City of Echoes

RESEARCH STATEMENT 

The City of Echoes short film (currently in post-production) was created as a research project in partnership with NantStudios (Melbourne) with funding support from the Faculty of Fine Arts and Music, The University of Melbourne, via a Commonwealth Department of Education, Skills and Employment grant to advance virtual production research, skills and capabilities in the Victoria and Australia (Croft 2022). 

In 2022, while serving as Head of Film and Television department at the Victorian College of the Arts, City of Echoes (O’Keefe and Rule 2024) co-writer and director, Andrew O’Keefe, spearheaded the integration of Virtual Production into the VCA’s curriculum – specifically a focus on In-Camera Visual Effects (ICVFX) workflows using LED Volumes. At the beginning of the second year of this four-year journey, inspired by the minimalist urban landscape paintings of Jeffrey Smart OA, Andrew conceived the initial idea for the short film with an ICVFX workflow in mind. 

The screenplay, written by Andrew and co-writer/colleague Jack Rule, dramatises the theme that “living a creative life is an act of bravery”. Despite virtual production’s technical demands—requiring attention to pixel-pitch, gen-lock, and mocap synch—the story’s theme remained central, providing a unifying vision for the entire crew (Batty 2015, 120). As the story and the production progressed in complexity, this central ‘premise’ became more important and ensured that all elements would “blend into an harmonious whole” (Egri 1946, 30).  The production process required balancing artistic vision with technical feasibility, and theme kept us all on course. Through this synergy, lessons unfolded.

Early drafts of City of Echoes were dialogue-heavy, however, it became evident that virtual production thrives on visual storytelling. Inspired by Jeffrey Smart’s silent yet evocative paintings, across multiple drafts the story was stripped of verbal exposition in favour of action, symbol, motif and visual subtext. This empowered the film’s collaborators (cinematographer, production designer, virtual art department) to have genuine influence on the story development and, in turn, the writing on the pages we delivered. 

The removal of dialogue was also a technical consideration. It was discovered some months prior to filming, via a site visit, that recording clean audio would be compromised due to the natural reverb and echo inside the cavernous LED Volume at Docklands Studios (Melbourne). The prospect of costly post-production Additional Dialogue Recording (ADR) reinforced the decision to eliminate dialogue entirely. Instead, characters were rewritten to communicate visually and through music; Emma through dance and Eugene through trumpet. This not only leveraged virtual production’s strengths but also removed language barriers for international audiences.

The story’s antagonists, the “Arrow Carriers”, were originally portrayed as human roadworkers in early drafts, but the script evolved to depict them as masked, uniformed figures—enhancing their menace and omnipresence. This redesign, which occurred after the dialogue was removed, allowed for seamless integration of digital doubles, leveraging Unreal Engine’s capabilities while embracing the “uncanny valley” (de Borst and de Gelder 2015) effect to amplify the character’s eeriness and sense of otherness. Crew members occasionally stepped into Arrow Carrier costumes to increase on-screen presence while digital counterparts populated background shots. This script adjustment, reacting to virtual production constraints, optimised production efficiency and amplified tonal decisions. 

Originally, the story spanned three days incorporating shifting weather and lighting conditions. However, the Virtual Art Department flagged that rendering multiple weather systems was computationally expensive and difficult to execute in real time. To align with virtual production constraints, we condensed the screenplay into a single overcast afternoon. This decision streamlined production in the following ways:

• LED Volumes struggle with direct sunlight, favouring diffused lighting conditions, making overcast weather ideal.

• Fewer digital assets were required, reducing production complexity and costs.

• Costume consistency was maintained, eliminating the need for multiple wardrobe changes for the characters.

• Continuity across departments improved, minimising logistical challenges.

The evolution of the screenplay led to an integration of the writing and previsualisation stages – often separate in a traditional filmmaking pipeline. Increasingly, elements of screenwriting, pre-production and post-production were happening simultaneously, which Millard refers to as a “fluid” synergy (2010, 14). Digital environments needed to be built months in advance, necessitating precise alignment between screenplay, storyboards and 3D world-building. As rewrites occurred, storyboards were continuously updated to match production constraints. 

This workflow ensured that every scripted scene was achievable within the technical framework of the production, avoiding unnecessary revisions and wasted resources. It also allowed for early visualisation of potential issues, enabling adjustments before physical production began. Like writer/director Emma Needell (Life Rendered, 2022), we also began to “work on various drafts of the film – not the script but the film” (Needell 2022).

