I had a pretty good day off. Slept in until 11:30, then made it out to Santa Susana by 3pm. This was my first hike of any kind in three weeks, so I surprised myself by going all the way to the top of The Slide without getting winded. I'm not in the best hiking shape, but I guess my regular CSUN walks count for something. I was at the park for two hours, and this was my first visit since I began reading about eoliths and paleoliths in Michael Cremo's "Forbidden Archaeology". Those terms refer to stone tools made by early man. The sandstone formations at Santa Su are said to be from the Cretaceous Period - i.e. The Period Of Cretins - approximately 80 million years ago in the Mesozoic Era. I jest, but as we are learning in Cremo's book, stone tools have indeed been found in strata that dates back to the Eocene Period (hence the term Eolith), which goes back to 55 million years ago. I figure if humans were around that far back, and making tools to boot, then it's not too much of a stretch to say that they could have been here another 25 million years in the distant past. And, Cretins or not, maybe they were making some tools at Santa Su.
This was my first hike there where I spent a significant amount of time looking at the ground, and at the sides of trenches and gulleys. I realised that there are a lot of other types of rock there besides sandstone, which would not make for good tools. Most of the tools described in the book are made of flint. I don't know if there is flint in this area (perhaps it is underground and as-yet-unexcavated) but there is quartz and other colorful rocks that I can't name. I had fun looking for anything with a pointed shape to it. When I was little, my Dad told me about the arrowheads he had dug up as a boy in northern Indiana. That might be my best bet at Santa Susana, looking for 8000 year old Indian relics rather than 80 million year old Cretaceous relics. They have a sign at the front of the park, it's fairly new, that says "This Is A Protected Archaeological Site", and it stipulates "do not dig, remove, or displace any object", etc. And I would not do so. But it's fun to look, and if it's an archaeological site, then somebody must know something about what's buried out there. How come they don't do some digging themselves?
I did watch a movie this eve, a recent French Crime Thriller called "SK1" (2014). Before I tell you about it I have to interject to ask myself :
"What's up with the non-stop run of French movies, Ad? Surely there are some good movies from places besides France, right? So why are you doing this, and do you plan to change countries anytime soon"?
The easy answer to that question, the first question anyway, in the above paragraph, is that I have been slowly running out of great Hollywood movies for quite some time now. It has become increasingly more difficult to find old movies that I haven't seen. I know that TCM has a lot of rare films, but many have yet to be released on dvd, or aren't available at The Libe yet. So, early this year, I began to search for French movies. I was inspired to do so after watching the ten part Silent serial "Les Vampires" by Louis Feuillade, which I reviewed a couple of months ago. One thing led to another : I remembered Claude Chabrol; he led me back to the Dardenne Bros; they led me to some Crime Classics, and so forth and so on. Which led me tonight to "SK1", the "SK" of which unfortunately stands for "Serial Killer".
Gross, I know, and I don't ordinarily watch French movies like that. If I am gonna watch a movie about a serial killer, I usually strive for American Made. I watched it because I didn't have much else in the queue, an also because two of the stars were Olivier Gourmet and Nathalie Baye, who we have seen in recent Chabrol and Dardenne films. The movie was a police procedural about the hunt for "The Beast Of The Bastille" in the late 1990s, a real life serial killer who operated in and around Paris. The movie is plotted so that the identity of the killer is revealed early on, and that proves to be a problem as far as The Suspense Factor is concerned. The director made a decision to include social aspects into the story, like why the killer is the way he is, and of course it's the Usual Story : because he was an abandoned and abused child, etc. And while all of that is relevant in real life, it does not always make for a taut script if you drag out the particulars of the killer's childhood and try to humanise him while at the same time the French Police (second only to the LAPD in relentlessness) are out to nail him to the wall.
The intercutting just doesn't work. The director doesn't understand - you shouldn't mix genre in cinema. A crime thriller should be a Crime Thriller. Not interspersed with attempts at social work. Sorry.
The guy is called a Monster by the French Press, and his lawyer wants to show his human side.
Fine, that's her job, but way too much time was spent on this aspect, and the killer was a one dimensional actor anyway.
I have to interject again to ask, "What's the deal with France"? This is a true story of this killer. He was convicted in 2001. He murdered seven women, and he was sentenced to 20 years minimum, so he will be eligible for parole in 2020, including time served while he was on trial. I mean, I know that American psychos also get parole hearings after ten years or so, but in Europe they seem to let some of these guys out after 10 to 20 years. Check out Norway for example.
But with this guy in France, I trust that he will never be let go.
The movie itself was okay. I'd give it a minor Single Thumb Up. It could have been a lot better had the director made a Straight Up Solve The Crime Film rather than try to introduce the other stuff. But the main problem was to introduce the killer's identity within the first minutes of the film.
Goodbye suspense. I could have watched a "George Gently" instead.
Well anyhow, a successful day off I suppose. Man, I will soon be closing in on eight full years of working as Pearl's caregiver, and I haven't missed a single day of work, which for the most part has been 30 out of 31 days a month, with about four times a year when I get five days off a month.
Not complaining, because I am grateful for my job, but just saying....."whew"!
Elizabeth, I saw a few posts this morn about similar topics. Your friend Joel is right on the money (no pun intended) about managing credit and having discipline where spending is concerned. Another post (don't recall who it was from) said that "it's been a rough few months" and the person was headed to Costa Rica...
Once again I add a disclaimer, because I don't know nowdays how many posts are meant to communicate with me (but my intuition is still pretty good), and I would only say what you already know, which is that - in tight circumstances - just stick to your guns. You already know your talent. Sometimes you have to wind your way through issues other than creative work. All of those "other issues" usually boil down to needing money.
If that is a problem, have no fear, because you will get money.
What you have in your favor, to a strong degree, is that you are a focused and disciplined person. You know how to start and complete a project. That is a rare quality to have. You also have technical skills as well as a ton of creative ability and inspiration. Your friend Joel has a lot of good advice about credit and money management. All you need is one break, to get your foot in the door, and that is going to happen.
I can picture it, and so can you.
Spring is coming, and with it Good Things.
See you in the morning in church. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment