Basically all of them.
A quick skim shows me that the only people who have called me this so far this year are:
I expect that this would be much the same for last year too.
I have no reason not to speak to any of these.
Doctor who (2005) s01e07 - Kronkburgers on Satellite 5 in the opening scenes.
Excluding pretty much everything that I saw as a kid - when you go into basically everything blind - it would be After Hours (1985). I either hadn’t read anything about it or hadn’t been paying attention. Standing outside the cinema, I just saw that it was by Scorsese and went in.
I still think that it is one of his most under-appreciated films. And I loved the Ted Lasso homage, combining it with the Divine Comedy.
Way back in the day it used to be Cinema City in Norwich: the only art-house one in the city and where I ‘learnt’ cinema. It was great.
These days, I live between three small town cinemas in Suffolk, and they are all good in their own ways.
The Riverside in Woodbridge often has a talk about the film or maybe even an interview with the director or one of the cast etc on stage afterwards. Aldeburgh Cinema is run by a charity, shows a good few NT live events and local films and also has a documentary fest each year, and Leiston Film Theatre is, as they say on their site, the oldest purpose built cinema in the county (110 years now), and had the advantage for a while of being about 150m from our back gate. It is the most commercial of three in terms of programme, but still has some interesting stuff.
Oh yes, very much - and not just with movies, but TV, novels, stage performance and the like.
As a kid, it was just the overall visuals and spectacle as much as anything - details of the plot were secondary. Into my teens and early twenties and think that plot details came to dominate and after that exploring interesting concepts began to take priority. Then I guess that I began to appreciate the production side of things more: writing quality and cinematography etc maybe into my 30s and 40s. And these days (in my 50s) I am much more focused on character-driven things.
Yes, definitely. Why you are doing it makes all the difference.
There is - in my experience - a good deal of how you - and the organisation in general - do it too, and that accounts for much of the cultural difference. Charities tend to treat staff (and volunteers - since so many depend on vols) as people rather that resources much more, although there is also a tendency for the cause to outweigh everything, which can lead to staff, particularly, being expected to commit totally around the clock, and sidelined if they don’t. I have only encountered a few organisations that do this to a problematic extent really though.
I did in my late 20s after working in IT. I didn’t know what I wanted and wasn’t planning on non-profit or anything as such, but jumped ship, did a range of random things before spending some time volunteering (at something that was not in any way IT related)- which was the critical thing. That put me in a spot to A) show some commitment and B) get some training as it was offered. A paid post followed in due course after that.
That is a very simplified version, but volunteering was definitely the critical element for me.
Since then, I met plenty of other people who made the jump. Some simply moved with their existing skills to an equivalent role in a charity - and there are plenty that need project management skills - whilst others have taken the same route as me and spent some time volunteering.
Volunteering means you don’t get paid for some time, of course, so you have to either live off savings and/or find a live-in role and/or work part-time or something and you probably need to downsize one way or another, but people find a way and make it work.
Of course once you are in a role with your chosen cause, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you will be away from being overworked, stressed and given more and more responsibility. It is a trope that working for a charity means that you don’t do it for the money and you work waaay longer than the official hours say.
Certainly my role at the moment, with a large charity, is the most demanding I have ever had and there is basically nothing left at the end of the month for savings: I am just keeping afloat. For all that though, there is no way at all that I would go back to a for-profit role, and I have never looked back for a moment. The culture is totally different and leagues better.
Without looking for sources - so I could be totally wrong - I believe that it did darken proportionately and that light meters would register that. However, human eyes are not light meters and adjust to the dimmer light without you knowing.
Difficult to say. I’ve never been one to fixate on a single film for long. The ones below are likely candidates for various reasons though. I must have seen each at least 6 times. Probably none of them more than a dozen though.
• The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
• Star Wars/A New Hope (1977)
• Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)
• Mon Oncle (1958)
• The Ladykillers (1955)
• The Third Man (1949)
Film
Uproar (2023) - a New Zealand coming of age tale. There are no surprises here. You know exactly what you are getting right from the start, but it is solidly and engagingly done, with some some good performances from Josh Waaka and Rhys Darby particularly.
