Podcasts about dawn it

In this second conversation in this Mini Incubator Series, Dawn Delatte and Jordyn Bonds interview Ashley Sheble, the Founder of AvidFirst, about her experiences and progress in thoughtbot's Incubator Program, which aims to help founders like Ashley turn an idea into a viable product. The trio talks about Ashley's experiences and progress in the program. She emphasizes the significance of user research and interviews in shaping product strategy and understanding customer needs. She also highlights the need to narrow their focus to specific customer segments to build a product that resonates with a particular group. Additionally, they discuss the complexities of the FinTech industry and how regulatory considerations are an integral part of their product development process. As they gain more insights, they are transitioning into the prototyping and testing phase to validate their product concepts and messaging. Just catching up? Listen to Part I (https://www.giantrobots.fm/498) of the Mini Incubator Series. Follow Ashley Sheble on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashley-sheble/). Follow thoughtbot on X (https://twitter.com/thoughtbot) or LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/150727/). Become a Sponsor (https://thoughtbot.com/sponsorship) of Giant Robots! Transcript: DAWN: Hello, everyone. I'm Dawn Delatte. I am a Managing Director here at thoughtbot. And I'm filling in for Lindsey. And I'm super excited to be here and chat with Ashley and Jordyn about how the incubator is going so far. If you are tuning in, you're probably familiar with thoughtbot, but just in case you're not, we are a product design and development consultancy who works with people and products across the entire product lifecycle to make your team and product a success. We are currently running our second incubator session. If you're not familiar with it, we've got a ton of content from our first session that you can check out, or you can follow along in this one. But our incubator program is an eight-week program that we take a founder through to validate or invalidate their new product ideas through lots of market research, customer discovery, interviews, and such. And then, we come out with a product plan that helps set them on the right path forward. In the last update, we introduced our incubator founder, who's with us again today. In this session, we'll be talking with Ashley and Jordyn about digging deep into research and plenty of interviews and, you know, what they're learning and what the process is like so far. So, I'm excited to get started. How about y'all kick us off with some introductions? Jordyn? JORDYN: I'm Jordyn Bonds. I'm the Director of Product Strategy at thoughtbot on Dawn's team, the Ignite team at thoughtbot. I'm a two-time startup founder myself. I've worked with a couple of other early-stage startups, so all about the zero-to-one startup journey over here. ASHLEY: And I'm Ashley Sheble. I am the Founder of AvidFirst, and I am the second incubator founder. And working with Jordyn and team and thoughtbot to really accelerate the mission of our company, which is focused on simplifying college saving and spending. DAWN: Ashley, why don't you recap a little bit for us what's happened since the last time? ASHLEY: Yeah, I'd love to. So, the past three weeks have been really just getting into the weeds on user interviews, talking with different stakeholders as it relates to the problem we're looking to solve. And what we're finding are some key themes. And so, really trying to aggregate the data, focus in on those key themes, and find out where we can really pull at some of those strings to start creating some solutions that are meaningful and specific. One of the primary trends that we're seeing is just lack of awareness around some of the resources and tools available to people as it relates to saving for college; 529s, for example, are a really great tool. And most people, 70%, aren't aware of them. And so, if you've never heard of them, you're in great company. So, just really looking at high-level trends, getting more specific on even more granular trends, and trying to pull everything together and create a product that's meaningful. And again, it circles back to our overarching mission of simplifying college saving and spending. DAWN: Nice. Is there something that has come up either in the process or, you know, from interviews that has been your big sort of aha or eureka moment? ASHLEY: I feel like there's an aha moment pretty much every day. And sometimes the aha moments are like, oh my gosh, this is amazing. We're really on to something. And then, sometimes the aha moments are like, wow, we're really off course, and we have no idea what this means and what do we do with it. And so, it's kind of this up-and-down experience, like we talked about last time we chatted. But it is exciting at the same time because no matter what aha moment, all of it means something. And it helps us make forward progress in the right direction versus making forward progress and then hitting a roadblock and realizing, okay, that's as far as we can go, and now we have to start all over. The team has been really good about helping me make sense of some of these findings that we are uncovering and piecing together some solutions that really address some of these aha moments, both shocking and positive. DAWN: It's really great to hear you articulate that from a founder perspective and someone who, you know, isn't doing this sort of day-to-day product and development thing because, you know, that's a really common experience for us is hearing what's going well and what's not going well and sort of pivoting. But yeah, it's good to hear that directly from you. So, y'all have been doing a ton of research and a ton of talking to people. Jordyn, tell us how you feel about user research. I know that term, in particular, has some interesting [chuckles] connotations, but dig into that. JORDYN: Yeah. Well, we kind of talked about this a little bit this week, and I think research is really broad and vague. And so, just talking about research often doesn't feel super sort of actionable to people. User research is really about once you have a product and market and you have users, how they're using your product or not using it, right? So that's user research. But I find that people often talk about this sort of higher-level strategic research that we're engaged in right now using the same term. And it leads people astray because they think that you need a prototype or you need an app to be able to do user research, which you do. But that's not really the kind of research that we're engaged in yet. Right now, we're doing customer discovery. And that involves researching and interviewing a ton of different personas, some of whom might end up being our customers, some of whom are interested stakeholders or partners. It's a really wide-ranging kind of cast of characters. And the truth is, we don't know who these people are to us yet, right? So, it's really just sort of interviewing [laughs]. It's a hard thing to kind of characterize. I would love to hear, Ashley, like, how you're finding it. But, like, from where I sit, it really isn't about walking people through an interface yet. It's way more just asking folks about their life and their work and how they're doing things now, I think, is a really critical component. Like what you're trying to do with these interviews is find out what are the true pain points that people have, not what they think you want to hear, but what the pain points are that they already have and that they are already trying to solve in certain ways and how they're solving them. And it requires a lot of just high-level questions and then closing your mouth and listening. But it's a very different thing, I think, than user research. But often, in product land, we kind of just use user research as this blanket term, but it really is a bunch of different kinds of things. ASHLEY: Yeah, I would add to what Jordyn is saying, and the use of research, it's really interesting to just hear people's experience and their own background. And we always try to preface, like, there is no right or wrong answer. We just want to hear about the way you're thinking about something or the way you're currently doing something, not how you hypothetically would do something. Because, I don't know, think about your own life, and you think about the way you would do something. It's probably about ten times better than the way you actually do something. When I get asked like, "Well, how many times a day do you set time to just decompress?" In my mind, I'm like, "Oh, probably, like, five times a day." When in reality, that's never. It's a never. So, if somebody were, like, you know, asking me for user research, you know, "Would you use this thing to decompress?" I'd be like, "Sure." But I wouldn't. I would not use it because I just don't make the time for something like that. So, the point is, is not asking people hypothetically how they would do something but how they're actually doing something now and then using that insight to build around. And then, beyond just that customer journey, the stakeholder journey. And when you think about building a solution, there are more people involved than just the end user. There are so many different parties that play into a certain product, especially as you think about FinTech or you think about a large segment like the education segment. There are a lot of players, and you have to look at the way each player is looking at a problem and understand how those all tie together. And sometimes that's super obvious, and sometimes it's not obvious at all. And so, thankfully, having a team that has a different lens in the way we're interpreting data allows us to get to a solution faster. DAWN: Yeah, I like that. Again, it's great to hear you articulating that. And I think we have this old article about not using terms like user research. I think it focuses a little bit more on user testing because that implies the idea of testing a user. But we're not testing people; we're testing our concepts. I think that we use the word usability test as a way to sort of delineate a little bit better. Here's the purpose of this test. We're actually testing the product versus, you know, having a conversation. When you throw in words like interview or even customer, customer could be presumptive in some ways. But it's difficult to sort of tell people what you're doing when you're like, I'm just having a lot of conversations this week [laughs], just meeting, meeting a lot of people and listening. Meeting and listening, I guess, is the activity [laughs]. So, why is that stuff important? And can there be too much of it? What is this process like, and why are y'all doing it? JORDYN: It's so funny to have internalized the sort of value of doing this kind of work so thoroughly that sometimes I even have...I'm like, how else do you know what's going on out there? I mean, that's ultimately the purpose of it is that you really don't know how people are living and working until you ask them or, even better, watch them live and work if you can. And what's really critical is that that changes over time. We're all constantly changing our behavior in response to new trends, new tools we might adopt, right? And the research at this level, this high level of, like, how are you living and working, really can never end for that reason, right? Like, the classic example in sort of software product land is when Netflix really started to invest in online streaming and gradually sunset its DVD-by-mail service. And they did it right at the peak of that service. And so, people were like, this is really wild. Why are they doing this? This is so successful. Why would they, like, stop doing this thing that's really successful? But they had been talking to their customers, their end users. They had been, as you said, Dawn, more than talking to them, listening to them. And they were looking at the trends. And they were like, there's no future in this. There's a future in online streaming, and we need to get ahead of that future. And we need to dominate that opportunity because we're in a position to do so. And it takes a lot of listening, synthesizing, and then risk-taking. But it doesn't feel like a risk when you've been listening to your customers, I guess, is, like, why this research is so important. When you know something about the market because there is no daylight between you and how folks are living and what they're doing out there, it doesn't feel very risky. You have, like, complete certainty about what's happening out there because you know. Because you're talking to people. You have relationships with them. It's not merely about some...and when we say research, I don't want it to sound, like, sort of cold and, like, purely numbers-driven. This is, like, we're having warm, engaging, you know, human conversations with human beings, like, all day, every day. But because of that, we have a really good sense of what's going on out there. And the decisions we make, they feel inevitable or something. You start to see an opportunity out there that just feels obvious. And it's a funny thing to watch that kind of once everybody on the team is aligned around that reality that we're hearing and the sort of inevitability of, like, what you need. You start to get kind of panicked because you're like, who else is seeing this? This is so obvious to us. And you start to kind of be like, who else is it obvious to? But, you know, sadly, I don't know what the right word is here, but, like, it's hard work. This work of listening it is not very scalable work. You can do some things to operationalize it for sure, but it takes time to engage with humans, to synthesize what you've heard, to share it with your team, to stay on the same page about it. It's not super scalable work, straight up. But it is the most valuable work that you could possibly be doing. So, it's okay that it's not scalable. But yeah, you start to identify these real market insights. And then you kind of have this minute of, like, who else is seeing this? Because this looks really clear to us, right? [laughs] ASHLEY: And it's interesting because the last time we chatted here a couple of weeks ago, Lindsey was like, "I'm sure you'll be in a different spot next week. And, you know, you'll be thinking about something different than you are right now." And, in my head, I was like, probably not. I've done a lot of research. It'll probably be the same. And she was right. It's very different from where we were a couple of weeks ago, and the way we're thinking about taking a certain path and circling back to having these conversations that are so critical and really shape the way you're thinking about problems from so many different directions. And so, I thought that was funny that she was right. DAWN: Lindsey is always right. JORDYN: Another ingredient here that I think is really important that becomes clear when you start doing this work but is a hard thing to describe...and I would kind of love to hear how Ashley has been thinking about this. But if you're not hearing a pattern, if you're out there doing the interviewing and it's just a million different descriptions of reality, that is the surest sign that you are not focused on a small enough addressable group of people. You haven't narrowed into a group of people who are the same. And that's really the only way to build a product is to find a group of people who are the same. Make something for them that they love, and then think about where you can go from there. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can't please all the people at once, right? You're not going to be able to build a product that does that. And I would say, like, even later, you're not, you know, there's like...it just...it totally dilutes your focus. So, if you are out there doing a bunch of interviewing, a bunch of research, and you're just hearing a bunch of different voices, and it sounds like there's no signal there, it's just that you haven't sufficiently narrowed. So, one of the things we've been doing over the last couple of weeks is really trying to figure out who exactly has the pain point the most that is addressable, in the sense that it's a group of people who are similar, similar enough that we can build a product for them, that is going to work for all of them, and we can speak about it in a way that resonates for them? And it feels kind of impossible. And it also kind of feels, I don't know, a little bit like cheating. Like, it feels opposite of how I think founders think about making products. It's like, you want to build a thing that appeals to a lot of people. That's the drive, and that is absolutely the correct long-term drive, right? And it feels a little bit about sort of throw the game by choosing the people. It feels a little bit like you're like, well, of course, we can make something for a group of people if we've already pre-selected who they are, but it's like, yeah, exactly, that's a lot easier [laughs]. So, anyway, I didn't want to move on without sort of mentioning that that focus on a persona is really, really critical. Yes, we're doing a ton of research, or we're talking to a ton of different people. But in each of those categories, we're really trying to figure out who are addressable niches to start? ASHLEY: Yeah, and I think just getting as specific as possible, like Jordyn has said, has been...in my mind, I was thinking, we don't want to do that because then that really limits the amount of people we can help or the amount of people who could really benefit from a solution. But the good news is that once you solve a problem for a group of people, you can expand upon that and use the learnings from that solution and build something that can help more and more people. Because initially, I was like, "No, we don't want to do that. That's crazy." And she was right. DAWN: Jordyn is another one of those people that's always right [laughs]. Mostly right. Okay, so you're using what you're finding and hearing in these conversations to help guide, you know, your focus, but especially the space that y'all are operating in, FinTech, in particular, is a very complex space. And so, there's all sorts of other dynamics that have to come into your strategy and direction for the product. So, how are y'all navigating which dynamics to focus on outside of what you're discovering in these conversations, you know, whether that be infrastructure, regulatory things, like, you know, all of those complexities? ASHLEY: Yeah, I would say, right now, we're focusing on infrastructure. And that will inform the regulatory piece because there are so many nuances in the space as it relates to what type of product you're building for whom and where. And so, once that is more crystallized, the regulatory pieces can be plugged in. And you're right; it's super complex. And we want to make sure that we're being extremely compliant in every possible way. And so, that is highest priority. But I think, too, to try to boil the ocean with all the different nuances when maybe we're not as crystal clear on the infrastructure would be, I don't know, waste of time is the wrong phrase, but I think it would not be the most efficient use of time. I think getting that infrastructure and then nailing down the regulatory piece around the infrastructure is the best path that we're thinking. JORDYN: Yeah, I would just add here that this space is really complex. And the image that's kind of emerged most recently is of a giant puzzle we're putting together. There are a lot of pieces to this puzzle. It's not a thousand-piece puzzle, but it feels close [laughs]. But where we're starting out is where you start with any puzzle, which is the corner pieces. Like, what are the cornerstones of what we're doing? And figuring out what those are, always centered in what the value proposition is to customers, right? We need to know what their incentives are, what they need and want. That's the cornerstone. And then the feasibility and the infrastructure and, you know, regulatory are the blanks we fill in sort of from there. But without demand, none of that stuff would matter, right? It's a really hard thing because you start to think about...and we talk about this stuff all the time; I want to call out. It's not, like, we're strictly disciplined about we're not talking about that right now. Like, it comes up all the time. And we're sharing what we're learning and what we're seeing out there. We're looking at other products that have, you know, come onto the market recently, like, long-time players in the FinTech space. We're looking at all of that stuff, what they've done, what they've built, and how. We're thinking and talking about those things, but those decisions are not as important as making sure that we're as close to the customer as we can. That's the cornerstone pieces. Our customers and our partners, what are their motivations? What do they need? And then, once we have those corner pieces, then we fill in the puzzle. It's a big, complex puzzle, but you always have to start with something of value. If you're not bringing something of value to those folks, none of this other stuff really matters. DAWN: This is making me wonder if there are people out there who start their puzzles in the middle [laughs]. JORDYN: Guilty as charged [laughs]. DAWN: I meant more [inaudible 18:57]. I didn't mean metaphorically. We know that happens [laughter], unfortunately. JORDYN: Yes, no, I have absolutely been that person personally, you know, and it can be really distracting. The feasibility puzzle is very interesting, and it feels inevitable. Like, you're going to have to solve those problems. The problem is that you don't know which of them is going to matter right now. So, solving those problems now, like Ashley said, it's sort of a waste of time. You might end up solving them eventually, right? But you need to figure out the strategic path forward. And so, yeah, it's tough. I have an engineering background. I love solving complex puzzles. It's very tempting to go do that right now, and it feels much more tangible. Like, okay, we can go read the regulations. We can, like, look at what the infrastructure can do right now. Let's go solve that problem. But it would be just a colossal waste of time to go off in that direction right now. And we don't yet know fully what the value proposition is for whom. Like, that is the gem at the heart of this. I want to acknowledge that there are software efforts out there where the core value really is in a technical innovation. But I would still argue that the timing of bringing that technical innovation to market has as much to do with the market. We can see this over and over again with tons of technologies that were developed years or decades ago, but the market was not at a place where it needed that thing yet. And I really say needed; wanted is a different thing, right? You need to get to a place where the need is red hot. So, it's tough. The puzzle is fascinating. It's very distracting. We end up talking about it a lot, but we have to, like, bring ourselves back to the stakeholders. DAWN: To wrap things up, now that y'all have sort of deepened your understanding of things, what can you expect from the process going forward? What should we expect to sort of hear about next time we meet? JORDYN: We're actually already edging into this, and it's fun to watch how this process happens. When you start to hear something repeatable, you inevitably move into prototyping because you start to have a real shared understanding of what it is you need to put in front of people. We're just now, I would say, like, today, getting to the place where we're confident that we need to be testing messaging in particular. We've heard enough things that we need to start testing. Like, are we talking about the problems in the way that, you know, customers and our partners are talking about them? And we need to start trying that language out and then seeing how it resonates. That's the first piece of testing. We're already starting to conceive of workflows, like a prototype concept. It's so fascinating how, again, it's just always is a consequence of alignment and insight. You don't have to plan it. It emerges. As soon as you've started to put the pieces together a little bit, it's just very natural that, as a group, you start talking about how you might address this problem. You can tell when we've gotten there because we are aligned. In the same way that you're hearing the same thing from the customer, you start to see the same solution because it's clear what is needed. So, we're really moving into that. I want to make it clear, like, we don't stop interviewing. We don't stop talking to folks. But the sort of how specific we are with what we're asking and what we're showing people changes a little bit. That's really just starting to happen now. And I'm sure we'll have a lot more to say about that next time [laughs]. ASHLEY: Yeah, it's been a lot of fun. I'll say the value of the team is incredible. I can't stress that enough. Just this morning, I came to our morning sync and was like, "Listen, I learned this thing. I think it's over. We're done." And Jordyn and team were like, "No, this is actually a really great thing." And, you know, I'm just like, they're going to give up. They're going to shut it down. They're going to say, "No, we don't want to work with you." And they're like, "This is great news." And so, just the diversity of perspective is so different, and it's really great to have that. Because sometimes you can get focused on something in such a linear way that you're like, there's no way out of this thing. And you kind of miss the forest for the trees, so... JORDYN: I'm glad you brought that moment up. I was hoping we would talk about it during this live session because it was one of those moments where you were like, "I have some really bad news. I learned something. This is very sad." And you kind of talked about it a minute. I had a sort of unbridled glee [laughs]. I was like, oh, awesome, because we knew enough to know there was, like, we were missing something. There are a bunch of solutions in the market that look very different than what we were considering. And we were like, why? There's got to be a good reason. These people are not dumb. The market they're seeing is not different from the market we're seeing. So, like, why have they made a different call? And this piece of information, you know, Ashley showed up and was like, "Hey, I learned something, here it is." And I was like, "That's the piece of information. Great." So, now we actually can make a plan. We are still sort of convinced of the value that we were driving toward. And now we just have an added understanding of what it will take to get there. Good. Now we know what it'll take. It's really terrible to have an idea of the value prop that you want to pursue and not have any idea of how would it get there. But now we actually really did feel like a piece of a puzzle falling into place. And it was hilarious because Ashely was, like, very grim, and then I was like, "Oh," I was like, "Great." [laughs] ASHLEY: I was like -- JORDYN: Ashley was like, "Wait, what?" [laughs] It was very funny. ASHLEY: Yeah, it was great. I was like, I hope the rest of my day is this good, so... [laughter] DAWN: Well, I'm sorry to say, Ashley, but you can't get rid of us that easily [laughter]. Thank you both for chatting with me today. If y'all want to stay updated, you can follow along on LinkedIn or YouTube. We do these live streams every two weeks. We also share incubator news and updates on our blog, so thoughtbot.com/blog. You can always go to the incubator site to understand a little bit more about the program. That's thoughtbot.com/incubator. Send us your questions if you have them. And you can always attend the lives, comment on the threads, send us an email. We love to hear from y'all. Thank you for tuning in AD: Did you know thoughtbot has a referral program? If you introduce us to someone looking for a design or development partner, we will compensate you if they decide to work with us. More info on our website at tbot.io/referral. Or you can email us at referrals@thoughtbot.com with any questions. Special Guests: Ashley Sheble, Dawn Delatte, and Jordyn Bonds.

