Tress and I had a pleasantly quiet Cup day. We toyed with ideas of getting some people over. She recently spoke about a colleague who is a relatively new migrant– from Singapore – and I had thought we could have them over for a barbie. It turned out that colleague and her family went away for the long weekend. We also thought about getting Ruth and Jonathan over but I guess at the back of our minds we wanted a quiet day to ourselves.
There has been a fair bit going on so I guess subconsciously we have been yearning for a quiet day.
The utterly adorable LBJ has an appointment with the vet tonight. Tomorrow night is our church home group night and on Friday night, we are to pick Kiddo when she arrives in Melbourne. On Saturday Tress and Kiddo go to a few bridal gown joints while I might have a catch up with some old uni friends before heading to the Red Cross blood service in Ringwood for my scheduled donation.
So with these busy days ahead a quiet day at home in the middle of the week sounded attractive.
So we slept in, had a lazy breakfast of French toast with honey from the home grown honey we picked up on Sunday. We then pottered around the house and then went to the FHC to catch a movie. We decided on “Girl on the train”.
While waiting to get into the cinema we took a call from Kiddo. She said she has received an offer from the DHS for a graduate program. It has been such a long time since she met with them, and in that time, she has accepted an offer from TFA and moved on with her plans with Mic. She is in a mental space now to be totally immersed with the TFA program, for which the intensive training session starts in about 2 weeks.
Our phone conversation, via speaker mode so both Tress and I could be in on it at the same time, was at the lobby of the cinema on a busy Cup day morning so it wasn’t the easiest of conversations but it was good to talk through the issues.
My thoughts were principally around options which I thought meant a better decision would be to go with the TFA route as she could always try and get into the APS from that program whereas getting into the APS now may be a one–way street, with no option to get into TFA later on. The TFA would appear to be a more engaged and involved role but I was also thinking that the DHS/APS role may mean she can get started on her PhD sooner.
Compounding all these permutations, I also think doing the TFA would focus her on a path which doesn’t preclude a PhD down the track, perhaps along the lines of teaching Indonesian…
…so much for all these thoughts, I still behave like I did back in 2011, when she was doing her VCE and I was thinking about her uni options. I had to remind myself Kiddo is a grown woman on the brink of building her career and family.
Anyway we watched that dark movie and I made mental notes comparing what was playing out on the screen and the book, which I had read some months back.
For a start, the movie is based in New York city whereas in the book the story was based in London.
And then there was that bit about the protagonist meeting her ex-husband’s ex-employer’s wife where it was revealed that her ex-husband (spoiler alert) the villainous Mr Watson had convinced her of her misconduct, which was a made up thing. She had not behaved as badly as her nasty ex had convinced her. I don’t recall that bit in the book and the result is that it (the movie) made the protagonist a lot more cherubic – a victim of her abusive ex-husband – than she might have come across in the book.
The book left that flawed character that the protagonist has been from the word go intact whereas the movie appeared to be cleansing her – almost elevating her victim status. To that end the “girl on the train” has had her character changed on the journey from paperback to screen. It was an entertaining movie all the same.
I wondered if the movie maker was making some oblique statement about domestic violence and the impact on lives of women.
Maybe I’m just being ultra-sensitive to artists’ agenda. Tress and I also watched a DVD at home, titled “Cloudbursts”, which underplayed, hence subtly normalising, gay marriage. A foul mouth self-confessed dyke played by the affable Olympia Dukakis had been in a long term gay relationship with her “partner”, played by the very lovable Brenda Fricker. The quiet and funny tone constantly asks: what is wrong with gay marriage? Why make same-sex attracted couples miserable, almost tragic, by disallowing marriage? I could almost see Michael Dukakis, that 1988 presidential nominee of the Democrats, nodding right through the movie. It was a funny and entertaining movie yet it rides on a level which ignores – and makes irrelevant – the fundamental questions of what is marriage, why is the government getting involved and what about kids. Clever, because it plays the familiar emotional tunes which avoid the fundamental and natural questions.
After the movie we shopped at FHC and got some stuff for a barbie lunch at home. We went home, did the barbie and joined the rest of the country in watching the 3-minute horse raise or which a public holiday has been declared.