you are on my site.

welcome. have a look around.

if you don't know who I am, that's alright. I'm no one all that important, only an artist. I use this website for the most part to express my thoughts, in what some apparently perceive to be an irritating manner. so feel free to leave anytime you like.

last updated: 09/08/2160 20:59:03 AEST

..9 august 2160..

the last thing I want to do is explain what my movies are about. if you so desperately want to know, I'd advise you to go watch them and decide for yourself. however, there's a misconception I've seen a few times about my work that is so annoying I can't let it go unchallenged.

that is this: "sloane's work aims to emulate the trashest of the trash films." however it's put. showing the lowest point in film history, calquing most exploitative and detestable aspects of cinema, etc and so forth. some variation on the sentiment that the films I make are intended not only to be bad but specifically to emulate the worst films that ever existed and were popular at any point in time. obviously this is false, but I don't object to my work being called "bad on purpose" nearly as much as I object to my inspirations being called the worst trash ever put to film.

if I was going to emulate the lowest of the low, I would not base my works on exploitation movies. I'd pull from the real bottom of the barrel—IP FILMS. those were far worse, far more insidious, and dare I say, far more exploitative. and this complete shit was practically all that got made for a few decades there. (the residents of those decades have my deepest sympathies.) but returning to my point: I wouldn't do this anyway. the fact is, IP films are not interesting. they are utterly devoid of both style and substance. they lack even basic entertainment value. that, along with the obvious capitalist consumerism, is what makes them the worst. they contain nothing real, powerful, or slightly amusing enough to be worth emulating. they are soulless. watching one is enough to leave a person depressed for days after. I should know.

the fact that so many people forget about that significant period of film history, and instead choose to call campy sex 'n' violence flicks "the lowest of the low", enrages me. that is all I have to say on that subject. for now, anyway.

..12 june 2160..

I'm 32. I'm not old, but I sure do feel like it. I can't remember the first time I felt old, because I've always felt old probably since I was able to understand spoken words.

call me what you like, a curmudgeon or an old soul—actually, not an old soul, that term bugs me. everyone's an old soul. look around you. nobody likes changes, especially not technological ones. I firmly believe we'd be living Corin Burlbasquet's utopian wet dream right now if only we weren't all so afraid of change. why do the 2110s look so familiar, huh? nothing really transforms, only evolves. minus, well, you know.

point is, we're all old souls-slash-curmudgeons because we all love to complain about technology. but I'm one who stands by my word. I don't just complain, I refuse to participate in what I think is absurd. I don't have a noat, only a liif. you may think "but Sloane, you're surely such a busy thing, you must need a noat!" to that I'd say: one, however busy you think I am, I'm only about half that busy; and two, no one really needs a noat. a liif does the trick as long as you have a dial at home. or if you don't. hey, live your life, mate.

this September I'll be 33, which feels like a significant birthday as it's when I'll be forced to stop telling myself that I'm really still in my late, late twenties because of course my thirties have barely even started yet. I'm hoping older me will take this news well when the day arrives.

..5 june 2160..

someone emailed me and asked if I was dead because I didn't update this site for ten days. wow. no, I'm not dead, I just have other things in my life besides this blog (although you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise, considering how often I used to post here). anyway, if I had died, you would have seen it in Videogrammar by now. an email was really unnecessary.

I can take time to enjoy my life like anyone else, can't I? and before anyone sends another email, I'll address now that I did turn off comments for a while. I got sick of them. as much as I appreciate the relative success of Massive Fright, it has brought some unwanted commenters here. whether they are acting as wannabe critics, starting arguments, or snidely insinuating I have exaggerated the amount of controversy generated by my art. now, what reason would I have to do a ridiculous thing like that?

and I am appreciative of the success, despite what people imply. criticism can be tiresome but it has its place. brings more eyes to my work and I reckon some of those eyes may end up actually, god forbid, liking what I do. if I've reached some people with Massive Fright, people who like the same kind of garbage that I do, I'm proud of that. but no amount of appreciating or pontificating is ever going to be enough when you're in the public eye, whether you're a massive celebrity or an independent filmmaker who can still usually escape being recognised in a public place.

even the tiniest drop of fame is too much, and I can appreciate success while still acknowledging that reality. so... don't ever make movies, kids. there are enough already. far too many, in fact.