Dawn Menken, PhD. has been working in the field of psychology and facilitator development for over 35 years. She is an internationally respected educator, therapist, leadership coach, and conflict resolution specialist. She co-founded the Process Work Institute, a not-for-profit graduate school dedicated to the training of facilitators, where she co-created its Masters's programs and served as academic dean for more than a decade. She is the author of Facilitating a More Union: A Guide for Politicians and Leaders, which offers a radical and innovative approach to political discourse. She is also the author of the award-winning book Raising Parents Raising Kids: Hands-on Wisdom for the Next Generation. In all of her endeavors, she is moved to improve social discourse and inspire more meaningful civic engagement. Join Traci and Dawn as they explore the foundations of process work and how it can help us shift out of polarization.  Dawn reads the most beautiful speech she would give to the Charlottesville rioters. In this speech she overcomes her terror as a Jewish woman and models how we all can confront our addiction to “other” by speaking both ferociously and compassionately.   Episode Timeline [00:09] Intro  [0:58] Meet Dawn [4:19] Professor Ben Thompson introduces Dawn to Arnold Mindell's work during a class on the books of Carlos Castaneda about the Yaqui Mexican Indian Sorcerer, Don Juan Matus [9:29] What is the Dreambody? [11:47] Working On Body Symptoms [17:25] Norms or how we “should” be and busting out of stereotypes [21:11] The embodied unconscious [25:14] Otherizing and polarizing as a global human tendency [31:56] Dawn's speech to the white nationalists in Charlottesville [36:09] Breaking our own addiction to othering people [43:32] Outro Resources Mentioned Facilitating a More Perfect Union (Book) Raising Parents Raising Kids (Book) The Process Work Institute   Standout Quotes “...it's more about trying to explore what is emergent and trying to happen in you.” (Dawn) “I want to add the idea that we don't just have a platform and advocate for our one-sided views, but the facilitator or the leader must position herself also as a facilitator because you're not just leading one section of the world. We have to find a way to get along and to facilitate dialog.” (Dawn) “It's about the human tendency to otherize someone.” (Dawn) “This whole idea of otherizing is about how we also, as individuals, marginalize different parts of ourselves. Wholeness is really about connecting and getting on with that with which we marginalize internally, in our relationships, and in the world at large. (Dawn) “With all my years on this planet Earth, I am more interested in my larger goals of democracy and people getting along.” (Dawn) “...how to reach out to a side that you feel is so repulsive to you, and at the same time, take a stand. How to do both at the same time.” (Dawn) “I want to tell those protesters that deep down you have more in common with those whom you battle. You're looking for your place, that precious feeling of belonging and pride. (Dawn) It is the deepest human longing for all people who risk everything and flee violent circumstances to reside in these United States of America. There is room enough for all of us. (Dawn) We all need to feel our pride and sense of home without denigrating others. It is the only way forward. Feel pride in your vision to live in a country that insists on freedom and belonging for all people. (Dawn) Being one-sided is very addictive. If you have a humanistic view, if you have a view of people and community, the deepest religions talk about that. If you want to connect, if you want to understand and get along, then you have to go beyond your one-sided position. (Dawn)   Connect: Find | Sidewalk Talk  At sidewalk-talk.org On Instagram: @sidewalktalkorg On Twitter: @sidewalktalkorg   Find | Traci Ruble At Traciruble.com On Instagram: @TraciRubleMFT On Twitter: @TraciRubleMFT On Facebook: @TraciRubleMFT   Find | Dr. Dawn Menken At www.dawnmenken.com On Instagram: @processworkinstitute   SUBSCRIBE TO THIS PODCAST On Apple Podcasts On Google Podcasts On Spotify On YouTube