One of the most significant, exciting and collaborative screenplay changes stemmed from budget constraints. Initially, the climax featured Emma (played by Prof. Emma Redding) and Eugene (Tony Briggs) escaping via a wire stunt and floating over the shipping containers. However, rigging costs were estimated at $20,000, far exceeding our budget. The story breakthrough came from the Virtual Production Studio Manager – who we’d been working closely with - who suggested an alternative: “Instead of the characters flying, why don’t they use the power of their artistic expression (trumpet and dance) to lift a shipping container off the ground?” This suggestion not only aligned with the story’s surreal tone, enhanced character agency and deepened thematic resonance, but it made more significant use of existing virtual production assets – the shipping containers.

The evolution of the City of Echoes screenplay underscores the need for screenwriters to rethink their approach when working in virtual production environments. Several key takeaways emerge:

• Screenwriters should collaborate closely with virtual production teams, integrating world-building considerations into early drafts.

• Dialogue-heavy scripts challenge virtual production where visual storytelling is more effective.

• Story structure should accommodate virtual production’s strengths, favouring continuous action over fragmented time-jumps.

• Screenplays should develop closely with visual mediums, such as storyboards and previsualisation workflows, to ensure digital environments are efficiently constructed.

• Virtual production offers solutions beyond budget constraints, enabling imaginative workarounds that can enhance thematic depth rather than compromise it.

Virtual production technologies are reshaping filmmaking, offering around 250 new roles that enhance traditional production practices. The Australian Screen Sector injected almost $2.29B into the economy in 2021-22 on domestic and international production in Australia (Ausfilm 2023). Very little, however, has been explored in terms of the ways in which screenwriting must adapt to this new production paradigm. This practice-led research examines how the screenplay functions within a virtual production pipeline. By documenting practical lessons learned from the production of the City of Echoes short film, the research provides insight for screenwriters navigating this new addition to the cinematic landscape. The research argues that the global film industry may benefit from screenwriters being afforded a deeper understanding of virtual production workflows. 

PEER REVIEW 1 

I really enjoyed reading the screenplay for the virtual production City of Echoes. It is a highly poetic work that evokes a complex visual world and creates a rich tone/mood for the story, which tells of two people who use their art (dance and music) to break free from the forces of urban constraint (inspired by the artwork of Jeffrey Smart). The accompanying Research Statement outlines the complexities of creating a script in the virtual production environment and notes the significance of having to integrate screenwriting with both pre- and post-production.

I feel that the research statement could be strengthened by more fully exploring the relationship between the screenplay and other previsualisation and post-production assets – which seems to be the central research finding.  

I must admit that I was anticipating that the screenplay might specifically and formally distinguish between the elements that were to be rendered via the volume from those to be filmed in front of it (on the basis that the writer needs to cater for these two paths of production that come together in camera). However, the screenplay maintained a more traditional approach of describing the overall scene – often in sparse detail.

In some cases I found the “geography” of the storyworld quite confusing (this may well be because of the surreal nature of the narrative), but it occurred to me that much of the description that I felt was missing (or simplified?) may have been because of the “fluid synergy” that occurred in this specific workflow environment with elements relating to the volume “written” separately and more collaboratively using processes that interacted with the screenplay in a more subtle way. I also wondered if the process of script development might have been different if the writer and director had been different people? 

Unpacking this relationship in a more critical way, and more clearly outlining the implication for the screenwriter and screenplay, would help provide insights in an area where there has been limited scholarship.

Please provide feedback/suggestions for changes to the research statement or creative work:

• Is the finding that “Dialogue-heavy scripts challenge virtual production” generalisable or just specific to this production environment? (Series like 1899 (bo Odar and Friese 2022) shot using VP are dialogue heavy – but clearly have no budget constraints!)

• You note that “Story structure should accommodate virtual production’s strengths, favouring continuous action over fragmented time-jumps” but do not fully explain why. Is this just dependent upon how many virtual scenes/assets have been built?

• Scene 1: When the ARROW CARRIER is first mentioned I did not realise it was a human carrying an arrow. I thought it was some kind of equipment. It was not until I looked up the Jeffrey Smart painting that I understood!

