“Rachel and Dylan knew each other. They were in a play together that ran just weeks before the shooting. She was an actress, he was a light guy. I can only assume that Dylan knew as much about Rachel’s faith as I did, which was not much, if anything.” – Sarah Bay

About a month ago, an anon asked whether Dylan worked on Rachel’s play ‘The Smoke in the Room’ and my original response was no, and it is correct in the sense that Dylan was no longer working sound design for theater production during the last quarter of Senior year according to his class schedule, see post here.  However, this new development, according to Sarah, is that Dylan was the ‘light guy’ for ‘The Smoke in the Room’ which played on April 2 – 3, 1999 only.  Sarah is a Columbine survivor that has been posting on the Facebook boycott page against the airing of the ‘I’m not Ashamed’ movie production.  Sarah would definitely have a good idea if Dylan worked lights (instead of his usual position working sound) since she was both a part of theater and debate class.  She worked with Devon Adams who also stared in this production; she also knew Brooks Brown, and of course Rachel, having worked with both in theater as well as debate. What is interesting about this is that Dylan some how helped them out with the lighting. Zack Heckler was typically the light guy, though. I ponder if maybe Zack was unable to volunteer helping them with this production so Dylan was asked to help with the lighting as an extra curricular activity in part due to his past, extensive stage crew experience..  Surely, Zack trained Dylan to also work the lighting from time to time or as an extra pair of hands so Dylan knew both sound as a primary and lighting as a backup gig.  It’s kind of eerily ironic to look at the spotlight on the above photos of Rachel, following her every movement, knowing that Dylan Klebold was very likely the one holding the spotlight for her during this two day long play, a mere 16-17 days before the massacre.

As I mentioned above, Sarah, posted this information recently in favor of the boycott against the Scott family’s account of Rachel Scott’s life and death which is being portrayed intentionally inaccurate  with their hope of further pushing ‘faith’  in conjunction to Rachel’s death and the christian agenda.  Supporters of this boycott are Brooks’ dad, Randy Brown, Richard Castaldo and Devon Adams – among many other Columbine survivors.

 If you’d like to read Sarah’s entire post (and a few others) click the cut.

Today, I’d like to touch on a lie that has been told since 1999 about Rachel. I doubt this post will go over well in some circles, but please remember I have nothing to lose by posting this.

Some have stated that Rachel died BECAUSE of her faith. That she stood up to them, professed her love of God and/or Jesus, and died because of it.

The truth is Eric and Dylan wanted us all dead.

By all accounts, had the bombs they built actually gone off, more than 1000 students, teachers, and faculty would have died. They planned this during lunch, so that they would impact a huge portion of the school. Since the bombs didn’t go off, as intended, they were forced to enter the school. Rachel just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Rachel and Dylan knew each other. They were in a play together that ran just weeks before the shooting. She was an actress, he was a light guy. I can only assume that Dylan knew as much about Rachel’s faith as I did, which was not much, if anything.

They did not target those of faith. They targeted people at random.

I know this doesn’t go along with the story most of you have heard, but let’s be real. No one can really say for certain what the exchange was between Rachel and her murderers. Unlike the library, where there were many witnesses, there was only one witness to Rachel’s death, and they were paralyzed and traumatized. In addition, their likeness is featured in this film WITHOUT permission. I wonder why that is…

The story you’ve been told about Rachel has been fabricated and neatly packaged as absolute truth so that her story could be more easily sold. Rachel was a person of faith, this is true, but by all accounts kept it mostly to herself until she died. Once her journals were found, a huge business was formed. They have made money off of her story as a direct result of this perpetuated lie (books, speaking engagements, and now movie deals). While Rachel’s Challenge did help people and honor her memory, this movie just bolsters an all out falsehood. It is clearly a money grab. The people who want to see this movie love a fairy tale, and will never dig too hard to find out whether it’s true or not.