House of Flying Daggers (2004) - continuing my SO’s wuxia fad at the moment. This one looks wonderful and has some great set pieces early on but then runs out of ideas and drifts to a stop in a morass of repetitive melodrama and loose ends. Very pretty but frustratingly unsatisfying.
TV
A Gentleman in Moscow - the pick of the crop at the moment with Ewan McGregor and Alexa Goodall both both proving charming in their respective roles. The tale balences the pre-revolutionry culture, the bolshevic ideals and the grim reality well - although glamourising the former quite a bit, at least initially.
Renegade Nell - this has a lot of positive reviews, and i certainly enjoyed the writer’s Gentleman Jack, but on the basis of the first episode it seemed to be tonally all over the place, as though the writer had one thing in mind but the director, or studio bosses or someone were trying for something totally different. I found it pretty off-putting and am not sure whether I’ll continue.
Extraordinary - I thoroughly enjoyed season 1 and am glad to see that season 2 is keeping it up. Some of the novelty value of the superpowers in season 1 has been replaced by more emphasis on the individual characters this time round, but the comedy is definitely still on point.
I use Rainy Days for the radar, and - since I’m in the UK - the Met Office weather app, which has a Next Rain widget.
I don’t know whether it was you, but I have responded to this same question on Lemmy before.
Yes. We had a coal fire when I was growing up - in the 60s and 70s -, so it was an everyday thing during the winters.
it will make sense why when you do/have.
Yes, and it would make no sense at all for it to be dubbed. That would turn the trial scenes into some kind of weird absurdist comedy.
Disruption is a term that is in vogue at the moment and so appeals to headline writers. The same question could be asked In most of the situations in which it is used today, IMHO.
I would very much expect that if it had been an ‘in’ term at the time, it would have been applied to the movement by contemporary copywriters.
However, in bringing the unconscious to the fore in one form or another, I would say that surrealism was at the very least part of a wider movement that did very much disrupt and transform the arts permanently, though it was probably Freud and Jung who were the key disruptors in that regard.
This was a criticism that the Nazis used against liberal democracies. They saw this as a fatal weakness and used it as a justification for keeping in power themselves, once they had achieved it.
Various dictators have said much the same as well.
However, looking at the track record of democracies vs dictatorships or single party states, I think that the data will show that pluralist democracies typically last longer.
Art in general doesn’t have to disrupt anything. It can be as conventional and anodyne as you like, but surrealist art - as per the Surrealist Manifesto - was specifically intended to depart from the usual concerns of art - at least at the time:
Dictated by thought, in the absence of any control exercised by reason, exempt from any aesthetic or moral concern.
My emphasis. Conventionally, art does give some consideration to aesthetics.
At the Cinema Sweet Sue (2023) - by Leo Leigh (Mike Leigh’s son) - a low key dramedy which walked the line between grotesque and sympathetic characters very well.
TV - The Sandbaggers from 1978. Cold war UK spy drama series focussed on the internal politics and strategising of MI6’s Special Operations Unit. A sharp and Intelligent script is the backbone for this one, overcoming the low budget.
TV - True Detective - season 4 - just the first episode so far. I have not seen any of these other than S1. This is not as intense as the start of that, but is intriguing enough to continue.
I don’t think that I have ever submitted more than 2 applications in a week. Most of the info in those is the same, so it’s just copy and paste from the last one or from your cv and then how you fit the person spec, which always the one involving most thought.
It hardly counts as a full time job though.
I don’t think that I have ever actually kept it a secret as such, but I would seldom have cause to mention it anyway until I get an interview. At that point it depends on my current relationship with my manager. Sometimes I have just booked a day off for no specific reason, other times I have told them. If it is a post in the same organisation I’d certainly tell them. If it was a place where yhe managers were that bad, I wouldn’t want to stay there at all.
I’ve had the same number for 24 years now. I have only ever had a handful of spam calls in total over that time.
I probably get one a month or so on my work number.