• Scene 2 (Under Cahill): Here is an example for me of sparse/confusing geography. We are under the Cahill Expressway with an “underground service station” and the “city’s underbelly” – I wasn’t sure what I was looking at.

• Did you consider using a different format for the script – like a 3 column AV format? Or creating a new format, as some writers have done for VR?

PEER REVIEW 2 

One of the compelling aspects of this project is the way it illustrates the dynamic interplay between emerging virtual production technologies and the screenwriting process. The creative team begins with a conventional script, but adapts it repeatedly in response to technological constraints, such as acoustic issues within the LED volume, prohibitive costs associated with simulating weather or the logistical challenges of wire-rigging. Rather than resisting these limitations, the team embraces them as creative parameters, resulting in a film devoid of spoken dialogue, set entirely within a single overcast afternoon and expressed through dance, trumpet performance and levitating shipping containers as narrative devices. The accompanying research statement is particularly valuable, as it clearly documents the step-by-step rationale behind each decision.

The submission meets its stated objectives, however, a few improvements could strengthen its contribution. Exposing data, such as render-time savings, the estimated cost of ADR or budget reductions, would make the practical benefits of this approach more tangible for other practitioners. Also, a comment on accessibility, such as the use of captions or audio description to accommodate the absence of dialogue, would reflect a commitment to inclusive design and production.

This submission clearly exemplifies practice-as-research, as it originates from a central inquiry “How must screenwriting evolve within an LED-volume production environment?” Each revision of the script serves as a live experiment, tested directly within production conditions. Innovation is evident in eliminating dialogue and simulating levitating containers instead of traditional wire-stunt choreography. These creative choices are contextualized through references to both Jeffrey Smart’s visual work and current theoretical discourse on virtual production, situating the project within relevant artistic and technical frameworks. By transparently sharing both its breakthroughs and challenges, the submission contributes insights for screenwriters and producers seeking to integrate narrative design with virtual production workflows.

RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEWS

Peer Review 1: I feel that the research statement could be strengthened by more fully exploring the relationship between the screenplay and other previsualisation and post-production assets – which seems to be the central research finding.  

Response: In reconsidering this research statement, it is too broad. Instead, a narrower focus would have allowed greater insight into the iterative approach to screenwriting and story development that was demanded by the production process.

Peer Review 1: I must admit that I was anticipating that the screenplay might specifically and formally distinguish between the elements that were to be rendered via the volume from those to be filmed in front of it (on the basis that the writer needs to cater for these two paths of production that come together in camera). However, the screenplay maintained a more traditional approach of describing the overall scene – often in sparse detail.

Response: There is merit in the idea of a screenplay format tailored to the virtual production process. As the writing turned exclusively visual (cutting all dialogue) I found it necessary to update storyboards and circulate them to the team with any new drafts. Much of the specific production information (ICVFX / Green Screen / Unreal Renders) was delivered via a colour-coding process of the storyboards and an accompanying spreadsheet. Those elements could be incorporated into a bespoke screenplay format.

Peer Review 1: In some cases I found the “geography” of the storyworld quite confusing (this may well be because of the surreal nature of the narrative), but it occurred to me that much of the description that I felt was missing (or simplified?) may have been because of the “fluid synergy” that occurred in this specific workflow environment – with elements relating to the volume “written” separately and more collaboratively using processes that interacted with the screenplay in a more subtle way. I also wondered if the process of script development might have been different if the writer and director had been different people?  Unpacking this relationship in a more critical way, and more clearly outlining the implication for the screenwriter and screenplay would help provide insights in an area where there has been limited scholarship.

Response: I was always cognisant of the fact that Jack and I were writing this script for a very specific audience, our dozen or so heads of department. The script was not written “on spec”. In that regard, I was very aware that they all knew the artwork of Jeffrey Smart very well. In fact, when in conversation the team referred to scenes by using the names of the paintings such as “Cahill Expressway” or “Germaine Greer” rather than scene numbers. I would approach that somewhat differently if the screenplay were for a general audience of producers, financiers or interested parties. Having said that my own screenwriting style is minimalist, perhaps to a fault. I can only wonder what difference it might make if one of the writers was not also the director.

Peer Review 1: Is the finding that “Dialogue-heavy scripts challenge virtual production” generalisable or just specific to this production environment? (Series like 1899 shot using VP are dialogue heavy – but clearly have no budget constraints!)

