two-dimensional as you would expect in a low-budget splatter flick.  In fact, almost everything is about what you'd expect for a low-budget splatter flick, and that's the problem.  It's all so completely derivative that you will just end up with the feeling of, "been there, done that."  That's not to say that you can't do a plot that's been done before and make it work, because you can.  Dance of the Dead has an almost identical plot to this one on paper, but it has characters that are interesting, dialogue that's well-written, and they know how to keep the camera still occasionally.  There's nothing wrong with hitting all the traditional beats, but Automaton Transfusion hits them all off-tempo and out of tune.

Finally, the ending (or lack thereof).  Do you remember the ending of The Matrix Reloaded?  Do you remember how well it was received that the movie ended with a blatant, "to be continued?"  Well, because it worked so well in that movie, they decided that it would be the best ending for this one as well.

All in all, Miller succeeded in one thing and one thing only.  He did make a gory, action-packed zombie flick.  In some cases that might be enough to make up for the shallow, muddled plot and lack of interesting characters, but when you can't see the action because the cameraman is having a seizure, it's most definitely not.

1/5

The Jolly Goblin (aka Zak Greene) has more to
say about horror films than anyone I know.
And yes, it hurts to admit that.

Humpday Horror with the Jolly Goblin: "Hobo with a Shotgun"

Hobo With a Shotgun (2011)

Starring: Rutger Hauer, Molly Dunsworth, Gregory Smith, Brian Downey, Nick Bateman 

Directed by Jason Eisener

Back in 2007, Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino gave us Grindhouse, a tribute to the old cheap exploitation flicks that showed in the types of theaters after which the project took its' name.  I call it a project because it was much more than movie, it was an experience.  Grindhouse had two full feature-length films and a whole slew of fake trailers, including Jason Eisner's Hobo With a Shotgun.  Fortunately for us, much like Rodriguez's Machete, this has been turned into a full-length movie.

The film opens on our hero, the Hobo (Rutget Hauer), arriving at Hope Town (or as the graffiti on the sign tells us, Scum Town) via a freight train.  All he seems to want is to buy a lawnmower, but Scum Town is a nasty place, and that plan gets put on the back burner as he gets fed up and spends his saved up money on a shotgun instead, beginning a one-man war on crime.  However, the Drake (Brian Downey) runs all of the crime in Scum Town, so he doesn't take too kindly to some homeless man messing up his business, and he sends his two sons to track this hobo down, pry the shotgun from his hands, and end him.

Along with the Hobo, there is the hooker with a heart of gold, Abby (Molly Dunsworth) who rounds out the cast as the only other likable character in the movie, and one of the very few who have any development at all.  Every single other person is either a rapist, murderer, child molester, junkie, or sadist.  Plenty of canon fodder for the oncoming slaughter.  Good riddance.

This movie is depraved.  When there isn't a head being ripped off by razor wire, there's a pair of tits being sprayed with blood.  Not to say this is disturbing, however, because this movie quite obviously doesn't take itself all that seriously.  If you are a fan of the Troma catalogue (The Toxic Avenger, Terror Firmer, Poultrygeist) then you'll know exactly what to expect, but for those of you unfamiliar, I'd liken it to something similar to The Evil Dead 2.  It's so completely over-the-top in its' gore that it becomes comedic.  This isn't Hostel, and it's all the better for it.

To add to the Troma feel of the movie, the acting is incredibly awkward and just as over-the-top as the gore.  Some may be a bit off-put by this, but in this kind of movie, it didn't really bother me all that much.  Based on his previous efforts, we already know that Hauer is a great actor (Blade Runner, The Hitcher), so I can't help but believe that it was entirely intentional.  Then again, seeing anyone deliver the laughable dialogue in this movie with a straight face will only make it all the funnier anyway.

The splatstick gore and corny dialogue can get a little bit tiring, but fortunately, as soon as it starts to wear out its' welcome, we are introduced to The Plague, a couple of bulletproof, leather-clad robot knights who ride motorcycles and chop people up with ease.  They are absolutely ridiculous, and make everything else seem tame in comparison, yet when they arrive you know it's for one reason… to kick ass.  There are little hints here and there of a long elaborate backstory, but they never give one to us, which is a smart move.  Sometimes things are just cooler when they're left mysterious, and this is certainly one of those times.