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with Dawn Brodey and Brian Forrest, talking about the various film versions of “Frankenstein” and “Dracula.”Dawn gave me 4.5 films to revisit: The 1931 version of Frankenstein, Frankenweenie (the feature and the short), Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and Young Frankenstein.Meanwhile, Brian assigned me the original Nosferatu, the 1931 Dracula, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, Horror of Dracula, Dracula in Istanbul and Bram Stoker's Dracula. LINKSDawn's podcast (HILF): http://dawnbrodey.com/ - showsBrian's Blog and Vlog, Toothpickings: https://toothpickings.medium.com/ A Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Frankenstein (1931) Trailer: https://youtu.be/BN8K-4osNb0Frankenweenie Trailer: https://youtu.be/29vIJQohUWEMary Shelley's Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/GFaY7r73BIsYoung Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/mOPTriLG5cUNosferatu (Complete Film): https://youtu.be/dCT1YUtNOA8Dracula (1931) Trailer: https://youtu.be/VoaMw91MC9kAbbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/j6l8auIACycHorror of Dracula (Trailer): https://youtu.be/ZTbY0BgIRMkBram Stoker's Dracula (Trailer): https://youtu.be/fgFPIh5mvNcDracula In Istanbul: https://youtu.be/G7tAWcm3EX0Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Eli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastDawn and Brian TRANSCRIPT John: [00:00:00] Before we dive into the assignment you gave me—which was to watch stuff I hadn't seen and also rewatch stuff I had seen to get a better idea of who's done a good job of adapting these books—let's just jump in and talk a little bit about your area of expertise and why you have it. So, I'm going to start with you, Brian. I was very surprised after working with you a while to find out that you had a whole vampire subset in your life. Brian: A problem, you can call it a problem. It's fine. John: Okay. What is the problem and where did it come from? Brian: I was just vaguely interested in vampires for a while. When I was in my screenwriting days, someone had encouraged me to do a feature length comedy about vampires, and that led me to do a lot of reading. And then I just kind of put it aside for a while. And then I was, I had just finished a documentary for Committee Films and they said, do you have any other pitches? And I thought, and I said, you know, there's still people who believe in vampires even today, that could be really interesting. And I put together a pitch package. Then, the guy in charge of development said, [00:01:00]this is what we need to be doing. And then it stalled out. Nothing ever happened with it. And I said, what the hell. I could do this on my own. I could fly around and interview these people. And I did, I spent a couple years interviewing academics and some writers. And along the way, I started finding all these very intriguing moments in the history of either vampire lore or fiction or even just people who consider themselves vampires today. And all these things would connect to each other. It was a lattice work of vampires going back hundreds of years. It didn't fit the documentary, unfortunately, but I found it way too interesting. And I said, I need some kind of outlet for this. And so I started writing about it on Tooth Pickings. And that eventually put me in touch with people who were more scholarly, and it opened up a lot more conversations. And now I can't get out. I'm trapped. John: Well, the first sign is recognizing there's a problem. [00:02:00] Okay. Now, Dawn, you had a different entryway into Frankenstein. Dawn: Yeah, well, I was a theater major and a history minor at the University of Minnesota. Go Gophers. And, this was in the late nineties, early two thousands, when there were still a lot of jobs for people who had degrees and things like this. Or at least there was a theory that this was a reasonable thing to get educated in. And then I graduated in 2001, which was months after 9/11, when all those jobs went away. And so, I had this education so specific and what was I gonna do? And gratefully the Twin Cities is a great place for finding that kind of stuff. And one of my very first jobs out of college was at the Bakkan museum. So, the Bakkan museum was founded by Earl Bakkan, who is the inventor of the battery-operated pacemaker. And he has always, since childhood, been obsessed with the Frankenstein movie that came out in 1931. And he attributes [00:03:00]his great scientific invention and many others to a science fiction in general. And to the spark of the idea that comes from sources like this. So, when he opened the museum, he insisted that there'd be a grand Frankenstein exhibit. And that means going back to the book, and that meant going back to the author, Mary Shelley, who wrote the novel Frankenstein, she started writing it when she was 16.And so, I was hired because—boom, look at me—my degree is suddenly colliding, right? So, I was hired by the Bakkan museum to create a one-woman show about the life of Mary Shelley, where I would play Mary Shelley and would perform it within the museum and elsewhere. And through the course of that research, I read the novel for the second time, but then I read it for my third, fourth, fifth onwards and upwards. Because the show was about 45 minutes long, I referenced, you know, the novel, the books, the popular culture, the science behind it. And the deep dive just never stopped. And so long after I was required to do the research and the show was done and up, I just kept reading. [00:04:00] And it gave me the opportunity to meet experts in this field and the peripheral field, as I would sort of travel with this show and be an ambassador for the museum and stuff like that. And, yeah, it still curls my toes. John: All right, so with that background. I'm going to just be honest right here and say, I've read Dracula once, I've read Frankenstein once. So that's where I'm coming from, and both a while ago. I remember Frankenstein was a little tougher to get through. Dracula had a bit more of an adventure feel to it, but something I don't think has really been captured particularly well in all the movies. But they both have lasted and lasted and lasted.Why do you think those books are still, those ideas are still as popular today? Dawn: I will say that I think Frankenstein, it depends on what you mean by the idea. Because on the surface, just the idea of bringing the dead to life, is, I mean, the Walking Dead franchise is right now one of the most popular franchises. I mean, I think we are really pivot on this idea. And I remember saying to a friend once that the part in [00:05:00]Revelation where the dead rise is like the only part of the Bible that I don't question. It's like, oh, the dead will get up. You know, we always just seem to be real sure that at some damned point, they're getting up. And so I think that that is part of why that it sticks in our brains. But then the story around Frankenstein—especially as it was written in 1818—has so many universal and timeless themes, like ambition and what is right and wrong. And the question that Jurassic Park posed in 1995 and continues to—1993 around there—and continues to pose, which is: just because science is capable of doing something, should it do something? And how do we define progress? Surely the very idea of being able to beat death and not die seems to be kind of the ultimate goal. And here is someone saying, okay, so let's just say, yeah. We beat death and everyone goes, oh shit, that'd be terrible. [00:06:00] You know? And then also, I always love the idea of the creature, the monster, Frankenstein's creature himself, who has a lot of characteristics with which people have identified throughout history. Some people say, for example, that Mary Shelley's whole purpose for writing Frankenstein was a question of: didn't God do this to us, make us these ugly creatures that are imperfect and bumbling around and horrifying? And then once he realized that we weren't perfect, he fled from us in fear or fled. He just keeps going and every generation has a new media that tells the story a little bit better, a little bit different, and yeah, there we are. John: I will say that for me, the most memorable part of the book was the section where the monster is the narrator and is learning. And I think with the exception of Kenneth Branagh's film, it it's something that isn't really touched on that much. There's a little bit in Bride of Frankenstein, of him going around and learning stuff. But the sort of moral questions that he [00:07:00] raises as he's learning—what it is to be human—are very interesting in the book. And I wish they were in more of the movies, but they're not. So, Brian on Dracula, again, we have dead coming to life. Why do we love that so much? Brian: Well, it's one of the questions that made me want to make a film about it myself: why has the vampire been so fascinating for hundreds of years? Why does it keep coming back? You know, it ebbs and flows in popularity, but it never leaves. And it keeps seeming to have Renaissance after Renaissance. Dracula specifically, I think one of the interesting things about that novel is how many different lenses you can look at it through and not be wrong.People have looked at it through the lens of, is this thing an imperialist story? Is it an anti-imperialist story? Is it a feminist story? Is it an anti-feminist story? And you can find support for any of those views reading Dracula. And I think that some of it might be accidental; there's times where Dracula is catching up to whatever the cultural zeitgeist [00:08:00] is right now. And we look at Dracula and we say, oh, he was thinking about this back then. Or maybe Bram Stoker was just very confused and he had a lot of different ideas. John: All right, let's explore that a little deeper. You each gave me an assignment of some movies to watch or to re-watch that you felt were worth talking about, in relation to your subject of Frankenstein or Dracula. I'm going to start with Frankenweenie, just because I had not seen it. And in going through it, I was reminded—of course, as one would be—of watching Frankenweenie, I was reminded of Love, Actually. Because I came to the realization after years of Love, Actually being around that it—Love, Actually—is not a romantic comedy. It is all romantic comedies, all put into one movie. And Frankenweenie is all horror films. Condensed, beautifully and cleverly into one very tasty souffle. [Frankenweenie Soundbite] John: I stopped at a certain point making note of the references to other horror films. Just because there are so many of them. But the idea that it references everything from Bride of Frankenstein to Gremlins. They do a rat transformation that's right out of American Werewolf in London. The fact that they have a science teacher played by Martin Landau doing the voice he did as Bela [00:10:00] Lugosi in Ed Wood. I mean, it's a really good story that they just layered and layered and layered and layered. What was it about that movie that so captivated you? Dawn: Well, so much of what you just said. And also it seems to me the epitome of the accessibility of the story of Frankenstein. The idea that if anyone can think of any moment in which if I could bring someone back to life. But what I love about it too, is that the novel Frankenstein that is not Victor Frankenstein's motivation. It generally tends to be the motivation of almost every character, including the Kenneth Branagh character--at some point, he, when Elizabeth dies, his wife dies for the second time, he says, yes, I'm going to try to bring her back. But it is so not the motivation of the scientist in the book. It is just ambition. He just wants to do something no one else has done. And lots of people die around him and he really never, ever says to himself at any point in the novel, I wish I could bring them back, I'm going to bring them back. That's never, that's never part of it. He just wants to be impressive. And so, I love [00:11:00] that it starts with that pure motivation of wanting to bring the dead to life; just wanting to bring your dog back, so that it's so accessible for everyone watching it. Who wouldn't wanna try this? But then, even in that scene with the teacher, when he shows the frog. And he's demonstrating that if you touch a dead frog with electricity, its legs shoot up, which give the kid the first idea of bringing his dog back. Which is like a deep cut in, in the sense that that's nothing -- Mary Shelley herself and her friends were watching experiments exactly like that before she wrote the book: galvanism and animal magnetism were these really popular public demonstrations happening in London and elsewhere where they would do just that. But because electricity itself was so new, I mean, it blew people's hair back you know, that these dead frogs were flopping around. It was the craziest thing. And a lot of them were thinking to themselves, surely it is only a matter of time before we can, we're gonna have our dead walking around all the time. So, it was so circulating and so forward. [00:12:00] So it's not just movie references and it's not just Frankenstein references. That movie really includes source deep source references for how Frankenstein came to be. And I just love it. John: Which brings me to Frankenstein, the 1931 version, in which Colin Clive has a similar point of view to what you were talking about from the book. He just wants, you know, he wants to be God. [Frankenstein soundbite] John: What I was most impressed with about that movie or a couple things was: it starts, it's like, boom. We're in it. First scene. There there's no preamble. There's no going to college. There's no talking about it, right? It's like, they're starting in the middle of act two. And I think a lot of what we think of when it comes to Frankenstein comes from that movie, [00:13:00] that the stuff that James Whale and his cinematographer came up with and the way they made things look, and that's sort of what people think of when they think of Frankenstein. Now, as you look back on that movie, what are your thoughts on the, what we'll call the original Frankenstein? Dawn: Yeah. Well, I love it. You'll find with me and Frankenstein that I'm not a purist. Like I love everything. Like I have no boundaries. I think this is great. One of the things that 1931 movie did was answer—because it had to, anytime you take a novel and make it a movie, you take a literary medium and make it a visual medium, there's obviously going to be things that you just have to interpret that the author left for you to make for yourself individual. And in this instance, that individual is the cinematographer. So, we're gonna get their take on this. And one of the real ambiguous things that Mary Shelley leaves for you in the novel is the spark of life. What is the spark of life? She does not in any [00:14:00]detail describe lightning or static or any of the recognizable or, or future developments of how electricity would've been. Brian: I was shocked when I first read that book and saw how little space was devoted to that, that lab scene. It's blink of an eye and it's over. Dawn: “I gathered the instruments of life around me that I may infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my.” Period. I just, what I love is what I love about film in general is that they went, oh, spark being all right, girl, it's a dark and stormy night and you know, and there's chains and there's bubblers and there's a thing. And the sky opens. I mean, God bless you, like way to just take that thought. Make it vivid, make it, build a set, make us believe it. And it's so, so pervasive that in Frankenweinie, you know, which of course is about Frankensein. [00:15:00] Like that is one that they do: he's got the white robe that ties in the back and the gloves. And in Young Frankenstein, it's the, you know, that lab scene. And so I love that. And the other thing that they had to do was describe the look of the creature, make the creature—Frankenstein's monster himself—look so like something. Because she, similarly in the novel, says that he is taller than a regular man, has dark hair and yellow watery eyes. That's all we know about what the Frankenstein looks like. And so, in 1931, Boris Karloff with the bolts. And it's black and white, remember, we don't think his skin is green. That he turned green at some point is kind of exciting, but of course he was just gray, but just dead flesh, you know, rotten, dead walking flesh is what's frightening. And, I just thought that the movie did that so well, John: I think the makeup was kind of a green/gray, and that when color photos came out of it, that's why someone went, oh, [00:16:00] it's green, but it wasn't green. Brian: I thought I saw a museum piece of, you know, an actual makeup bit that Jack Pierce did and I thought it was greenish. Dawn: Yeah. Greenish/gray. I think, yeah, the rots, just kind of trying to capture the sort of rotten flesh. Brian: It's just like the bride's hair was red. Dawn: That's right. That's right. My day job here in Los Angeles is as a street improviser at Universal Studios, Hollywood. And two of their most treasured characters of course are Frankenstein and Dracula. So, while most people might separate them, John, they are usually arm and arm where I work every day. And the bride has recently come back to the theme park as a walking character, and they gave her red hair. We don't mess around. John: That's excellent. But you mentioned Dracula, let's jump into the 1931 Dracula. There's a connection point between the two that I want to mention, which is the amazing Dwight Frye, who is Fritz, I believe in Frankenstein. And I'm not the first one to mention his naturalistic [00:17:00] acting kind of putting him above everybody else in that movie. Famously, when he's running up the stairs, stopping to pull his socks up at one point. He's just really, really good in that. And then you see him in Dracula as the, essentially the