Let’s face it, a girl who died because she stood up for what she believed in is way more interesting (and ultimately sells more) than a girl who was simply the first of many. ~Sarah

Thank you! It’s so frustrating that there are untruths trying to give some religious or political manifesto to the killers. There wasn’t one beyond hatred.

–Devon Adams

—-

To be clear, we are aware that Rachel’s family is behind this production. We agree that it is their right to produce this movie.

However, it is our right as survivors and friends of Rachel to disagree with portions of this movie. Since these portions of the movie are part of the whole, we believe the whole movie should be boycotted.

Specific grievances are as follows:

1) Glamorizing the shooting at Columbine High School and the shooters. Eric’s wishes to be immortal and for his acts to be remembered are all but granted. He will live on FOREVER because of this movie. I do not care how short of a time he and Dylan are in the movie. They are in there. Actors portraying them are in the movie. Their acts are now immortalized on the big screen, just like they wanted. It is absolutely wrong. All it would take to tell what happened to Rachel is a black screen, and either a voice or scrolling text to briefly describe Columbine and her role. Everyone knows what happened. To hire actors to play Eric and Dylan is shameful. Glamorizing what they did is wrong, no matter how little screen time it actually gets. There is no justification for including this in the movie. How many copycats do you think will be created as a direct result of Eric and Dylan’s screen time?

2) Depicting Rachel’s death. I don’t need to explain further. How many times do you think they had to shoot that particular scene to get it just right? Think about that for a minute…

3) A release date of April 20th. This is simply to boost ticket sales, since it is the anniversary. It is clear there was absolutely no consideration for any of the survivors with this choice in release dates.

4) The trailer is a TRIGGER for survivors. As a survivor, and as someone who has PTSD as a result of the shooting, April is a very hard month for me, as it is for most other survivors and the community as a whole. During that month, I try to avoid places that remind me of that day to the best of my ability. This year, not only will I have to avoid places, I will have to avoid my TV for fear of seeing this trailer and the glamorized Hollywood deptiction of my friend and my horrific life event. Not to mention my likeness will probably be portrayed in the movie.

I agree that Rachel’s Challenge honored Rachel’s memory. I do not agree this movie is the right way to tell Rachel’s story nor to honor her memory. ~Sarah

–

I’d like to talk a little about the movie making process today. You see, my husband is in the industry. It sounds glamorous, but it really isn’t. The end product might be cool, but to get there takes hours and hours (and hours) of painstaking work. One 3-minute scene may take the whole day to film. We aren’t even talking about the editing process.

Now, let’s take a closer look at this movie, specifically, Rachel’s death scene. There are at least 10-20+ people for every scene. From producers, to cameramen, to lighting guys, to the director, to the actors… there’s a lot of people present. To get this scene just right, there had to have been several takes. Can you imagine what this particular scene set up must have looked like?

“Now girl playing Rachel, I need you to look more scared. You’re facing death, you know it. I need to see your fear!” “Now guys playing Dylan and Eric. You have all the power. You’ve got rage. I need to see your rage. Wear this trench coat. Hold your gun this way, hold your gun that way.” “Guy playing Eric, pull Rachel’s hair just this way when you hold the gun to her head, but face the camera this way…”

What it must have been like on set to witness this. Do you think the director had any second thoughts about reenacting this scene? Do you think the camera guys felt any pangs of guilt? What about Rachel’s mother? She’s a producer; do you think she was on set at the time? Do you think she was witness to the actress portraying her daughter dying over and over again just to get that particular scene right? Or do you think she skipped that day? Is she just concerned with the final product and ticket sales, considering the release date? What exactly is her priority in showcasing her daughter’s death, and in giving screen time to her daughter’s killers?

I can’t speak for her, but if it were me, and it were my daughter, that is the single most horrific day of my life. I would never want to “see” how my daughter died outside of my mind’s eye. I would never consider featuring the men that murdered my daughter, and I would NEVER give them a nanosecond of screen time in an attempt to tell the story of my daughter’s life. But I guess that’s just me. ~Sarah