While Hobo With a Shotgun isn't a movie for everyone, those of you out there who like this type of thing are going to love it.  The sheer amount of fun that this movie offers is more than enough to make up for any shortcomings it has.  Not to mention, Eisner managed to do something that Rodriguez and Tarantino both failed to do, and that's make an authentic feeling exploitation film.

Check it out.  It's playing in very few theaters, but it's available On Demand.

3.5/5

The Jolly Goblin (aka Zak Greene) is a Connecticut-based
artist/film enthusiast/ friendly bridge troll. He's awesome.

A Goodbye to Good Eats

Last week, it was announced that the Food Network series "Good Eats" will come to an end after nearly 13 years and 249 episodes. It is a show that will not only change the way you look at cooking television but the way you look at food. Period. Host/mastermind Alton Brown (aka the host of "Iron Chef America") forged a gold standard which nobody before or since has even come close to, using nothing but a superhuman enthusiasm for knowledge. For that alone, he deserves a statue in the nerd hall of fame.

Food Network is an odd thing. It began simply enough: professional chefs walking viewers through the steps of preparing an exquisite meal. Initially, this lead to a lot of unqualified people attempting grand culinary experiments at home. Suddenly, everybody with a kitchen fancied themselves a gourmet just because they sprinkled everything with goat cheese. A few thousand stove fires and dicing accidents later, a lot of us decided to leave the cooking to the pros. By the mid-late 1990s, Food Network wasn't so much teaching us to cook as it was providing pornographic gauntlets of temptation for budding fatsos.

And then in 1999, there came a man who had grown dissatisfied with the quality of American cooking shows and took it upon himself to create the solution. Alton Brown, with his horn-rimmed specs and creative flair for visual aides, used "Good Eats" to deconstruct the cooking process down to the underlying scientific principles. Each episode provides a comprehensive explanation of everything from thermodynamics to the chemistry of flavors, then uses that knowledge to help you make the best freakin' grilled cheese humanly possible. The secret ingredient is science, and it is delicious.

On May 11, 2011, Mr. Brown announced via Twitter that he would be ending production on "Good Eats" this year. And while I'm eager to see whatever he does next, I'm sad to see it go. Below are a few clips that best exemplify the show's playful enthusiasm and laymen-friendly teaching style. I dare you to not learn something.

Congratulations Nick & Maria!!!

When two nerds love each other very much, they gather their friends and family to witness them exchange power rings and pledge allegiance to each other's awesomeness. To watch two people totally geek-out over each other is a thing of immense beauty, with a hint of quirk.

On Saturday, May 14, 2011,  I was fortunate enough to be in attendance at such an event: the wedding of Nicholas and Maria Ludwig. It was a jubilant and touching occasion rife with high-fives, good vibes, and the tasteful application of Converse All-Stars.

But why post about it? Because aside from being (at the time of this writing) the first official "followers" of Nerdgasms & Geek Rage (GO LUDWIGS!), they are also passionate and intelligent individuals who are positively filthy with talent and creative energy. Over the years, I've been fortunate enough to spitball, workshop, and collaborate on various endeavors in music, film, comedy, and everything else with one or both of them. Eventually, some of our work may even see the light of day on this very blog.* Relevance attained!

But even more than that, they were both once seniors at Cheshire High School who were kind enough to tolerate an angry misguided 9th grader who had already worn out his welcome amongst most of his peers. Through their friendship they taught me to embrace the dork side and revel in the weird. As a freshman and sophomore, having the upperclassmen stamp of approval allowed me to discover and explore my unique nerdiness without the fear of being beaten up or outcast. They encouraged me to be me and let me know when I got carried away.

I'm sure it didn't seem like much to them, and that reading this may leave them puzzled or even mildly creeped-out. But their friendship has always meant a great deal to me, and I was truly honored to be at their wedding. And now that they are one, not even god can save us from the awesomeness they will unleash! CONGRATS, GUYS!!!

The happy couple and I visual recreating the history of our friendship.

*Currently putting the finishing touches on "Die Ralen Inter Silent", an avant-garde short spoof made by Maria, Nick, and myself based on another short film we were involved in. I'll be posting it here within the next couple weeks!