..24 may 2160..

yet another derogatory and critical article has been written bearing my name. I say "bearing" because it isn't really "about" me. it's about a construction someone has made of me in their mind based on what they've seen of my films. typical.

the "journalists" of these "thinkpieces" know nothing about me, of course. it's almost hilarious how far they go to psychoanalyse. there are stacks of them by now, but this article in particular is one of the nastiest I've read yet. the author goes into the details of Massive Fright, "explaining" their significance and how they mean I'm not only the worst director, but the worst person, to ever live. as always, I'm unsure whether to take offence or be flattered. I won't say which one I eventually settled on.

(if you're a regular reader of this site, I hope you also know that you don't know me. you only know what I decide to write here. some may say it's contradictory, but it really isn't. writing a blog is, on a fundamental level, similar to filmmaking. both ways, you're crafting something deliberately. how often do I talk about my life, anyway, besides my cats or what movies I've been watching?)

..23 may 2160..

finally got some sleep after being awake for over three days. twelve glorious hours. I would've got more, but Amy woke me mewing. I can't be too angry, since she's so cute. anyway, my mood was unusually good. I even took her and Varla for a walk because the weather was nice.

but—can you believe it—this cunt was out driving an antique OFFROAD MOTOR VEHICLE in the park. what the fuck is the PROBLEM of some people! those things belong in museums, not among the unsuspecting public. the noise scared Varla so much we had to go home early.

if one good thing came of this incident, it did get me to thinking about my favourite carsploitation films. (you might think all the car films I watch would prepare me for seeing motor vehicles in real life, but it may actually make things worse, considering how the cars in these films always seem to be maiming, killing, or otherwise bringing hell wherever they go... which is not too far from the truth of cars.)

this train of thought inevitably led to... a Death Race 2000/Death Racers double feature. damn, I love being rested and not currently working on a film. I can do double features in my own house any time I want.

they were both as good as ever. everyone knows Death Race 2000 is a grindhouse classic and anything I could say about it has already been said. but few people appreciate Death Racers, the mockbuster of the 2008 remake. sure, it's not actually anywhere near as good as its source, but its sheer unrepentant badness and avant-garde editing has been an inspiration to my work. it is so abrasive, so in-your-face, so aggressively terrible in a way that feels modern. full of fast cuts and eye-hurting "artistic" colour grading. and it has those Insane Clown Posse guys, whose place in the pop culture of their time I've repeatedly tried and failed to understand, but who I find entertaining anyway. (I can't recommend anyone actually watch it, though. it's awful. I have the worst taste. if you insist, do yourself a favour and look up a content warning.)

god, I hate cars almost as much as I love car films. carsploitation really proves that people then were more afraid of the violent power of their daily transportation than we give them credit for. but I don't care about the limp satire the death race offers... it's irrelevant to our modern age, and as charmingly dated as it is along with everything else, trashy violence and shock value schlock are much more fun.

..21 may 2160..

so, I bit the bullet and watched some of this & Then What show people are talking to death. and what do I think? hmm... wouldn't you like to know.

wouldn't I like to know, more like. I don't exactly know what to say about it. the concept is interesting. whether it's ethical is another question. and don't get me started on the whole omniscience controversy.

and as for the entertainment value, I don't think talk shows are my style. all it does is make me selfishly wish & hadn't retired from acting. they were so brilliant in Droneflesh. am I the only one who still loves that movie? whatever happened to Sector, anyway? he was a great creative vision for the 2 seconds or so he was on the scene.

..20 may 2160..

I often find myself idly wondering, "why is Timelinecollapsesploitation not a thing?" then it hits me that in this day and age, we have hardly anythingsploitation.

so it's lack of demand, evidently. but the thought does occur to me, and it leads me to imagine how the general public might respond to such a thing if it existed. surely there'd be outrage. most of the public has lost its taste for tastelessness, and that is a real shame. not that outrage would be entirely unwarranted in this case. if we're a century out and it's still not an approachable subject for exploitative filmmaking or comedy, it never will be. and even I can accept that, so don't expect me to go there.

maybe the closest we have now is regular old timesploitation? no one calls it that, but it seems like a thing you could say.