This and that
May. 11th, 2004 05:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWell...I've been productive these past few days. Networked. Met new people. Re-connected with a few. Ran into some more brick walls or log ones, not sure which. And am forcing myself to keep a stiff upper lip as the saying goes. "Don't let the turkey's get you down" - my Dad used to tell me when I was in college. Good advice.
Today, I interviewed with the Volunteer Referral Service - which uncovered two non-profit organizations that I might be able to do some volunteer work with. Both require computer skills, writing, organization and general office work. I'm hoping this will get me out of the apartment and honing my skills. Still afraid they are getting rusty. I've relied on volunteer work before - so this is nothing new. And I met with pumpkinpuss who kindly loaned me all her Jim Butcher novels.
Now if I can just keep myself from getting muddled.
The more I try to focus on one area to research or go after, the more uncertain I get and well, muddled. Not sure about this. Would see another career counselor - except the last one cost me a mint and did very little to focus or direct me. UGH. Perhaps the problem is I'm second-guessing myself due to the lack of positive responses? Could be. I'm very adept at second-guessing myself. I so want to do the right thing, have limited funds which have to be spent very carefully, no room for mistakes here. This makes it exceedingly difficult to figure out - 1. Should I take another course through NYU's school of continuing education? The last four haven't really done much networking or career wise. I've learned a few things. But without practice those things seem to drift away. And it's a lot of money. NYU, not cheap. 2. Should I join execunet.com which is also pricey but has some seminars and networking deals as well as a search system and comes highly recommended. Problem? It seems to be for people with a tad more professional experience than I have and a little higher management level. 3. Should I try to get another career assessment, maybe NYU?
See muddled. Game plan is to followup on some of the suggestions I got last week. Already made progress on fresne's and working on that networking meetings suggestions. Also met with the volunteer group today. And am researching American Express and Google as companies to attempt to get a job with. That's a focus. Need to make up my mind on the NYU HR recruiting course this week - assuming it's not too late to register. I'm partly dragging my feet because I'm not overly crazy about the instructor. Also recruiting hits a bit close to home right now. Do I want to sit in a classroom and see how to read a resume? OTOH it might give me some good tid-bits on how to write a resume with HR in mind. Or it might serve to muddle me further and add to all the second-guessing. Ugh. By Thursday I must decide. Classes begin the 25.
In other news - I saw a couple of films this weekend. Three on video. One in the movie theater. Haven't rented a movie in ages. Don't tend to much any more due to lack of time and funds. At any rate - the films I rented were excellent, the film I saw in the theater was...bad. I'm sorry, Van Helsing by Stephen Sommers is not a good movie. The story in of itself, while a little on the sappy side, isn't all that bad. The acting is pretty good. The leads do have chemistry and are interesting. But it is bludgeoned and overwhelmed by special effects, sound, theme music, and one-too-many action sequences. Van Helsing is what would happen if you gave a 10 year old video game fanatic a 100 million dollars to make the movie of his dreams. Enough on Van Helsing, much prefer to discuss the one's I did like. Fussing over things I don't like feels like a waste of energy and time at the moment. Enough negativity in the world as it is.
The rentals were:
1. Master and Commander - The Far Side of The World, by Peter Weir. Peter Weir may be one of the few directors out there who can convincingly portray war without getting overly melodramatic or preachy. His other films Gallopi and Year of Living Dangerously - both show violent conflicts, show both sides of the conflict, and refuse to tell you what to think necessarily. Of the three Master and Commander may be the most impartial due to how removed it is from our present. It shows unflinchingly the violence of battle, the unethical dilemmas you run across, and the humanity. And Weir unlike some directors is far more interested in character, the battles are his means of examining and exploring his characters. He *never* does action for action's sake. A movie that will stay with you long after the closing credits. Certainly deserving of the academy award nomination that it garnered. But then, I admit, I'm partial to Peter Weir, a master of mood and character and style, without forsaking substance.
2. Love Actually. (no idea who the director was). It starred Laura Linny, Colin Firth, Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman - which alone makes me happy. Happen to be a fan of all of those actors. This movie surprised me - I didn't expect to like it. I loved it. Adore it. Finally a romantic comedy for those of us who don't find romance, who aren't married or dating, and struggle in the whole romance olympics. This lovely tour de fource is all about the struggle to connect. Loving people. Trying to tell them. Getting rejected. Circumstance getting in the way. Some of the people get together, some don't. One of the funniest bits is the couple that meets while doing a soft-porn film.
While pretending to have sex, they connect with conversation. This is juxatposed brilliantly with a couple who don't speak the same language, yet connect with body language (not sex) just being together. And with yet another couple that can't get together due to outside circumstances. A film that made me laugh and cry. Highly recommend it.