Response: It would be interesting to know how much ADR was required for series like 1899 (bo Odar and Friese 2022) as I can attest that recording audio in a curved LED volume is not ideal. I should also clarify that in City of Echoes the 3D elements on the wall are elements that the actors respond physically to, such as shipping containers threatening to crush them to death, rather than simply being visual backgrounds to perform in front of. It is that interaction that I propose would be more effective without dialogue,but that is another research project.

Peer Review 1: You note that “Story structure should accommodate virtual production’s strengths, favouring continuous action over fragmented time-jumps”, but don’t fully explain why. Is this just dependent upon how many virtual scenes/assets have been built?

Response: My summation of virtual production favouring continuous action was, indeed, about the complications that abound for all departments when additional virtual scenes/assets are required that could, at script stage, be avoided. Complications arise for many departments with regard to maintaining continuity across lighting and virtual weather systems over multiple sets and screen days.

Peer Review 1: Scene 2 (Under Cahill): Here is an example for me of sparse/confusing geography. We are under the Cahill Expressway with an “underground service station” and the “city’s underbelly” – I was not sure what I was looking at.

Response: This is a very astute observation. I had never intended to reveal exactly what Eugene was seeing under Cahill Expressway, preferring to leave it a subjective experience for the audience. Now, as I write this, it is actually the last shot that the team is working on, as I have come to accept that this moment completes the cycle of the story-world logic. Also, that the look of horror on Eugene’s face needs to be contextualised visually.

Peer Review 1: Did you consider using a different format for the script – like a 3 column AV format? Or creating a new format, as some writers have done for VR?

Response: I am a traditionalist with regards to screenplay format. I deplore when writers use “we see”, frown upon written camera directions, and dislike the screenplay directing the editing, such as “Dissolve to”. I find it lazy writing that breaks the storytelling spell for the audience. Writing in images is the craft of screenwriting. So, in reflection, my own prejudice probably did not allow me to think outside the box with regards to format. Perhaps the most appropriate form, for City of Echoes, at least, would be more akin to a graphic novel. I can attest that for every screenplay draft there was an accompanying new set of storyboards and therefore an integration of the two forms might be desirable.

Peer Review 2: The submission meets its stated objectives, however, a few improvements could strengthen its contribution. Exposing data, such as render-time savings, the estimated cost of ADR, or budget reductions, would make the practical benefits of this approach more tangible for other practitioners. Also, a comment on accessibility, such as the use of captions or audio description to accommodate the absence of dialogue, would reflect a commitment to inclusive design and production.

Response: Quantifying the financial implications of various opportunity-cost decisions would, indeed, make useful data for future productions considering virtual production. Budget most definitely drove iterative story changes. That is data that likely exists, but we have not yet collated and may be the foundation of further a paper. With regards to accessibility, I agree. It will be vital post-production asset that shall be produced.

Peer Review 2: This submission clearly exemplifies practice-as-research, as it originates from a central inquiry: “How must screenwriting evolve within an LED-volume production environment?” Each revision of the script serves as a live experiment, tested directly within production conditions. Innovation is evident in eliminating dialogue and simulating levitating containers instead of traditional wire-stunt choreography. These creative choices are contextualised through references to both Jeffrey Smart’s visual work and current theoretical discourse on virtual production, situating the project within relevant artistic and technical frameworks. By transparently sharing both its breakthroughs and challenges, the submission contributes insights for screenwriters and producers seeking to integrate narrative design with virtual production workflows.

Response: When we entered this project, we were learning about the virtual production pipeline and did anticipate that it would demand alterations to almost every aspect of the filmmaking pipeline, including screenwriting. As we got to know the technology more intimately, the story changed accordingly and with it the visual demands on the writers. I imagine that a more thorough account of the virtual production filmmaking process – with a focus on screenwriting – will make clearer and more detailed observations with specific regard to script-to-screen visualisation. The screenplay format itself could be altered for this particular pipeline.

REVISED RESEARCH STATEMENT

The City of Echoes short film (currently in post-production) was created as a research project in partnership with NantStudios (Melbourne) with funding support from the Faculty of Fine Arts and Music, The University of Melbourne, via a Commonwealth Department of Education, Skills and Employment grant to advance virtual production research, skills and capabilities in the Victoria and Australia (Croft 2022). 