Harker character. I think he was called Harker -- Brian: Yeah. Well, he's Renfield in Dracula. They merged those two characters. I thought it was a smart move for a first attempt at the film. Yeah. And Dwight Frye, he's in a lot of other Universal horrors, too. Dwight Frye often doesn't get the credit. He somehow was not the leading man he should have been. John: I don't know why that is. He turns up again as an assistant in Bride of Frankenstein. He's a towns person in Frankenstein meets the Wolfman. And then he tragically died on a bus ride to an auto parts job that he took because he wasn't getting any acting work, which was too bad. A really, really good actor. Brian: There is another intersection besides the fact that they were both produced by Junior. Lugosi was put into the [00:18:00] short, the trial film they shot for Frankenstein. I can't call it a short film, because it was never intended for release. But they shot a cinematic test reel and they had Lugosi play the monster, but he was under a sheet the whole time. I think he may have been able to pull the sheet off. It's a lost film. We don't know for sure. We just have kind of the recollections of a few crew people. John: I've never heard of that. I would love to see that. Brian: I would too. I think a lot of people would really love to see it, but it was as much a kind of a testing ground for Lugosi— whether they wanted him to be the monster—as it was for some of the techniques, the things they wanted to try in the film. And what I understand is the producer saw the test reel and they said, yes, we love this look, this is the look we want you to give us. And then it's whatever version of Lugosi not getting that part you want to believe: whether Lugosi turned it down or the producers didn't like him or something. But he ended up not taking that part. John: But he is of course always known as Dracula. So, what are your thoughts on their adaptation? Which [00:19:00]again is not the first adaptation but is the kind of first official? Brian: Yeah. The first to bear the name Dracula, although, well, I'll back up a second. Because some releases of Nosferatu called it Dracula. He would be named as Dracula in the subtitles, you know, because that's an easy thing to do in silent film, you can just swap that out however you want to. But yes, it's the first authorized official film adaptation. John: Well, let's back up to Nosferatu, just for a second. Am I wrong in remembering that the Bram Stoker estate—Mrs. Stoker—sued Nosferatu and asked that all prints be destroyed? And they were except one print remained somewhere? Brian: Close. That is the popular story that she sued Prana Films. She won the lawsuit. All films were set to be destroyed. Now there's a guy named Locke Heiss and a few others who've been doing some research on this. And they will tell you that there's no proof that a single print was ever destroyed. It's a more fun story to say that, you know, this one was snuck away and now we have the film. But there was no real enforcement mechanism for having all the theaters [00:20:00]destroy the film. Who was going to go around and check and see if they actually destroyed this film or not? Nobody, right? So maybe some people destroyed it. Maybe Prana Films destroyed their remaining copies. But the exhibitors kept all of theirs and there's different versions and different cuts that have been found. So, we know that some of these reels went out in different formats or with different subtitles or even different edits. And some of them have made their way back to us. John: There's some really iconic striking imagery in that movie. That haunts me still. Brian: What I always tell people is see the film with a good live accompaniment, because that still makes it hold up as a scary film. If you see a good orchestra playing something really intense when Orlok comes through that door. It feels scary. You can feel yourself being teleported back to 1922 and being one of those audience people seeing that and being struck by it. John: What do you think it would be like to have [00:21:00] seen that or Dawn to have seen the original Frankenstein? I can't really imagine, given all that we've seen in our lives. If you put yourself back into 1931, and Boris Karloff walks backwards into the lab. I would just love to know what that felt like the first time. Dawn: You know, what is so great is I was fortunate enough to know Earl Bakkan who saw the movie in the theater in Columbia Heights, Minnesota when he was 10 years old.And he went, he had to sneak in. People would run outta this, out of the theater, screaming. I mean, when they would do the close up of Frankenstein's Monster's face, you know, women would faint. And of course that was publicized and much circulated, but it was also true. People were freaking out. And for Earl Bakkan—this young kid—the fear was overwhelming, as you said. And also in this theater, I was lucky enough, I did my show in that theater for Earl and his friends on his 81st birthday. So, I got to hear a [00:22:00] lot of these stories. And they played the organ in the front of the curtain. Brian: Is this the Heights theater? Dawn: Yes, the Heights. Brian: Oh, that's an amazing space. Dawn: So, they played the organ in there and it was like, oh my God. And it was so overwhelming. So, I'm glad you asked that question because I was really fortunate to have a moment to be able to sort of immerse myself in that question: What would it have been like to be in this theater? And it was moving and it was scary, man. And yeah, to your point, Brian, the music and the score. I mean, it was overwhelming. Also, I think there's something that we still benefit from today, which is when people tell you going in this might be way too much for you, this might scare you to death. So just be super, super careful. And your heart's already, you know… John: And it does have that warning right at the beginning. Dawn: Yeah. Versus now when people sit you down, they're like, I'm not gonna be scared by this black and white movie from 1931. And then you find yourself shuffling out of the bathroom at top speed in the middle of the night. And you're like, well, look at that. It got me. Brian: That reminds me, there [00:23:00] was a deleted scene from the 1931 Dracula that was a holdover from the stage play. Van Helsing comes out and he breaks the fourth wall and he speaks directly to the audience. And he says something to the effect of—I'm very much paraphrasing—about how we hope you haven't been too frightened by what you've seen tonight, but just remember these things are real. And then black out. And they cut that because they were afraid that they were really going to freak out their audience. Dawn: It's like a war of the world's thing, man. It's oh, that's so great. I love that. [Dracula Soundbite] John: So, Brian, what is your assessment of the 1931 version? As a movie itself and as an adaptation of Stoker's work? Brian: The things they had to do to try to adapt it to film, which they borrowed a lot of that from the stage play. They used the stage play as their guide point, and I think they made the best choices they could have been expected to make. You know, there's a lot of things that get lost and that's unfortunate, but I think they did a decent job. I don't find the 1931 version scary. I like Bela Lugosi. I think he's a great Dracula. I think he set the standard. With the possible [00:25:00]exception of the scene where the brides are stalking Harker slash Renfield, I don't think the imagery is particularly frightening. The Spanish version, I think does a little bit better job. And you know the story with the Spanish version and the English version? Dawn: We actually talk about it on the back lot tour of Universal Studios. Because they shot on the same sets in some cases. Brian: Yeah. My understanding is that Dracula shot during the day, Spanish Dracula would shoot at night. So, they got to benefit maybe a little bit by seeing, okay, how is this gonna be shot? How did Todd Browning do it? Okay. We're gonna do it a little bit differently. It's a little bit of a cheat to say they move the camera. They do move the camera a lot more in the Spanish version, but the performances are a little bit different. I'm going to, I can't get her name out. The actress who plays the ingenue in the Spanish Dracula, I'm not going to try it, but you can see her kind of getting more and more crazed as time goes on and her head is more infected by Dracula. You see these push-ins that you don't see in the English version. There's blocking [00:26:00] that's different. I put together a short course where I was just talking about how they blocked the staircases scene. The welcome to my house, the walking through spider web. And how it's blocked very differently in the two versions. And what does that say? What are these two directors communicating differently to us? In one, Harker slash Renfield is next to Dracula. In one, he's trailing behind him. In one, we cut away from the spider web before he goes through. And in the other one, we see him wrestle with it. That's not really what you asked, John. Sorry, I got off on a tear there. John: I agree with you on all points on the differences between the two films. Although I do think that all the Transylvania stuff in the English version is terrific: With the coach and the brides. The Spanish version, the biggest problem I have is that their Dracula looks ridiculous. Brian: He's not Bela Lugosi. You're right. John: He looks like Steve Carell doing Dracula and there is no moment, literally no moment [00:27:00] where he is scary, whereas Lugosi is able to pull that off. Brian: There's a lot of people who have observed that the Spanish Dracula would be a superior film were it not for Bela Lugosi being such an amazing Dracula in the English version. John: He really, really nailed it. Brian: And since he learned his lines phonetically, he could have done the Spanish Dracula. Just write it out for him phonetically, because he didn't speak English very well. John: If we could just go back, you know, cause a lot of things in history we could change, but if we could just be at that meeting and go, Hey, why not have Bela do it? Okay. So then let's jump ahead, still in Dracula form, to Horror of Dracula. From 1958. With Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. [Soundbite from Horror of Dracula] Brian: For some people, Lee is the ultimate Dracula, and I think that's a generational thing. I think he's great. He's got the stage presence and I love Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. I don't like the film as a whole. It feels like I'm watching a play with a camera set back. It doesn't work for me the way it works for other people. That is personal taste. Don't come after me. John: It does, however, have one of the greatest, ‘Hey, we're gonna kill Dracula' scenes ever, with Peter Cushing running down the table and jumping up and pulling down the drapes and the sun. Brian: Oh, right. Interesting. Because in Dracula, the book, the sun is not deadly, remotely really. But that's [00:29:00]the influence of Nosferatu being pasted onto the Dracula cannon, that the sunlight is deadly to Dracula. Dawn: I remember having this fight very enthusiastically in the nineties when Bram Stoker's/Winona Ryder's Dracula came out and I was already sort of a literary nerd. And they were like, hey, they have a scene with him walking around during the day. And I was like, yeah, nerds. That's right. That's cuz vampires can walk around during the day.I was very already, like, you don't know anything, go back to history. Brian: And there's a seventies version where he's out on a cloudy day, but he is not hurt either. There suggestions in the book that he's more powerful at night. Dawn: He's a creature of the night. I always understood he had to wear sunglasses. He was sort of like a wolf. Like they show him as a wolf during the day; it can happen, but it's not great. Brian: I like the way they did it in the Gary Oldman version. He's suited up. He's got the sunglasses on. There's not a whole lot of skin exposed. But he's not [00:30:00] going to turn into smoke. John: Well, okay. Let's talk about that version and Kenneth Branagh's version of Frankenstein. Dawn: Ug. John: I'm not going to spoil anything here, when I say it doesn't sound like Dawn cared it. Dawn: You open this, you opened this can of worms. John, sit down for a second. Listen. He calls it: Mary Shelly's fucking Frankenstein. I inserted the fucking. I'm sorry, I wasn't supposed to say that. He calls it. He calls it. How dare you, Kenneth, Brannagh, call this Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. So that was A-number one. But I went into it all excited: It's Kenneth Brannagh. Love him. He calls it Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and he starts with the ship captain out at sea, just like the book. And so I pull up my little, you know, security blanket and I'm like, oh, Kenneth Brannagh, do this to me, buddy. Do it to me buddy. Show me Mary Shelley Frankenstein as a movie. [00:31:00] And then he just fucks it up, John. And he doesn't actually do that at all. It's a total lie. He screws up every monologue. He makes up motivations and then heightens them. And it's dad. The acting is capital B, capital A, capital D across the board. Everybody sucks in this movie. It looks bad. The direction is bad, and it has nothing to do. He tries to bring Elizabeth back to life. This is a huge departure from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Brannagh, that's all I have to say for now. John: All right, I was fooled by the fact that he started at, at the north pole. Dawn: That's because he's tricking us, John. That's because it's the whole movie is a lie. John: Okay with that same mindset, what do we think of Bram Stoker's Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola? Dawn: I love that one. Brian: I'm afraid that I don't have, I can't match Dawn's intensity in either respect. Um, except I thought Robert DeNiro [00:32:00] was really good in Frankenstein. Dawn: But that's no, he's not. you're wrong. Your opinion is valid and wrong. Yeah, I'm kidding for listeners who don't know me. I am, I am kidding. Of course. Everybody's opinion is valid except for that one. Yeah. The movie, everything about that movie is bad. John: He is, I think, miscast. Dawn: And Helen Bonan Carter is one of the finest actresses of not just our generation, but of all time. And she sucks in this movie. John: Right. So. Bram Stoker's Dracula. Brian: Bram Stoker's Dracula. [Soundbite: Bram Stoker's Dracula] Brian: Also produced by Branagh. And I assume that is the connection, why they both start with the author's name. I always call it Coppola's Dracula because it gets too confusing to make that distinction. I thought it was a decent movie, but it didn't feel like Dracula. It felt like someone who had heard of Dracula and wrote a good script based on what they had heard. So many divergences that bothered me, although I think it's aged better than it felt the first time. I remember seeing it when it first came out in the nineties and not thinking much of it. And I think audiences agreed with me and it seems like it's been kinder, that audiences have been kinder to it as it's gotten older. John: Okay. Dawn, you love it. Dawn: I loved it. I loved it. It, you know what though? That was one of [00:34:00] those movies that unlike, unlike Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, I can't look at with like an adult critical eye because I, what year did it come out? Was it like 90, 92? I'm like middle school getting into high school and like Winona Ryder was everything. Vampires are everything. I mean, Gary Oldman is the, is a great actor and it's so sexy, very sexy. The sex is Primo. And so I remember loving it, very moving. I don't remember comparing it as certainly not as viciously to the novel because I read Dracula after I had seen the movie. And so there's always that inherent casting where Nina is always going to be Winona Ryder. But I do remember really loving the Gothic convention of the letter and that the movie did seem to utilize and to great effect how letter writing can build suspense and give us different perspectives in a, in a unique cinematic way. Brian: [00:35:00] The two or three biggest stakes that film puts in the ground are not to be found in the book. So there's no love story in the book. There's no Vlad in the book. John: Can I interject there? Isn't that basically, didn't they just rip that off of Dark Shadows, The idea of my long lost love is reincarnated in this woman. I must connect with her. Brian: That is a good question, John. I'm glad you asked that because I call it the doppelganger love interest. Right? We first see that, the first time I know of it happening, I'm sure there's an earlier precedent, is in The Mummy, but then Dark Shadows does it. But that's not where Stoker, I mean, that's not where Coppola and a screenwriter claimed to have gotten the idea. They claimed to have gotten it from Dan Curtis's Dracula in 74. John: Dan Curtis, who produced Dark Shadows, with Barnabas Collins, falling in love with his reincarnated love. Brian: But Dan Curtis's Dracula comes out two years after Blacula. That has a reincarnated love interest. John: Not only does the Blaclua [00:36:00] have a reincarnated love interest, but if I'm remembering movie correctly at the end, when she says I don't want to go with you. He goes, okay. And he's ready to go home. It's like, sorry to bother you. Brian: No, uh, in Blacula, he commits suicide John: Oh, that's it? Yeah. He walks out into the sun. Brian: He goes home in a different way. John: Yes. He's one of my favorite Draculas, the very stately William Marshall. Brian: Yeah, absolutely. That is a favorite of mine. John: Anyway, you were saying stakes in the ground from Coppola's Dracula. Brian: Well, the, the love story, the equating Dracula with Vlad the Impaler. And I felt like they did Lucy really bad in that movie. They had her turn into a wanton