3. Ripley's Game based on the novel by Patricia Highsmith and starring John Malkovich and Dougray Scott.
If you want to know what a sociopath is? Rent Ripley's Game.
Or true "noir" for that matter. This film is noir through and through. With the anti-hero, Ripley, at its center. Here's a sample line, which is what Ripley tells one of the supporting players: "I lack your sense of conscience. It used to bother me when I was younger, it doesn't any longer. Why did I pick you? Because your conscience interested me and I knew you could and you insulted me and well it's the game." Violent in places but also focused on character. It uses the violence to further the characters and plot. It also comments on it. Like the other two films, showing not telling. This movie unfortunately never really made it to the theaters, direct to video. But it is brilliant and trust me, if you like noir films, better than most of the stuff out there right now.
Did see Wrinkle in Time last night. Not quite as wonderful as I remembered. But then I almost have no memory of the novel, having read it over 20 years ago.
Today, I interviewed with the Volunteer Referral Service - which uncovered two non-profit organizations that I might be able to do some volunteer work with. Both require computer skills, writing, organization and general office work. I'm hoping this will get me out of the apartment and honing my skills. Still afraid they are getting rusty. I've relied on volunteer work before - so this is nothing new. And I met with pumpkinpuss who kindly loaned me all her Jim Butcher novels.
Now if I can just keep myself from getting muddled.
The more I try to focus on one area to research or go after, the more uncertain I get and well, muddled. Not sure about this. Would see another career counselor - except the last one cost me a mint and did very little to focus or direct me. UGH. Perhaps the problem is I'm second-guessing myself due to the lack of positive responses? Could be. I'm very adept at second-guessing myself. I so want to do the right thing, have limited funds which have to be spent very carefully, no room for mistakes here. This makes it exceedingly difficult to figure out - 1. Should I take another course through NYU's school of continuing education? The last four haven't really done much networking or career wise. I've learned a few things. But without practice those things seem to drift away. And it's a lot of money. NYU, not cheap. 2. Should I join execunet.com which is also pricey but has some seminars and networking deals as well as a search system and comes highly recommended. Problem? It seems to be for people with a tad more professional experience than I have and a little higher management level. 3. Should I try to get another career assessment, maybe NYU?
See muddled. Game plan is to followup on some of the suggestions I got last week. Already made progress on fresne's and working on that networking meetings suggestions. Also met with the volunteer group today. And am researching American Express and Google as companies to attempt to get a job with. That's a focus. Need to make up my mind on the NYU HR recruiting course this week - assuming it's not too late to register. I'm partly dragging my feet because I'm not overly crazy about the instructor. Also recruiting hits a bit close to home right now. Do I want to sit in a classroom and see how to read a resume? OTOH it might give me some good tid-bits on how to write a resume with HR in mind. Or it might serve to muddle me further and add to all the second-guessing. Ugh. By Thursday I must decide. Classes begin the 25.
In other news - I saw a couple of films this weekend. Three on video. One in the movie theater. Haven't rented a movie in ages. Don't tend to much any more due to lack of time and funds. At any rate - the films I rented were excellent, the film I saw in the theater was...bad. I'm sorry, Van Helsing by Stephen Sommers is not a good movie. The story in of itself, while a little on the sappy side, isn't all that bad. The acting is pretty good. The leads do have chemistry and are interesting. But it is bludgeoned and overwhelmed by special effects, sound, theme music, and one-too-many action sequences. Van Helsing is what would happen if you gave a 10 year old video game fanatic a 100 million dollars to make the movie of his dreams. Enough on Van Helsing, much prefer to discuss the one's I did like. Fussing over things I don't like feels like a waste of energy and time at the moment. Enough negativity in the world as it is.
The rentals were:
1. Master and Commander - The Far Side of The World, by Peter Weir. Peter Weir may be one of the few directors out there who can convincingly portray war without getting overly melodramatic or preachy. His other films Gallopi and Year of Living Dangerously - both show violent conflicts, show both sides of the conflict, and refuse to tell you what to think necessarily. Of the three Master and Commander may be the most impartial due to how removed it is from our present. It shows unflinchingly the violence of battle, the unethical dilemmas you run across, and the humanity. And Weir unlike some directors is far more interested in character, the battles are his means of examining and exploring his characters. He *never* does action for action's sake. A movie that will stay with you long after the closing credits. Certainly deserving of the academy award nomination that it garnered. But then, I admit, I'm partial to Peter Weir, a master of mood and character and style, without forsaking substance.
2. Love Actually. (no idea who the director was). It starred Laura Linny, Colin Firth, Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman - which alone makes me happy. Happen to be a fan of all of those actors. This movie surprised me - I didn't expect to like it. I loved it. Adore it. Finally a romantic comedy for those of us who don't find romance, who aren't married or dating, and struggle in the whole romance olympics. This lovely tour de fource is all about the struggle to connect. Loving people. Trying to tell them. Getting rejected. Circumstance getting in the way. Some of the people get together, some don't. One of the funniest bits is the couple that meets while doing a soft-porn film.