In 2022, while serving as Head of Film and Television department at the Victorian College of the Arts, City of Echoes (O’Keefe and Rule 2024) co-writer and director, Andrew O’Keefe, spearheaded the integration of Virtual Production into the VCA’s curriculum–specifically a focus on In-Camera Visual Effects (ICVFX) workflows using LED Volumes. At the beginning of the second year of this four-year journey, inspired by the minimalist urban landscape paintings of Jeffrey Smart OA, Andrew conceived the initial idea for the short film with an ICVFX workflow in mind. 

The screenplay, written by Andrew and co-writer/colleague Jack Rule, dramatises the theme that “living a creative life is an act of bravery”. Despite virtual production’s technical demands—requiring attention to pixel-pitch, gen-lock, and mocap sync — the story’s theme remained central, providing a unifying vision for the entire crew (Batty 2015, 120). As the story and the production progressed in complexity, this central “premise” became more important and ensured that all elements would “blend into an harmonious whole” (Egri 1946, 30).  The production process required balancing artistic vision with technical feasibility and theme kept us all on course. Through this synergy, lessons unfolded.

Early drafts of City of Echoes were dialogue-heavy, however, it became evident that virtual production thrives on visual storytelling. Inspired by Jeffrey Smart’s silent yet evocative paintings, across multiple drafts the story was stripped of verbal exposition in favour of action, symbol, motif, and visual subtext. This empowered the film’s collaborators (cinematographer, production designer, virtual art department) to have genuine influence on the story development and, in turn, the writing on the pages we delivered. 

The removal of dialogue was also a technical consideration. It was discovered some months prior to filming, via a site visit, that recording clean audio would be compromised due to the natural reverb and echo inside the cavernous LED Volume at Docklands Studios (Melbourne). The prospect of costly post-production Additional Dialogue Recording (ADR) reinforced the decision to eliminate dialogue entirely. Instead, characters were rewritten to communicate visually and through music: Emma through dance and Eugene through trumpet. This not only leveraged virtual production’s strengths but also removed language barriers for international audiences.

The story’s antagonists, the “Arrow Carriers”, were originally portrayed as human roadworkers and would be played by actors with recognisable faces. The screenplay evolved to depict the Arrow Carriers as masked, uniformed and anonymous figures, which enhanced their menace and omnipresence. This redesign, which occurred after the dialogue was removed, allowed for seamless integration of digital doubles, leveraging Unreal Engine’s capabilities while embracing the ‘uncanny valley’ (de Borst and de Gelder 2015) effect to amplify the character’s eeriness and sense of otherness. Digital Arrow Carriers, (as seen in Fig.2) were deployed to populate the city and grow authoritarianism. This script adjustment, capitalising on a virtual production opportunity, optimised production efficiency and amplified the sense of dystopia. 

Three weeks before principal photography, the story took place across three days, incorporating shifting weather and lighting conditions. However, the Virtual Art Department flagged that rendering multiple weather systems was computationally expensive and difficult to execute in real-time. To align with virtual production constraints, we condensed the screenplay into a single overcast afternoon. This decision streamlined production in the following ways:

• LED Volumes struggle with direct sunlight, favouring diffused lighting conditions, making overcast weather ideal.

• Fewer digital assets were required, reducing production complexity and costs.

• Costume consistency was maintained, eliminating the need for multiple wardrobe changes for the characters.

• Continuity across departments improved, minimising logistical challenges.

The evolution of the screenplay led to an integration of the writing and previsualisation stages – often separate in a traditional filmmaking pipeline. Increasingly, elements of screenwriting, pre-production and post-production were happening simultaneously, which Millard refers to as a “fluid” synergy (2010, 14). Digital environments needed to be built months in advance, necessitating precise alignment between screenplay, storyboards and 3D world-building. As rewrites occurred, storyboards were continuously updated to match production constraints. 

This workflow ensured that every scripted scene was achievable within the technical framework of the production, avoiding unnecessary revisions and wasted resources. It also allowed for early visualisation of potential issues, enabling adjustments before physical production began. Like writer/director Emma Needell (Life Rendered, 2022), we also began to “work on various drafts of the film – not the script but the film” (Needell 2022).

