Thanks Rev! Glad you liked it.

I completely understand your disappointment with the message being so literal, though. That's the number one criticism I've seen from people who aren't heavily involved in anarchist/libertarian activism circles. There's a few reasons for the blunt and obvious delivery of the message at the end, and to be honest... They're more strategic than they are artistic.

I originally conceived the film in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting. ALL of the insane posters you see about "Sandy Hoax" are taken from REAL websites (If you want a good laugh, go to "WellAware1.com"). I just got so fed up with fellow anarcho-libertarian activists buying into stupid conspiracy theories - and other people assuming that I buy into them as well due to my philosophical/political beliefs - that I decided to make a film making fun of such theories. I thought it would be hilarious to make a dark comedy neo-noir in the vain of The Big Lebowski... You know, where the mystery is sort of a total non-event at the end of the film.

The narration was supposed to give the film something along the lines of a hardboiled detective vibe while also making the message make sense. However, once the film was done, I sort of fell in love with how well it worked as a silent movie. As this is one of my few projects that wasn't made for any sort of competition and it had no real deadline, I agonized for MONTHS about whether or not to include ANY narration at all while I made other shorts. The only part of the film that I think most people would have missed without any dialogue whatsoever was the idea that this guy SHOULD have been focusing on real issues like war and civil liberties violations instead of insane satanic conspiracy theories. The story itself makes perfect sense without the narration, and in many ways I like it better without it. All my filmmaker friends who saw it wondered why I was even considering adding narration at all.

And that's why the inclusion of narration comes down to a tactical decision more than an artistic one... Because that one tiny point that isn't integral to the actual plot is pretty much the sole reason for the film's existence, and without narration that point would likely be completely lost on the people who need to hear it most. I would say that most of my films contain libertarian messages. Occam's Razor, on the other hand, contains a message FOR libertarians. And that's something I didn't want to abandon, especially since most of my views are going to come from libertarian circles anyway. I actually hacked down the narration quite a bit from what it originally was. I cut it down to what I felt where the bare essentials.

Ultimately, I THINK I made the right decision, even though I know it damages the film slightly in the eyes of many cinephiles. If you want a good laugh, check out some of the comments... I've gotten a few dislikes from people who are basically accusing me of being some sort of government psy-op trying to make libertarians, Christians, and gun-owners look crazy. Which is hilarious, since I myself fall squarely into all three of those demographics. I imagine the backlash from the lunatic fringe that comprises a large part of my audience would potentially be even WORSE if I hadn't added the narration for clarity.

Anyway... Thanks again for watching it!

I actually once had a room mate who believed in shape shifting reptilian overlords, that guy was a piece of work, and I managed to get him out of my place on a technicality.