harlot, which is not in keeping with the book. Some things are okay, but they really said these are the building blocks of our story and that bugged me. But Anthony Hopkins I liked, so, all right. Dawn: Alright, but see, this [00:37:00] the itch that still that still makes me wanna scratch though: why say Bram Stoker's Dracula? Why say Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? I mean, because I think you heard the venom, obviously. If they took Mary Shelley's name off that thing, you can make Frankenweenie. And I will love, like, I love Frankenweenie. Do your Frankenstein homage all day, all the time. But when you call, when you say it's Bram Stoker's, I think that this is what has been frustrating historians like me and getting high school students Ds in English class ever since. Because it just creates the false perception that you've basically read the book. Right. Or that you, if you know the thing you know the book and it's just a cheap ploy. And I don't like it. Brian: I think, somebody correct me on this, that there, there had been a plan to do a reboot of the Universal monster franchise, and these two movies were supposed to be the reboot of it. [00:38:00] And then they would've then done HG Wells' Invisible Man. John: The Mummy killed it. They've tried to reboot it several times. And that was the first attempt. Brian: Yeah, I've heard that called the dark universe. They were trying to do their own MCU. Dawn: Yeah. Well, at Universal Studios, there is of course in, in LA, in general, there's the property wars, you know? What what's, who has what? And sometimes those get really blurred. Like why does Universal Studios have Harry Potter? When we can see Warner Brothers from the top of our wall/ And that's obviously, you know, those things happen. But when it comes to like the IP or intellectual property, those original monsters are so valuable and they always are at Halloween. And then it's like, sort of, how can we capitalize on this? And yeah. And it's cross generational. Brian: All they really own right now is the look right? They own Jack Pierce's makeup job from Frankenstein. Dawn: But I think that that's exactly the point; [00:39:00] the delusion of what is it that you own if you own, you know, Frankenstein, whatever. But yes, there was definitely an interest to sort of revamp all of the original Universal Monsters they call them and it's the Mummy, Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Invisible Man. John: It's everybody who shows up in Mad Monster Party. Dawn: Exactly. [Soundbite: Mad Monster Party] Dawn: But yeah, The Mummy, starring Tom Cruise, was a tremendous flop. And I think that sort of took the wind out of everybody's sails. John: Let me ask you this, Dawn. If Mel Brooks had titled his movie, Mary Shelley's Young Frankenstein, instead of Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, would you have a problem with that? Dawn: Yeah, no, but no, I would not have had a problem, because that would've been irony and juxtaposition. Not just a straight lie. John: So that brings us to some comedies. Young Frankenstein and Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, which I was very surprised and a little unnerved to [00:40:00] realize a few years back, Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein was made a mere 10 years before I was born. And I had always assumed it was way back then. And it's like, no, it wasn't all that way back then. It was pretty, pretty recently. Brian: That happened to me when I realized that Woodstock was only six years before my birth. And it always seemed like ancient history. John: Is that the common thing, Madame Historian? That people kind of forget how recent things were? Dawn: Oh yeah. Remember Roe V. Wade. Sorry, too soon. Brian: We're recording this on that day. Dawn: Yeah, absolutely. I think that it happens to everybody so much faster than you think it's going to. I remember looking around in the nineties feeling, well, surely the seventies was ancient history, you know, because they had That Seventies Show, which debuted as like a period piece. I am still very young and hip and happening and [00:41:00] they are in production for That Nineties Show right now. And I said to my husband, That Nineties Show. I was like, Jesus, I guess that's 20 years because I was in the nineties they did That Seventies Show. And he goes, no baby that's 30 years. And I was like, I'm sorry. I said, I'm sorry, what? He goes, the nineties was 30 years ago. And I just had to sit down and put my bunion corrector back on because these feet are killing me. John: All right. Well, let's just talk about these two comedies and then there's a couple other things I wanna quickly hit on. What are our thoughts on, let's start with Young Frankenstein? [Soundbite: Young Frankenstein] Dawn: I told you I'm not an idealist and we're not a purist about Frankenstein, but I am an enthusiast. So that is why I told you to watch Kenneth Branagh's movie, even though I hate it so much. And that is also why I love Young Frankenstein, because I think that it is often what brings people into the story. For many, many people, it introduces them to the creature. They may know literally nothing about Frankenstein except for Young Frankenstein. And that's actually fine with me because I'm a comedian myself. And I believe that parody is high honor. And often when you parody and satirize something, especially when you do it well, it's because you went to the heart of it. Because you got right in there into the nuggets and the creases of it. And there is something about Young [00:43:00] Frankenstein as ridiculous as it is that has some of that wildness and the hilarity and The Putting on the Ritz. I did find out from my Universal Studios movie history stuff, that that scene was very nearly cut out. Mel Brooks did not like it. And he just didn't like that they were doing it. And of course it's the one, I feel like I'm not the only one who still has to make sure that my beverage is not only out of my esophagus, but like aside, when they start doing it. [Soundbite: Young Frankenstein] Brian: And I understand they were about to throw away the sets from the 1931 Frankenstein when Mel Brooks or his production designer came up and said, Stop stop. We want to use these and they were able to get the original sets or at least the set pieces. John: I believe what it [00:44:00] was, was they got Kenneth Strickfaden's original machines. Ken Strickfaden created all that stuff for the 1931 version and had been used on and off, you know, through all the Frankenstein films. And it was all sitting in his garage and the production designer, Dale Hennessy went out to look at it because they were thinking they had to recreate it. And he said, I think it still works. And they plugged them in and they all still worked. Brian: Oh, wow. Dawn: Oh man. It's alive. John: Those are the original machines. Dawn: I didn't know that. That's fantastic. John: At the time when I was a young kid, I was one of the few kids in my neighborhood who knew the name Kenneth Strickfaden, which opened doors for me. Let me tell you when people find out, oh, you know of the guy who designed and built all those? Oh, yes. Oh, yes. I know all that. One of my favorite stories from Young Frankenstein is when they sold the script. I forget which studio had said yes. And as they were walking out of the meeting, Mel Brooks turned back and said, oh, by the way, it's gonna be in black and white, and kept going. And they followed him down the hall and said, no, it can't be in black and white. And he said, no, it's not gonna work unless it's in [00:45:00] black and white. And they said, well, we're not gonna do it. And they had a deal, they were ready to go. And he said, no, it's gonna stay black and white. And he called up Alan Ladd Jr. that night, who was a friend of his, and said, they won't do it. And he said, I'll do it. And so it ended up going, I think, to Fox, who was more than happy to, to spend the money on that. And even though Mel didn't like Putting on the Ritz, it's weird, because he has almost always had musical numbers in his films. Virtually every movie he's done, he's either written a song for it, or there's a song in it. So, it's weird to me. I've heard Gene Wilder on YouTube talk about no, no, he didn't want that scene at all, which is so odd because it seems so-- Brian: I never thought about that, but you're right. I'm going in my head through all the Mel Brooks films I can remember. And there is at least a short musical interlude in all of them that I can think of. John: But let's talk then about what's considered one of the best mixes of horror and comedy, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein [00:46:00] [Soundbite: Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein] Brian: As with comedies of that age, it, it starts off slow, but then it starts to get very funny as time goes on. And all the comedy is because of Abbot and Costello. They are the, [00:47:00] the chemistry they have on screen. I don't know how much of that was actually scripted and how much of it was just how they rolled with each other. But it works really well. Not much of the comedy is provided by the monsters or the supporting cast or even there's maybe a cute, a few sight gags. But wouldn't you say most of the comedy is just the dynamics between them? John: It is. The scary stuff is scary and it's balanced beautifully at the end where they're being chased through the castle. The monsters stayed pretty focused on being monsters and Abbot and Costello's reactions are what's funny. Dawn: If I may, as someone who has already admitted I haven't seen much of the movie, it's feels to me like it may be something like Shaun of the Dead, in the sense that you get genuinely scared if zombie movies scare, then you'll have that same adrenaline rush and the monsters stay scary. They don't have to get silly. Or be a part of the comedy for your two very opposing one's skinny, one's fat, you know, and the way that their friendship is both aligning and [00:48:00]coinciding is the humor. Brian: I believe there is one brief shot in there where you get to see Dracula, Frankenstein's monster and the Wolfman all in the same shot. And I think that might be the only time that ever happens in the Universal Franchise. During the lab scene, does that sound right John? John: I think you really only have Dracula and the Wolfman. I'll have to look it up because the monster is over on another table-- Brian: Isn't he underneath the blanket? John: Nope, that's Lou Costello, because it's his brain that they want. And so they're fighting over that table. And then just a little, I have nothing but stupid fun facts. There's a point in it, in that scene where the monster gets off the table and picks up someone and throws them through a window. And Glenn Strange, who was playing the monster at that point -- and who is one of my favorite portrayers of the monster, oddly enough -- had broken his ankle, I believe. And so Lon, Chaney, Jr. put the makeup on and did that one stunt for him, cuz he was there. Brian: He did that as Frankenstein's monster? John: Yes. Frankenstein. Brian: I didn't know that. Yes, I [00:49:00] did not know that. So he plays both of those roles in that movie? John: Yes. Let me just take a moment to defend Glenn Strange, who played the monster three times: House of Dracula, House of Frankenstein, and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. In House of Frankenstein, he is following up the film before that, which was Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, in which, in this very convoluted universe, Lugosi is playing the monster, even though he didn't wanna do it in 31. Because his brain in Ghost of Frankenstein had been put into the Monster's body. So, in Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, it is Lugosi as the Frankenstein monster. It is Lon Chaney Jr., who had played the monster in Ghost of Frankenstein, now back to playing Larry Talbot. So, it is Wolfman versus Frankenstein. And the premise of the script was he's got Ygor's brain and it's not connecting properly. He's gone blind. They shot that. They had tons of dialogue between the two characters of Larry Talbot pre-wolfman, and the monster, Bela Lugosi. And the executives thought it sounded silly. So they went in and they cut [00:50:00] out all of Lugosi's dialogue out of the movie. So now you have a blind monster stumbling around with his arms in front of him, but he doesn't talk. And if you look at the movie, you can see where he's supposed to be talking and they cut away quickly. And it's really convoluted. Glenn Strange who then has to play the monster next, looks at that and goes well, all right, I guess I'm still blind. I guess I'm still stumbling around with my arms in front of him. Which is the image most people have of the Frankenstein monster, which was never done by Boris in his three turns as the monster. So with, in that regard, I just think Glenn Strange did a great job of picking up what had come before him and making it work moving forward. Anyway, a couple other ones I wanna just hit on very quickly. Brian asked me to watch Dracula in Istanbul. Under the circumstances, a fairly straightforward retelling of the Dracula story. I would recommend it--it is on YouTube--for a couple of reasons. One, I believe it's the first time that Dracula has actual canine teeth. Brian: Yes. John: Which is important. But the other is there's the scene where he's talking to Harker about, I want [00:51:00] you to write three letters. And I want you to post date the letters. It's so convoluted, because he goes into explaining how the Turkish post office system works in such a way that the letters aren't gonna get there. It's just this long scene of explaining why he needs to write these three letters, and poor Harker's doing his best to keep up with that. That was the only reason I recommend it. Brian: That movie is based on a book called Kazıklı Voyvoda, which means The Warrior Prince and it was written in, I wanna say the 1920s or thirties, I wanna say thirties. It's the first book to equate Dracula and Vlad the Impaler, which I've come back to a couple times now, but that's significant because it was a Turkish book and the Turks got that right away. They immediately saw the name Dracula like, oh, we know who we're talking about. We're talking about that a-hole. It was not until the seventies, both the [00:52:00] fifties and the seventies, that Western critics and scholars started to equate the two. And then later when other scholars said, no, there, there's not really a connection there, but it's a fun story. And it's part of cannon now, so we can all play around with it. John: But that wasn't what Bram Stoker was thinking of? Is that what you're saying? Brian: No. No, he, he wasn't, he wasn't making Dracula into Vlad the Impaler. He got the name from Vlad the Impaler surely, but not the deeds. He wasn't supposed to be Vlad the Impaler brought back to life. John: All right. I'm going to ask you both to do one final thing and then we'll wrap it up for today. Although I could talk to you about monsters all day long, and the fact that I'd forgotten Dawn, that you were back on the Universal lot makes this even more perfect. If listeners are going to watch one Dracula movie and one Frankenstein movie, what do you recommend? Dawn, you go first. Dawn: They're only watching one, then it's gotta be the 1931 Frankenstein, with Boris. Karloff, of course. I think it has captured [00:53:00] the story of Frankenstein that keeps one toe sort of beautifully over the novel and the kind of original source material that I am so in love with, but also keeps the other foot firmly in a great film tradition. It is genuinely spooky and it holds so much of the imagery of any of the subsequent movies that you're only watching one, so that's the one you get. But if you do watch any more, you've got this fantastic foundation for what is this story and who is this creature? John: Got it. And Brian, for Dracula? Brian: I was tossing around in my head here, whether to recommend Nosferatu or the 1931 Dracula. And I think I'm going to have to agree with Dawn and say the 1931 for both of them, because it would help a viewer who was new to the monsters, understand where we got the archetypes we have. Now, why, when you type an emoji into your phone for Vampire, you get someone with a tuxedo in the slick back hair or, I think, is there a Frankenstein emoji? Dawn: There is, and he's green with bolts in his neck. [00:54:00] Brian: Yeah, it would. It will help you understand why we have that image permanently implanted in our heads, even though maybe that's not the source material. We now understand the origins of it. Dawn: And if I may too, there's, there's something about having the lore as founded in these movies is necessary, frankly, to almost understand what happens later. I mean, I get very frustrated in 2022, if there is a movie about vampires that takes any time at all to explain to me what a vampire is, unless you're breaking the rules of the vampire. For example, you know, like in Twilight the vampire sparkles, like a diamond when it's out in the sunshine and is the hottest thing ever. That's really great to know. I didn't know that about vampires. That wasn't necessarily true before, you know, but you don't need to take a lot of time. In fact, when you do read Dracula, one of the things for me that I found very frustrating was the suspense of what is it with this guy? They were like: He said we couldn't bring [00:55:00] garlic and they take all this time. And you're kind of as a modern reader being like, cuz he is a fucking vampire. Move on. Like we know this, we got this one. It's shorthand Brian: That's one snide thing I could say about the book is that there are times where Dracula's powers seem to be whatever his powers need to be to make this next scene creepy and move on to the next chapter. John: He was making it up as he went along. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