While pretending to have sex, they connect with conversation. This is juxatposed brilliantly with a couple who don't speak the same language, yet connect with body language (not sex) just being together. And with yet another couple that can't get together due to outside circumstances. A film that made me laugh and cry. Highly recommend it.
3. Ripley's Game based on the novel by Patricia Highsmith and starring John Malkovich and Dougray Scott.
If you want to know what a sociopath is? Rent Ripley's Game.
Or true "noir" for that matter. This film is noir through and through. With the anti-hero, Ripley, at its center. Here's a sample line, which is what Ripley tells one of the supporting players: "I lack your sense of conscience. It used to bother me when I was younger, it doesn't any longer. Why did I pick you? Because your conscience interested me and I knew you could and you insulted me and well it's the game." Violent in places but also focused on character. It uses the violence to further the characters and plot. It also comments on it. Like the other two films, showing not telling. This movie unfortunately never really made it to the theaters, direct to video. But it is brilliant and trust me, if you like noir films, better than most of the stuff out there right now.
Did see Wrinkle in Time last night. Not quite as wonderful as I remembered. But then I almost have no memory of the novel, having read it over 20 years ago.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Heh.
Date: 2004-05-11 08:16 pm (UTC)Did I enjoy the movie? It was okay. Didn't hate it. But wasn't expecting much. Disney had done another adaptation of one of D'Engle's books - Swiftly Tilting Planet, which was truly horrible.
Couldn't make it through that one. So I expected this to be unwatchable. It wasn't, at least for me. That said? I found out from pumpkinpuss (who did find it unwatchable) that there was a broadcast of the original stage production of Eugene O'Neal's The Iceman Cometh starring Jason Robards Jr. on PBS in NYC area which was opposite and I missed. Dang! I would have much preferred that. Oh well.
Re: Heh.
Date: 2004-05-12 07:40 am (UTC)The movie transformed much of this into a Fustian bargain and an appeal to the power of ego. There were traces of the original themes, but when Meg starts reciting the periodic chart in the movie, it becomes apparent that there's something major missing -- reciting rote rhythms in the book made sense...reciting them in the movie seemed to come out of nowhere. Charles Wallace was drawn out by his ego, to be sure, but not because IT or IT's henchmen made much of a deliberate appeal to this aspect. Rather, the danger in the book was almost entirely the debasement/twisting of our desires and intentions by ourselves. The movie became about power and control. The red-eyed man offered Charles Wallace a deal, a challenge that appealed to his ego, and much of the rest of the process -- both the first and second time they converged on Meg -- was about what power and control IT could offer Meg. In the book, it was simply the most basic of appeals...freedom from pain, freedom from unpredictability. Meg fights back by reciting multiplication tables to create her own rhythm opposed to the normative rhythm of IT, but those are drawn into the rhythms. She recites squares tables, ditto. It is when she begins to recite the Declaration of Independence that she begins to find escape..for there are some rhythms that break free of the generic rhythms, and it is then she realizes what Jefferson was saying about "equality." So when the movie turned that whole confrontation into a incoherent mishmash of campy behaviour and Helsinki Syndrome-ish dialogue, it basically ruined the most important -- thematically -- scene in the book.
As a final note, the feel-good "freeing the society" of the movie wasn't even remotely part of the book for a good reason -- they barely escaped IT. Evil is never so easily vanquished, and the fact that IT was brought down so...easily just made it seem cheap. And the means -- Meg expressing love for Charles Wallace -- was somehow twisted into a deus ex machina in the movie. CW keeps saying "you hate me" (why? what would motivate IT to get him to say that?!?) and that sparks Meg and 45 seconds later, IT is dead from...something. The original premise was that IT could offer everything...except love. IT was the perfect analytic organism -- for love is, in this light, actually a weakness -- but it is human flaws, human emotions, that make us capable of resisting the darkness. For every person who does stupid, irrational things out of emotion, there is always another who does unspeakably beautiful and transcendent thigs out of emotion. But those are for ourselves, and evil is not so easily defeated...the book is saying we have to fight, but sometimes the battle isn't to defeat the enemy directly, but to save ourselves and the ones we love. The whole deal at the end where the three "witches" were expressing their admiration and love for humans...ghaaggh! The book made no bones: humans were a grubby, dangerous lot, almost as deeply in the shadows as Cammazotz, and only a few, shining luminaries helped redeem us (Meg starts citing those too, fighting against IT.)
Okay, a little longer than intended, but nowhere near as long as I might have gone, given that I haven't even addressed 2/3 of the major issues I had with it.