One of the most significant, exciting and collaborative screenplay changes stemmed from budget constraints. Initially, the climax featured Emma (played by Prof. Emma Redding) and Eugene (Tony Briggs) escaping via a wire stunt and floating over the shipping containers. However, rigging costs were estimated at $20,000, far exceeding our budget. The story breakthrough came from the Virtual Production Studio Manager – who we’d been working closely with – who suggested an alternative: “Instead of the characters flying, why don’t they use the power of their artistic expression (trumpet and dance) to lift a shipping container off the ground?” This suggestion not only aligned with the story’s surreal tone, enhanced character agency and deepened thematic resonance, but it made more significant use of existing virtual production assets–the shipping containers.

The evolution of the City of Echoes screenplay underscores the need for screenwriters to rethink their approach when working in virtual production environments. Several key takeaways emerge:

• Screenwriters should collaborate closely with virtual production teams, integrating world-building considerations into early drafts.

• Dialogue-heavy scripts challenge virtual production where visual storytelling is more effective.

• Story structure should accommodate virtual production’s strengths, favouring continuous action over fragmented time-jumps.

• Screenplays should develop closely with visual mediums, such as storyboards and previsualisation workflows, to ensure digital environments are efficiently constructed.

• Virtual production offers solutions beyond budget constraints, enabling imaginative workarounds that can enhance thematic depth rather than compromise it.

Virtual production technologies are reshaping filmmaking, offering around 250 new roles that enhance traditional production practices. The Australian Screen Sector injected almost $2.29B into the economy in 2021-22 on domestic and international production in Australia (Ausfilm 2023). Very little, however, has been explored in terms of the ways in which screenwriting must learn to be a more “flexible document” and adapt to this new production paradigm (Millard 2010, 14). 

By documenting practical lessons learned from the production of the City of Echoes short film, the research provides insight for screenwriters navigating this new addition to the cinematic landscape. The research argues that the global film industry may benefit from screenwriters being afforded a deeper understanding of virtual production workflows. These discoveries, however, raise further questions about how screenwriters might approach virtual production projects and what the future of virtual production-specific screenwriting might look like. In what ways might screenwriters be more closely involved in digital world-building? In what ways can writers collaborate more closely with previs teams and production designers? Should the traditional screenplay format evolve to incorporate storyboards and imagery from virtual production previs?  

The City of Echoes film project has benefitted from Commonwealth Government grant funding for Virtual Production growth and development in Victoria. The project is a collaboration between the staff and students of VCA Film and Television (The University of Melbourne); camera and post-production manufacturer, Blackmagic Design; one of the leading global virtual production companies, NantStudios (Melbourne); and the Estate of Jeffrey Smart. 

REFERENCES 

Ausfilm. 2023. “Australian Screen Industry Roles - VFX, Animation & Virtual Production.” Government Department. Australia: Ausfilm International. https://www.ausfilm.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Australian-Screen-Industry-Roles_VFX-Animation-VP_Apr23.pdf.

Batty, Craig. 2015. “A Screenwriter’s Journey into Theme, and How Creative Writing Research Might Help Us to Define Screen Production Research.” Studies in Australasian Cinema 9, no. 2: 110–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2015.1059991.

bo Odar, Baran, and Jantje Friese. cr. 2022. 1899. Germany: Studio Babelsberg. TV series. 

Borst, Aline W. de, and Beatrice de Gelder. 2015. “Is It the Real Deal? Perception of Virtual Characters versus Humans: An Affective Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective.” Frontiers in Psychology 6 (May). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00576.

Croft, Corey. 2022. “State of the Art Infrastructure Boosts Screen Industry.” Minister for Creative Industries. https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/state-art-infrastructure-boosts-screen-industry.

Egri, Lajos. 1946. The Art of Dramatic Writing. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Millard, Kathryn. 2010. “After the Typewriter: The Screenplay in a Digital Era.” Journal of Screenwriting 1, no. 1: 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1386/josc.1.1.11/1.

Needell, Emma, dir. 2022. Writing Your Film with Unreal Engine. Tribeca: TRIBECA X UNREAL ENGINE. Video Interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI73jxODgYM.

–, dir. 2022. Life Rendered. US: Neon Sheep Pictures. Short Film. 

O’Keefe, Andrew, and Jack Rule. 2024. City of Echoes. Screenplay. Melbourne, Australia.