This week the guys decided to take a relaxing trip to a secluded cabin this week..... *Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn* "Nate!...Is that you saying that?" *Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn* "Nope not me!" *Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn* "It sounds like it's coming from the cellar!" *Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn* "OH GOD!!!!! IT'S HENRY-PETE-A!!!!!" *Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn Dead by Dawn* *Sound of shotgun racking*                *Sound of Chainsaw starting* *DEAD.....BY.....DAWN!!!!!* "HEY PETEY.... LET'S DANCE!!!!" "Nate...say a cool catchphrase!" "A cool catchphrase!" "Damnit Nate......"

In the last meetup, Krisztina found something Jessica said interesting to dive into: "We are talking in DDD about Bounded Contexts and independent teams and applications, but then we all coupled by having the same user." That statement led to an exciting dialogue by inviting Dawn: "It is not so much coupling at the user as that sounds as if the user has to fit into what has built but starting with the user in the centre or intersection of the various "contexts". If your context no longer aligns with the user, who are you problem-solving/building the solution for?" Joining us with Krisztina, Jessica and Dawn will be Manuel from the Book team topologies, and together we will explore heuristics to organise teams, and their interaction and design bounded context for fast flow, which each serve the same customer.

Star Wars: Hope’s Dawn 

 It is a time of uncertainty for the Rebellion. With the destruction of the Death Star, many in the Galaxy expected the victories to continue, yet Darth Vader and the Empire have retaliated with the full force of the enigmatic Emperor behind them. 

 Throughout the galaxy, the remaining Rebel forces wage war with the enemy, necessitating the use of refueling stations in system after system to ensure the war effort can continue. 

 Set at the outskirts of the fight is a vital but ordinary station, Hope’s Dawn. Though rarely visited by the Rebellion’s ships, the crew remains conscious that the enemy is closing in on them. They maintain constant watch at the edges of their system, patrolling every corner for the first sign of the Empire. . . 

