![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robotech_masterNight before last, as I mentioned I was planning, I went to see Fellowship of the Ring again, this time with Kristy Berger, one of my coworkers from K-mart and a friend from church in the hometown.
There's really not much to say on the subject. I cleaned out, vacuumed, and Lysolled the front seats of my car, then drove the couple of blocks down to where she lived to pick her up. We drove down to the theater, talked about work and things, then bought our tickets and took our seats in the theater. (She offered to buy her own ticket, but I explained, no, it was all right, my Mom was paying for it. "Does she know she's paying for it?" Kristy asked.)
We got there in time to have our choice of seating, so we took seats in the front row of the stadium seating, where I could rest my feet on the metal railing. We talked some more, over the noise of the rather loud theater music feed, I went and got a hot dog since I hadn't had any dinner (Kristy didn't want anything), and finally, the movie started.
I had planned, this time, to spend a bit more time observing the film, trying to guess how they did some of the camera tricks. But the fact is, after a few minutes, I just forgot. The film was just as absorbing the second time around as the first--it is absolutely one of the very best movies I have ever seen.
The funny thing is, you're sort of led to expect that, given how the technology had to advance for them to be able to make such a film, that the actors are shrunk by means of computers--sort of a high-tech version of a funhouse mirror. But actually, no--the camera tricks they use are mostly quite old-school, and have been seen often in movies where, for instance, one actor played a dual role. Body doubles in wigs shot from behind, forced-perspective where Gandalf is placed unobtrusively much closer to the camera than Bilbo or Frodo, and two differently-sized versions of the same set (a technique pioneered way back in the 1930s for a Laurel & Hardy short where they played their respective "children" as well as themselves). And they do it all so seamlessly that it's hard to realize it's all movie trickery.
Afterward, Kristy said she enjoyed the movie, though she was quite "nervous" all the way through it. She said that it didn't seem like it had been three hours long. No disagreement there! I feel like I should see it at least one more time in the theater. Perhaps even more.
I've been sending my resume to various local companies and other places over the last few days, and one of them, Active Internet Communications, has suggested they might be willing to offer me a part-time job for 20 hours a week--8 to 5 Tuesday and Thursday, with the possibility of pickup shifts and one Saturday a month.
The problem is, I don't know what sort of work it is, exactly--though I'm guessing some sort of tech support position from the context--or what the rate of pay is. I've responded asking these things, but I have yet to hear back from the fellow.
My dilemma is this--should I take that job? On the one hand, it's more working hours in the week, at probably a higher pay rate than my K-Mart $7-an-hour job. It's not a full-time, true, which is what I really need--but I can keep looking for that while I work, right? And I do need the extra cash. On the other hand, it's an 8 a.m. job, and I've never liked getting up so early in the morning. And it's likely just phone-bank tech support--which any college kid could do part-time, no degree required. I want something more like HTML coding--with less stress and more creativity involved.
Oh, if only someone would offer me something better . . .
There's really not much to say on the subject. I cleaned out, vacuumed, and Lysolled the front seats of my car, then drove the couple of blocks down to where she lived to pick her up. We drove down to the theater, talked about work and things, then bought our tickets and took our seats in the theater. (She offered to buy her own ticket, but I explained, no, it was all right, my Mom was paying for it. "Does she know she's paying for it?" Kristy asked.)
We got there in time to have our choice of seating, so we took seats in the front row of the stadium seating, where I could rest my feet on the metal railing. We talked some more, over the noise of the rather loud theater music feed, I went and got a hot dog since I hadn't had any dinner (Kristy didn't want anything), and finally, the movie started.
I had planned, this time, to spend a bit more time observing the film, trying to guess how they did some of the camera tricks. But the fact is, after a few minutes, I just forgot. The film was just as absorbing the second time around as the first--it is absolutely one of the very best movies I have ever seen.
The funny thing is, you're sort of led to expect that, given how the technology had to advance for them to be able to make such a film, that the actors are shrunk by means of computers--sort of a high-tech version of a funhouse mirror. But actually, no--the camera tricks they use are mostly quite old-school, and have been seen often in movies where, for instance, one actor played a dual role. Body doubles in wigs shot from behind, forced-perspective where Gandalf is placed unobtrusively much closer to the camera than Bilbo or Frodo, and two differently-sized versions of the same set (a technique pioneered way back in the 1930s for a Laurel & Hardy short where they played their respective "children" as well as themselves). And they do it all so seamlessly that it's hard to realize it's all movie trickery.
Afterward, Kristy said she enjoyed the movie, though she was quite "nervous" all the way through it. She said that it didn't seem like it had been three hours long. No disagreement there! I feel like I should see it at least one more time in the theater. Perhaps even more.
I've been sending my resume to various local companies and other places over the last few days, and one of them, Active Internet Communications, has suggested they might be willing to offer me a part-time job for 20 hours a week--8 to 5 Tuesday and Thursday, with the possibility of pickup shifts and one Saturday a month.
The problem is, I don't know what sort of work it is, exactly--though I'm guessing some sort of tech support position from the context--or what the rate of pay is. I've responded asking these things, but I have yet to hear back from the fellow.
My dilemma is this--should I take that job? On the one hand, it's more working hours in the week, at probably a higher pay rate than my K-Mart $7-an-hour job. It's not a full-time, true, which is what I really need--but I can keep looking for that while I work, right? And I do need the extra cash. On the other hand, it's an 8 a.m. job, and I've never liked getting up so early in the morning. And it's likely just phone-bank tech support--which any college kid could do part-time, no degree required. I want something more like HTML coding--with less stress and more creativity involved.
Oh, if only someone would offer me something better . . .
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2002-01-16 08:10 pm (UTC)take the somewhat tech related job just so it look like youve done more than worked at kmart.. hell if you can only get 20 hrs.. work 20 there and 20 at kmart.. then its like being employed full time except you dont have any cool benefits..