Pete and I saw this little film tonight at the UGC. Quite brutal, I rather liked it. Had a little discussion as to how much it is really based on real events, and whether I, personally, really would finish the bad guy off when I had the chance.
The main thing that struck me and (of course) interested Pete not in the least is what I believe to be a continuity goof: the film’s timeline is a few days encompassing a solar eclipse. We see a few shots, including one right after the eclipse, of a rather gibbous moon. This is impossible, right? During a solar eclipse the moon’s phase must be new - superlatively so. Orbital mechanics are such that the moon takes 14 days to go from new to full, and the shots of the moon we saw were at least 1/2 full, probably more so. That’s a minimum of 7 days gap at least. Someone tell me if I’m wrong here. (Also, why the hell would I notice something like that, given some of the rather harrowing events I’d just seen?)
So I’m a geeky pedant. So I want to know how everything works. I like that attitude, and if I wasn’t so lazy, forgetful and absent-minded it’s the sort of attitude that could (have) take(n) me places.
Tomorrow (or today if you believe the date-stamp) is sunday. Sundays are good for a reason: the roast. Other cultures have taken the piss out of us Rosbif’s for our prediliction for the traditional fare, but screw them. Roast dinner (with all the trimmings) is pretty much where it’s at. It rocks my world. I could go on at some length, perhaps write an ode, but I think you get the picture: I quite like it.
Oooh, I’ve written a fairly substantial blog entry. Should I be satisfied or concerned? I might start to fall under the impression that I have interesting things to say which people want to read. That would not be good.
Ah, what the hell. Let’s finish on a self-indulgent note. By this point, who’s still reading anyway?
What is the deal with mood-swings? I think most people associate me with my happy mode, which broadly speaking is akin to a puppy that can throw it’s own stick. Random, happy and mostly oblivious to the causal web governing the social interactions of real people. But with the happy side comes the flip: withdrawal. Hmm… how does an admittedly already oblivious person withdraw more? I suppose the energy to be social, however much a stab in the dark it already is, goes away. From an extroverted introvert to just plain introvert? And why does depression absolutely kill libido? It’s a sign I’m feeling good if I can’t stop looking at the expression on a pretty girl’s face. But anyway, the annoying thing is the cyclical nature of all this. If I’m happy, then soonish I shall be withdrawn. If I’m very happy then I’m going to be depressed. And vice-versa of course. It’s like that story about the present given to a king that would make him happy when sad and sad when happy: a ring engraved with the words, ‘This too shall pass.’ Ah, now I’m even boring myself. One thing though: as with all introspection, is all of what I just said basically bollocks? Will I look at it tomorrow and wonder why I thought any of it was even remotely true? Yes, yes I will.
But I shall go to bed happy: tomorrow is sunday roast day and that is awesome. I plan to eat a lot, which I only seem to be able to do with sunday roast any more since I got back from Leeds. That sucks. Eating lots is a talent I take great enjoyment from.