 Star Wars: Hope’s Dawn written by Riley Bowman 

 Starring 

 Mack West: twitter.com/SuperMovieBall as Kyle Katarn 

 Jazmin Brock: twitter.com/thejazcamille as Captain Yara Holden 

 Riley Bowman: twitter.com/rilesbowman as Flight Officer Visz 

 SaraRoseVA: bit.ly/2BKTutq as Flight Officer Juni 

 Stephanie Richardson: bit.ly/31lhy0J as Flight Leader Op’hella 

 Steven P. Fortune: bit.ly/2YA5Iyb as Major Kade 

 Branden Taus: bit.ly/2Vp3PlT as Lt. Yorrick 

 with 

 Jake Crites: twitter.com/JacobCrites as Flight Officer Jace 

 and 

 Erin B. Lillis: www.erinlillis.com/ as Jan Ors 

 Mixing, Editing and Sound Design by Riley Bowman 

 Music by John Williams 

 Additional music by Michael Giacchino

Welcome to another episode of the P100 Podcast. Today we cover our own Port Authority. Robin Rectenwald shares with us some local getaways inside tips. Director, Dawn Keezer from the Pittsburgh Film Office talks about on location in Pittsburgh. This episode winds up with Pittsburgh Polyphony spotlight - Flower Crown.This Episode is sponsored by WordWriteCenturies before cell phones and social media, human connections were made around fires as we shared the stories that shaped our world. Today, stories are still the most powerful way to move hearts and minds and inspire action. At WordWrite, Pittsburgh's largest independent public relations agency, we understand that before you had a brand, before you sold any product or service, you had a story.WordWrite helps clients to uncover their own Capital S Story. The reason someone would want to buy, work, invest or partner with you through our patented story-crafting process. Visit wordwritepr.com to uncover your Capital S Story.Here is the full transcript from this episode:Logan: You're listening to the P100 Podcast, the biweekly companion piece to the Pittsburgh 100, bringing you Pittsburgh news, culture, and more. Because sometimes 100 words just aren't enough for a great story.Dan: All right. Welcome back to another episode of The P100 Podcast. I'm Dan Stefano. I'm here with Logan Armstrong.Logan: Good to see you again, Dan.Dan: And Paul Furiga, who'll be joining us just momentarily.Dan: Today's episode, we've got four segments for you. First, we're going to be discussing public transportation in both Pittsburgh and other American cities. We're going to talk with Dawn Keezer of the Pittsburgh Film Office, which will be a lot of fun. It was a really good chat with her. We're going to discuss quick getaways you can take outside of Pittsburgh. Sometimes you got to get away, and we'll be talking with Robin Rectenwald of WordWrite for that one, and then we'll finish it up with talking about a good local Pittsburgh band for our Pittsburgh polyphony series. Excited to hear that, so let's get to it.PORT AUTHORITYPaul: All right guys. Let's talk planes, trains, and autonomous automobiles. A little shout out there to the old John Candy movie.Dan: That's a classic movie.Paul: It is a classic movie.Dan: Steve Martin too, right?Paul: Steve Martin, that's right. Yes indeed.Logan:Much before my time.Paul:Oh, you got to see that movie.Dan: Logan, you weren't even alive.Paul: You weren't alive, but you can stream it.Dan: Is it John Hughes?Paul: Yes. I think it's a John Hughes film actually, one of the-Dan: Okay. See, I know my movie stuff.Paul: ... few he did in that era when it wasn't all about teen angst. But speaking of teen angst and public transportation, it seems like a perennial topic in the news in Pittsburgh, is how to get from point A to point B. And I just don't mean the topography. For instance, if you drew my street on a map, it would look like a lasso, you know the old cowboy thing?Dan: Sure.Paul: You can get onto Courtney Place, the street I live on, and turn left on Courtney Place and go around a circle and turn left, and you're still on Courtney Place. That's another issue. What we're talking about today is, maybe because of things like that, how difficult it is to get from point A to point B. And the importance of public transportation.Paul: And so, recently Dan, Logan, we were looking at the news about the Port Authority starting or considering some 24-hour transit routes. And Logan, I know you're an Oakland denizen, some of those routes would head out that way, that we'd start with you. Thoughts?Logan: Yeah, I'd be a big fan of that. I know that they're only considering really the heavier routes, which obviously make sense. You don't want to have empty buses going all night, but I think that would be really helpful.Logan: I know there have been a few times where, whether I'm in Oakland or elsewhere past midnight or so, I mean, it gets pretty scarce trying to get to point A to point B, and there are Uber and Lyft, but Pitt students have Pitt IDs and they get free Port Authority rides, and so, I mean, you're going to expect college students to be out pretty late, so I think they should be able to take advantage of that. So I think it's a great idea.Dan: Well, it's not only for the college students too. I believe one of the aims behind the Port Authority trying this is to help people who might work late shift. Those late shift workers who, maybe they're not done until 2:00 or 3:00, and they're working at least on some areas near these routes and it really helps them, and I think they're important to have for modern city living.Paul: You know, one of the challenges that we've had in the last several years is funding for public transportation. I think that still is a huge issue. Now we have competition for public transportation.Paul: Logan, you mentioned ride sharing, Lyft or Uber. And of course Pittsburgh is a hotbed for autonomous vehicle development, and it made a bit of news a few weeks ago when the CEO of one of the companies here in Pittsburgh that are testing autonomous vehicles, Argo AI, wrote a medium blog post in which he said that that company will never build autonomous vehicles for personal use.Paul: And I think a lot of people were figuring that, again, remember my street, it goes in a circle, that Uber and all of them were here because they were ... If you can figure out how to drive in Pittsburgh in an autonomous vehicle, you could drive anywhere in an autonomous vehicle.Paul: I don't know. Dan, what do you think? Autonomous vehicles in your garage? Yes? No?Dan: I don't know. Maybe a personal vehicle…that'd be a difficult buy-in. I think it's one of those things where just in my life I've always had a car that I drive myself. I mean, obviously if, say in the future there are babies that are born that only know autonomous vehicles and might be used to it for them.Dan: But I can say that I have been in an autonomous car. And I've had the AI driving me around. I took an Uber once that was an AI car, and obviously there were two people in the front seats, one behind the wheel who just had, was a little bit hands-off, and then another with the computer taking in all the data. It was a really cool experience.Dan: But one part that, at one moment we were driving through, I believe it was Bloomfield or somewhere along Baum Boulevard, and we came to one of those classic Pittsburgh 19-streets-meet-at-once intersections. And there was somebody coming in the opposing lane who had made a sharp cut in front of us. And the car made a really sudden stop. And so, I was talking with the operators about it and they said one of the problems that, problems or issues or minor things is, these AI, they still have to take into account other people's decisions. And that's really where I think that that's where the work has got to be done yet, in autonomous vehicles here.Dan: And so, it's going to be tough if not every car out there is going to be driven by another robot, you know?Paul: Well, and you know, Dan, we were talking about this earlier, and if you think about it, if every new vehicle after some date and time were autonomous, you would still have, what did you say? 200 million?Dan: I couldn't tell you how many-Paul: Millions.Dan: ... cars are out there, but probably hundreds of millions of cars.Paul: Non-autonomous vehicles.Dan: Right. Precisely. So it's going to take a while before this stuff is at its scale and it's the only thing available.Logan: Yeah. You can map streets all you want, but you can't really map human decision making.Paul: Well, one thing we know for sure, the topic of getting from A to B here in Pittsburgh is not going to go away anytime soon. So on some distant future podcast, look for us to update our musings on getting from here to there.Dan: You're going to keep complaining about that lasso, aren't you?Paul: I am.GETAWAYSDan: All right. For this next segment, we have Robin Rectenwald. And she's an account supervisor here at WordWrite.Dan: Robin, thanks for being here.Robin: Thanks for having me.Dan: Absolutely. We wanted to bring you in because a couple of stories recently that we had in the 100 discussed some short getaways that you can take from Pittsburgh here. And there were both some really interesting luxury type locations, and Robin, one of those places that you went to was Bedford Springs Resort in Bedford, PA. And you talked about just being your first solo trip, but also just seemed like a really cool, unique place that was a quick little drive away.Robin: Yeah. My best friend had actually told me about the Omni Bedford Springs Resort. She needed some time away, she was going through a really stressful time in her life. And so, years later I finally was able to take the trip for myself. It was on my to-do list for a while.Dan: Sure. Well, it seems like it's pretty cool to take one of these trips, and it's really just in your backyard, too. And I think maybe a lot of people don't quite realize all of these ... You don't have to go all the way to the coast. You don't have to go to California or something, Florida, to find a really great vacation. And did you find that?Robin: Yeah, that's what I loved about this trip. I actually am someone who doesn't like to drive very far distances by myself. I'm a little bit of a drowsy driver.Dan: That's really safe, to be on a Pennsylvania turnpike as a drowsy driver!Robin: Yeah. But this one was quick and easy. It was literally on the dot two hours. So yeah, just getting there was super easy. I felt comfortable going by myself.Dan: Right. And was it as relaxing as it claimed to be?Robin: It was beautiful. I really did feel like I was in paradise. The hotel itself is beautiful, it's historic, so you go in, it's these big staircases, these old elevators, this creaky floors. It was just taking a step back into time into, like the 18 hundreds.Dan: It's kind of like The Shining hotel before it became The Shining hotel. Right?Robin: Much less creepy.Dan: Right, yeah. No Jack Nicholson bursting through your door. That's good to know.Dan: Logan, you recently wrote just recently in the 100 here about some pretty cool little cabins through a company called Getaway.Logan: Yeah, quite a fitting name. I had seen one of their ads on some social media, and-Dan: Social media has ads?Logan: I know, right? It's incredible.Dan: Wow.Logan: But so, they're these cabins, they're just 45 minutes from Pittsburgh. They're in Lisbon Creek, Ohio, tucked right next to a state park out there. And yeah, I mean, they're cabins across these 59 acres of land, and I'm definitely trying to make it out there. I haven't yet, but they look beautiful and they're nice and away from wifi so you can just let yourself go. But so, I had seen one of their ads on social media and I've now been barraged with Getaway ads for the past two weeks on every single social media platform.Logan: But yeah, it's 45 minutes, something just quick and easy, you can getaway. It doesn't take too much time off work if any at all. Just go out there for the weekend and just relax.Dan: Right? Now those cabins are actually next to Beaver Creek State Park. So very close. And I edited that story, so I have a lot of ads from Getaway right now, too. It's great.Dan: I think one thing that is cool to remember here is that we can take these small trips, and it's such a great time of year to get away and be into the country. Do you guys like going out, maybe doing some hiking, going to see some fall leaves? Robin?Robin: Yeah, I'm actually going on a train ride with my mom, the end of September. It's in Elks, West Virginia, and they have these four-hour train rides. So yeah, another quick getaway.Dan: Right? When I was a kid, I took a, it was all the way up in North Central PA. We took a trip through the --Robin: Oh, Kinzua Bridge?Dan: Yeah. Which, I don't think that exists anymore. I'm pretty sure it got blown down-Robin: No, it's still there. I was just there in May.Dan: Oh. I could have sworn it got blown down in a storm. I guess I'm completely wrong.Robin: It's partially did, so you can actually go there and see a partial bridge, and you can hike underneath it. It's pretty cool.Dan: Oh wow. That's really cool. Yeah, so I remember it being very high, so that's pretty cool.Logan: Yeah. I also love going out to Ohiopyle, or Ohiopyle depending on who you ask. But that's great. It's probably a two, two and a half hours. You can go out there and see Fallingwater while you're out there. Yeah. Lots of hiking trails.Robin: Kentuck Knob.Logan: What's that?Robin: Kentuck Knob is another Frank Lloyd Wright's house right nearby Fallingwater.Logan: Oh really?Robin: Yeah.Logan: See, I did not know that. I’ve got to put that on the list.Dan: Right. Well, I think the important thing to take away from this is, everybody, we've got some really great fall weather coming up, some really awesome leaves to see and foliage, and everybody should definitely take advantage of these locations that are just a couple hours away.Logan: Centuries before cell phones and social media, human connections were made around fires as we shared the stories that shaped our world. Today, stories are still the most powerful way to move hearts and minds and inspire action. At WordWrite, Pittsburgh's largest independent public relations agency, we understand that before you had a brand, before you sold any product or service, you had a story.Logan: WordWrite helps clients to uncover their own Capital S Story. The reason someone would want to buy, work, invest or partner with you through our patented story-crafting process. Visit wordwritepr.com to uncover your Capital S Story.PITTSBURGH IN FILMPaul: Well, welcome back everybody. I'm Paul Furiga, I'm publisher of the Pittsburgh 100 and President and Chief Storyteller of WordWrite. And we are pleased today to have with us Dawn Keezer, who on September 24th will celebrate 25 years of running the Pittsburgh Film Office.Paul: Logan, that's just hard to believe, isn't it?Logan: Yeah, no, it's awesome. I'm glad that we have such a great organization here in Pittsburgh. It does wonders for the city.Paul: Dawn, welcome.Dawn: Thank you.Paul: Tell us a little bit about the film office and what you folks do.Dawn: Well, the Pittsburgh Film Office is an economic development agency that focuses on marketing Southwestern Pennsylvania to the film industry. And that includes everything from feature films, television shows that you see on TV, commercials, documentaries, corporate videos. Anything, I used to say, anything rolling any kind of film. Now it's anybody using their iPhone that's doing anything on a professional level. We're helping them make that happen here in Southwestern PA. We represent all 10 counties in the region. Some people don't realize how big a reach the film office has.Logan: Tell us a little bit about your day-to-day role in the film office and what you're doing on a day-to-day basis.Dawn: Well, we have a huge staff at the film office. There's three of us that work there full time and that includes me. We all do a little bit of everything.Dawn: I've been there a really long time, so I'm the go-to both for our relationships with the government officials who really help us make everything happen when we're closing streets and closing bridges and need help getting into places like SCI Pittsburgh, but essentially the film office is a one-stop shop for the film and entertainment industry.Dawn: Whether they need permits to close streets, whether they're looking for an office supply company to give them their copier machines, for lumber for to build their sets, to find local crew. Anything that's going to involve their project moving forward, they call the film office and we're the ones that help them make that happen.Paul: When Logan and I were talking about this segment, Dawn, we were talking about the history. One of the cool things that people always talk about with Pittsburgh is that so much happens here with film and with TV, but that didn't happen by accident. Tell us how the film office got started and why.Dawn: Well, the film office got started, as I was told, I'm the second director, Robert Curran was who actually was here when they started the film office under the Greater Pittsburgh Office Of Promotion. It was all being operated, I'm showing you guys, because I like to use my hands, but it was in the bottom drawer of a person working in Mayor Sophie Masloff's office at the time. He'd pull out a drawer, go, "Okay, what do we do with this one?"Dawn: And when Silence of the Lambs decided to film in Pittsburgh, they went, "Wow, we've really got to step this up."Dawn: So the Greater Pittsburgh Office Of Promotion created the Pittsburgh Film Office. Russ Streiner, who's our current board chair, actually founded the film office with a few others, and they really started professionalizing the whole approach. By the time I got here it was an established film office, but it was really about making sure the community is protected and the clients, the film companies, are getting what they want done and accomplished.Dawn: Pittsburgh looks great, but everyone feels good about it at the end of the day.Paul: I think, and Logan, chime in here, but most people in Pittsburgh, and I'm making a generalization here, but I think they're proud to see Pittsburgh in TV and film, but we don't really have an understanding as Pittsburghers of how this all really works.Paul: An economic impact of 650 million, you said?Dawn: Well, that's how much wanted to be spent here. And it is.Paul: Wanted it to be spent.Dawn: They wanted to spend here. We're going to be lucky to retain about 200 million of it.Paul: Oh my goodness.Dawn: And this is money spent throughout the entire economy. The big spend, of course, is on our local crew, which we have some of the most experienced, amazing craftsmen that work in this, craftsmen and women, who work in this industry throughout the region.Dawn: Our crew is so good people travel them. They take them elsewhere because if they're not working at home, they leave. And in the old days they were lucky to stay. I say the old days prior to the film tax credits, they were lucky to be here for one film a year, and then they would go work in different states, in different places. They've all been able to stay home now.Paul: Well, let's talk about that for a second, because, in Pennsylvania anyway, it seems like certain legislators get upset about the size of the credit. But from what I've seen, our credit's not really that big compared to other states.Dawn: Our credit is woefully underfunded and oversubscribed. We needed $127 million dollars to retain all the work that Southwestern Pennsylvania had for this year alone. And we have to share the film tax credit with our friends over in Philly. We're one of the only states that have two production centers, meaning two places where people film.Dawn: I equate the tax credit to a 25% off coupon you get at your local store. This is money coming in. We're giving them 25 cents on every dollar they spend after they've spent 60% of their budget in the commonwealth. And they have to prove this. They fill out forms, they're audited. We know where every dime is spent on every single thing they do well before they ever get their tax credit certificate.Dawn: We just keep having the conversations and hopefully, we'll get to the point where they go, "Oh, we really do need to increase the film tax credit."Dawn: Georgia has a 30% uncapped tax credit. I told you, we had topped 1.5 billion this last year, and that's since 1990. Georgia had six billion dollars’ worth of film work last year.Paul: Wow. Now that is just amazing.Dawn: And they're looking for other places to go. If you look at the level of content that's being created right now, with the growth in all the streaming channels and everything else, they're all looking for homes. It's Netflix, it's Disney, it's Amazon. All our clients, they've all been here, they're all coming back. They're all, it just ... We have an opportunity here to really grow it, and I'm really hoping we get to capitalize on it this year.Logan: Like you said, everything you're saying makes sense. I would think that just pounding the nail and then hopefully it gets through some people's heads and realize that there are two production centers here and that that would bring so much money into our economy that otherwise goes unspent.Logan: Through your 25 years though, it sounds like people have wanted to less have Pittsburgh as a double, and actually want their film set in Pittsburgh. Would you say that's correct?Dawn: It's really interesting. It's a great question because we've really seen a growth in the number of shows that set it here. And primarily we're getting more people to write Pittsburgh into the scripts. There's more work being created. It saves them money when they set it in Pittsburgh because then they don't have to worry about, "Oh, there went a police car that's got the wrong logo on it, there goes -Paul: Re-badging, resigning things, yes.Dawn: ... everything."Dawn: We've seen a huge increase in that, which has been fun and it makes life a lot easier for everybody. And it gives us some great marketing.Dawn: Sometimes not so much. Right? Sometimes it's not a storyline that Pittsburgh would want to promote, but again, it's a movie. We're not portraying real life here, or a TV show, whatever it happens to be.Paul: That's great. So, as Pittsburghers, what can we do to help the film industry here thrive and grow?Dawn: Well, what we're really lucky about, I always tell people there are three main reasons anyone films here. It's the tax credits, it's our crew, it's the diversity of locations.Dawn: The fourth unofficial one is the film friendliness of Pittsburgh. We welcome these projects with open arms. We still are excited about it. Yeah, sometimes they block your driveway. Sometimes they're in the way, and we deal with all this usually minor inconveniences that happen throughout the region, but for the most part, we're very supportive. So we'd love for that to continue when people really get to know how friendly our region is.Dawn: Our website is pghfilm.org. We're on all of the social media channels, Facebook, Twitter, everywhere else you're supposed to be these days. It's important that you go check in on what's happening, and if you want to be an extra, we put that information up on our website. We really try to keep things up to date and current as possible.Dawn: I mentioned we have three full-time employees. I have a full staff of interns, they're amazing, from all the local major universities in the region, and they're charged with getting all that stuff updated, so they've been doing a great job. But it's really just checking in and staying supportive.Dawn: And for the legislators that are listening, are you people out there who have friends that are legislators? It's important to remind them that the film tax credit affects the entire region. Not just the people who see the direct impact, but the entire region. We're all benefiting from this economic development generator. And the goal with the tax credits was to not only have an incentive but to build an industry sector. We've done that. Now we need to start building infrastructure and getting purpose-built sound stages and getting some things moving.Dawn: Just supporting the film industry as a whole, as a real viable business in the region, it's really the key.Logan: Great. Well, thank you so much for being here, Dawn. We really appreciate you being here and giving your info and knowledge and expertise on this. This has definitely given me an expanded view of what the Pittsburgh Film Office does. And so, yeah, just thanks for being here.Logan: This is Logan Armstrong and Paul Furiga with the P100 Podcast, and thanks again.Dawn: Thank you.FLOWER CROWN MUSICLogan: Okay, Dan, coming into our next segment, I want to take a couple of minutes to spotlight a local band, Flower Crown, who is on the Crafted Sounds record label, who is a local record label which is run by my friend, Connor Murray. They're doing a lot of great things. But Flower Crown is, I would call them dream-pop, very hazy, very ambient, chill.Logan: My first introduction to them was when I heard their song Bender Szn, it landed on Spotify's Fresh Finds Six Strings playlist, which is a pretty prominent playlist in the platform. It got them a lot of good exposure. As an artist, you're always looking to get on playlists like those.Logan: But yeah, I know you had a little chance to listen to them. What did you think?Dan: Yeah, I think that dream-pop is maybe a good way to describe them. I hadn't heard that term for a genre until you brought it up to me. Until you introduced me to this band here, but I'd agree with it. They'd be nice to just have, put them on for a good mix, a good playlist for a long drive or something like that. And just a nice, kind of soothing, but they do a pretty nice job with their instrumentation. They sound good. So yeah. Excited to hear some more.Logan: Yeah. Yeah. It's a five-member band. And what I like about Flower Crown is that while the music is, like you said, it's great for a long road trip. It's very just, you can kind of get into it. They create their own atmosphere. I haven't met them personally, but from what I've seen on social media and in the public, they're pretty likable guys.Logan: Their profile picture on Facebook has one of them in a big hot dog suit. One of their single covers has them taking off, the guy's in an alien suit, they're taking off his alien head, almost like a Scooby-Doo character. It's nice to be able to see bands that you're able to relate with and are still making music on that scale.Dan: That's awesome. What are we going to hear from them coming up?Logan: Yeah. As I mentioned earlier, I think a great introduction to them is Bender Szn, off their latest project called Sundries, which came out in May. It's a great little single to head out into your day. Very chill. Great for a day like this in October. So yeah, I hope you enjoy.

