I've been reading as many of these boards as I can find and I sincerely appreciate everyone's thoughts on this. Needless to say making a film that includes yourself is a difficult and complicated task because it asks you to think of yourself as an objective character when clearly you have a vested interest in presenting your own perspective. Years ago I saw Ross McElwee's "Sherman's March" and began to think about the personal yet impersonal facets of making a film that includes yourself (not as an actor but as a real person). Much of the footage of me comes from public speaking I have done so in this sense the footage arrives in the film as it would naturally have even if I myself were uninvolved in the project.

Inevitably some people will ALWAYS think I'm out to exploit Columbine, make a name for myself, or some similarly undesirable accusation. This opinion is welcome and understandable. While I am mindful of these critics, I regard them as less important than making a truly engaging film - one that will stand on its own regardless of where the audience is coming from or who happened to make it. One of my chief goals is to make this film as anyone sitting in the editing room with the same footage might - paying attention not to the personalities but to the substance of the story. I've been making films in various capacities for about ten years now but have yet to work on a project that is this personal yet also so large in scope. Thus I am very wary of some of the pitfalls it could encounter and will work to avoid most of them. I will be screening this film to many people over the next six months to gather feedback and sculpt the best documentary I can.

From an editing standpoint, I've found that ironically I hesitate to include myself in the film unless necessary. Pragmatically speaking, given that I shot nearly 80% of the film myself, I'm simply NOT on camera in most of the footage. In January of this year I sent an early draft of my treatment to Ian Bogost for feedback and was advised to make sure this story didn't lose it's personal side - to make sure the purpose and intent of SCMRPG carried through the larger story that the media has so often told. After all, this isn't a cold examination of the issues of videogame violence as 'Moral Kombat' seems to be; this is a film about specific game developers, specific students at Dawson, and a single festival brought under controversy.

I encourage everyone to view the cast page here: http://www.playingcolumbine.com/cast.htm

I submit to you that if the goal were simply to aggrandize myself, I would have wasted thousands and thousands of dollars to interview all these other people. Furthermore I make NO CLAIM to an "objective" film; this film is going to make arguments and is going to include the opposing point of view (such as Mr. Thompson) but in the end I want to make a film that is supportive of the future of games as an artistic medium. Indeed that was the inspiration for taking up the camera in the first place.

Believe it or not, I originally had no intention of thrusting myself this far into the gaming debate. Maybe you'll point out that I was "asking for it" but I could never have engineered all that has transpired since I put SCMRPG online in April of 2005. What has unfolded since is a complex and interwoven story that has been on countless websites, in many magazines, and on several national television and radio programs. I believe I have every right to present this story in my own way, as well. After all, I was a filmmaker far before I ever installed RPG Maker.

Presently, I'm about to move away from Colorado to attend graduate school and work on my MFA so that I may eventually make natural history films - a lifelong dream of mine (I just got back from a wildlife shoot in Kenya). Once I'm done with "Playing Columbine" I will have presented my case to the world and the world is free to blog endlessly about how much of a moron, a genius, or a nobody I really am. I grew up playing videogames and they were an important part of my childhood. As such issues surrounding games in the aftermath of Columbine were very important to me. I see this documentary as my opportunity to present all the arguments I wished people would have made as videogames and rock music were being vilified for the shooting. And much like SCMRPG itself, I certainly won't force anyone to watch this film.

You could argue that I have a vested interest in defending the crediblity of this film since I'm in in, so yeah, whatever. I'll tell you what though: Doug Lowenstien, Hal Halpin, Jack Thompson, the guy who outed Danny, a bunch of game developers who are doing really interesting stuff (cough) - this movie is going to have some drama and a lot of substance.