Does anyone remember a line about animal testing -- maybe uttered by Dennis Miller on SNL, but I'm not sure -- that went something like "if hooking up a monkey to a set of jumper cables is going to save someone from cancer, then fire that sucker up"? Anyway, here's why.
So an acquaintance of mine is looking for a pet-sitter, of sorts. I do this on a regular basis for friends and neighbors. I used to trade laundry favors for this back when I didn't have a washing machine. Now that I have a washer, I still do it on occasion for folks who need it. However, my friend who asked me this time has somewhat special needs. She's going out of the country for a year, maybe two. I could bail after a year, but if I want to, and she's still away (which isn't definite), I could do it for another year. Since I'm a known quantity, a dependable caretaker, and have the superpower of getting along with animals, she's comfortable leaving her pets in my care for so long.
The down side: I'd have to move. I'd probably have to put some things in storage, and get rid of others. I'd also have to move again in a year or two.
The up side: I wouldn't have to pay rent
-- just the usual utilities, plus pet food. This gives me some financial flexibility, of course. The owner would pay for any
big pet or house expenses. There are other people who can take care of the pets short-term if I want to go away for a week or two (which I rarely do), or just a weekend for that matter. The house is about the same size. or maybe a bit larger. It's nicer too.
A kicker: My house is for sale. It's a rental duplex. I've thought about trying to buy it, but I don't really want to be a landlord, and don't necessarily want the house anyway. But the rental company has not given me a new lease, which means I go month to month next month (they say they anticipate I won't have to move). This gives me a certain flexibility I wouldn't normally have.
More, private kickers here if you have a LiveJournal login and have "friended" me on LJ.
It's a little bit foggy out tonight, as shown in this photograph I just took of a street light outside my house It's nothing compared to those pea-soup fogs I used to walk to school in when I lived in San Francisco, but you take what you can get.
Which makes it all the more frustrating that the film doesn't quite
work, and that it drags from episode to episode—some are brilliant,
most merely intriguing—with little momentum.
But that juddery-ness is part of what gives the movie its Phildickian texture. The animation adds to the texture, and doesn't detract IMO. The reviewer thinks otherwise:
Scanner's most striking element, the animation that was so perfect for Waking Life,
works against it in the end. What ought to be a story of failing flesh
and blood stays squarely in the realm of ideas. It's a head-trip that
never gets beneath the skin.
Again, I have to disagree. The animation helps, and is particularly consonant with some of the special effects used. Since the movie is about the construction of perception, it should stay cerebral: the body is unimportant as far as PKD is concerned here. The movie did get below my skin: I felt trippy for hours afterward.
By the way, I love it that all these PKD books are now coming to the screen. Maybe all those closet PKD fans like myself, who read Dick in their earlier years, are now old enough to get movies made, and are making them of books from one of their favorite authors. It's a nice idea, anyway. It's also nice that ASD isn't a bomb. I was holding my breath, as I do for most SF movies with promise. I think Linklater carried out PKD's vision spectacularly.
I just watched A Scanner Darkly. I feel like I took a lot of, well, possibly Substance D. If you don't mind feeling messed up, go see it. I liked it a lot. I don't think I've ever seen such a good adaptation of a Philip K. Dick novel. Wow.