Paul discusses the webinar, which took place in Café Re, and focused on why taking action is so hard.  It’s much better to focus on the action and not the results.  We are definitely in a results oriented society.  Focus on the journey and not the destination.  Success can follow a flawed effort, and failure can follow a flawless effort.  If your happiness is predicated on your success, and if your success is predicated on a specific outcome, then you are setting yourself up for a high likelihood of frustration and disappointment.  If you instead let go the need for any particular outcome, you increase your chances for success and contentment.  View each attempt as practice for the next attempt.  Dawn with a sobriety date of November 27th 2016, shares her story.   SHOW NOTES   [8:09] Paul Introduces Dawn.  I’m single, 42, and I’m from Poole in the U.K.   In the daytime I work in accounts, in the evening I’m generally working on my blog. I love going out to dinner with friends, and walking to work.  Set myself a challenge to do 10,000 steps a day.   [10:10] Paul- Tell us more about this experiment to live you life without alcohol.   Dawn- The plan was to give up alcohol for a year.  I was struck down with flu, and I gave up alcohol then, instead of waiting until the New Year.  I decided to write down my journey, and document it on my blog.  It’s been filled with positivity.    [13:35] Paul- The way I’ve made it this far in sobriety, and been successful, is that I looking at it as an opportunity instead of a sacrifice.  Is that something that you are experiencing as well?  You’re looking at this as an opportunity instead of a sacrifice?   Dawn- Yeah, definitely.  I don’t think I realized how unhappy I was drinking.  I was more of a binge drinker than a drink everyday, drink in the morning type person.  My weekend would be properly drinking from Friday through Sunday.  Drinking copious amounts of alcohol to the point that I was sick the next day.  I don’t see that as a sacrifice, giving that up that kind of mentality, since it was so much binging and purging.   [14:53] Paul- When did you first realize that perhaps that you wanted to quit drinking?  Was it something that happened?   Dawn- I was conscience that I was drinking too much in one sitting, not remembering how I got home, kind of dangerous drinking really.  If I drove somewhere I would have nothing, instead of a single glass of wine.  Because if I had one, it wouldn’t stay at one.  Once I started, it was difficult to stop.   [18:06] Paul- Can you tell me about a time when you started drinking and you found the “off switch” a little difficult to find?  Was that progressive for you?  Did it become harder and harder to stop?   Dawn- Yeah, I was born without an “off switch”.  The first time I really remember getting drunk I was probably about 15 or 16.  Early twenties living with friends, drinking was a massive part of our lives together.  The men that I met were a massive part of that as well.  It didn’t spiral rapidly.    [22:16] Paul- How are you staying sober now?      Dawn- It’s a matter of changing everything.  I thought life would carry on the same.  Everything has changed.  I write a post for my blog at least once a week.  Trying to keep other people encouraged to carry on.  I used to always have a special drink as a reward for hard work.  I no longer do that.  I have a drink when I am thirsty.   [26:31] Paul- There’s a quote in recovery- You don’t have to change much, you just gotta change everything.  Is that how it went down for you?   Dawn- I still struggle with the social side of things.  I was the party animal.  It’s difficult to go from that to- it’s dark and I’ve got to get home.  I find it hard to socialize without alcohol.  I’m not good with big crowds.  I’ve come to terms that I won’t be that person again.   [28:40] Paul- What have you learned most about yourself in these past 6 months of sobriety?    Dawn- I’ve never really believed in loving yourself.  Now I keep saying to people you have to love yourself.  I haven’t loved myself for 40 years.  I realized I’m not the person I thought I was.  In my previous job I wasn’t really helping people and I didn’t think I could. It’s being confident in myself, rather than what other people think.   [31:31] Paul-  How do you feel about alcohol being an addictive substance, and perhaps there is no void?   Dawn- For me, the feeling is what was addictive.  I was the crier.  Alcohol gave me an emotional release.  For me it gave me an emotional release, woe is me!  For a window of 15 minutes I would feel amazing, then I would go over the top.  Then you’re miserable.  I think really it was the way it made me feel for 15 minutes before the crying would start.   [33:27] Paul- What are your goals in sobriety?   Dawn- I’ve always wanted to go to Thailand.  Stop waiting around for something to happen.  I was too tired, and lazy, and in bed.  Now I’m full of energy, and I’m going to make it happen on my own in January.   [35:18] Rapid Fire Round What was your worst memory from drinking? Getting home, and waking up the next day at 4:00, and not remembering getting home in a taxi. Did you ever have an “oh-shit” moment? I was a drunk texter.  Sometimes I couldn’t even touch my phone.  They were my worst moments really working out who I had contacted the night before. What’s your plan moving forward? Keep the blog going beyond being sober.  Maybe the hope rehab center in January.  Listening to podcasts more than music, listening to other people’s journeys. What’s your favorite resource in recovery? I love the online forums.  Club soda, team sober UK, and listening to Podcasts.  It is amazing listening to other peoples journeys What’s the best advice you’ve ever received (on sobriety)? The best thing to do is go for each day at a time.  Breaking it into chunks can work.  Un-break the habit. What parting piece of guidance can you give listeners who are in recovery or thinking about quitting drinking?  Never give up.  I admire those who never give up.  I recommend writing down how you’re feeling.  I literally flooded my mind with sobriety. You might be an alcoholic if you find yourself questioning that you might be an alcoholic, then you probably are.   Resources mentioned in this episode:   dawn@soberfish.co.uk   http://www.soberfish.co.uk http://www.hope-rehab-center-thailand.com/ http://www.belvoirfruitfarms.com/ Recovery Elevator Retreat Connect with Cafe RE- Use the promo code Elevator for your first month free Sobriety Tracker iTunes Sobriety Tracker Android Sober Selfies! - Send your Sober Selfie and your Success Story to info@recoveryelevator.com     “We took the elevator down, we gotta take the stairs back up, we can do this!”  

Dawn Noble is the owner of La Provence in Rockport, Massachusetts. Since taking over the store 10 years ago, Dawn has learned what it takes to be a successful small business owner. Listen as she shares the unexpected way she became a business owner, her biggest challenges and lessons, and her best advice for others looking to start their own business. Find us on Stitcher Small Biz Stories tells the story of some of the bravest people you'll ever meet — small business owners. You'll hear how they got started, their biggest challenges, and their dreams for the future. You can also read the transcript below: Small Biz Stories is brought to you by Constant Contact. Constant Contact is committed to helping small businesses and nonprofits connect to new and existing customers with email marketing. You can be a marketer, all it takes is Constant Contact. Find out more at ConstantContact.com. Dawn: Just knowing that the harder I work, I was going to benefit. You can work like crazy for somebody else, but they’re not going to appreciate you, necessarily. And just knowing that all the hard work I was doing was going to come back to me. It was going to pay off. Dawn Noble is the owner of La Provence in Rockport, Massachusetts. Like all the owners we've spoken to in the first season of Small Biz Stories, Dawn has a gift. From the moment you enter her store, you're transported by the vibrant colors of French linens and bright bread baskets. The French-milled soaps fill the store with smells of Jasmine Ginger and Rosemary Mint. It's the type of place you could spend hours exploring each and every detail. Since taking over the store 10 years ago, Dawn has learned what it takes to be a successful small business owner. Today, in our final interview of the season, Dawn shares the unexpected way she became a business owner, her biggest challenges and lessons, and her best advice for others looking to start their own business. More than fifty percent of small businesses fail within the first five years. These are the stories of those who beat the odds. My name is Dave Charest and I'll be your host as we share the stories of some of the bravest people you'll ever meet, small business owners. You'll hear how they got started, their biggest challenges, and their dreams for the future. Dave: Becoming a business owner can take months, or even years, of careful planning. But for Dawn, the journey started unexpectedly. Dawn: It was sort of happenstance — it was completely by accident. I was working at what was then called The Greenery Restaurant, and I was about to start graduate classes. I had finished college, and it was my favorite store in town, La Provence. I had tablecloths from there, I had soap, I had colognes. I loved the owners, they were great guys. And Bill, one of the previous owners, Bill Chisholm, came into the restaurant one day and he just said…they were trying to sell the business, one of the owners was really sick. It wasn’t an ideal situation for them, so they were looking basically for an exit strategy from the business. It had been there baby for 10 plus years,