Online dating: It’s all a bit of a shambles

I know I’m gambling on general agreement, since many enjoy the merits of online dating, whilst some have had long term relationships or even a marriage or two come from it! However I feel that whilst this is now almost the preferred method of dating by probably anyone under 50, it still isn’t without a variety of flaws, issues and concerns.

I’ve been reading the brilliant ‘Modern Romance’ by one of my current favourite comedians, Aziz Ansari where he flirts with the far more wider concept of dating now compared to way back when, but I wanted to kind of elaborate on a small portion based on my experience and others I’ve spoken to.

Now when I talk about online dating, I’ll be a touch clearer. I’m not talking about those sites you pay for, Match.com or eHarmony etc. I’m talking more about your free apps, Tinder, Plenty of Fish and OK Cupid type apps. The tabloids of the virtual dating world, rather than the classier broadsheets, if you will.

Also I’m talking from a male perspective, which from what I’ve discussed and lazily researched, is quite a different experience from a mans. Which I guess is probably assumed anyway but will go into the big differences shortly within each point. But yeah, it’s mostly about the guys.

 

So, you’re a newly single man and looking for…well I’m not sure… let’s say you’re looking to make a connection and see where it goes. Ambiguous I know, but extend it to you’re a normal guy looking for dating and hopefully a relationship. You join one of the ‘tabloids’ and get to work. You set up your profile (perhaps a picture of you holding a puppy, or looking at the stars, or kicking a football at an unsuspecting child’s face. You choose) and you venture out there. There’s a wealth of women to choose from, so what do you do.

I’ve listed a few ‘steps’ of points I find ‘mildly’ irritating. Also this will be based roughly around POF/OK rather than Tinder due to its mutual like need, however you could apply it on the assumption that you’ve ‘liked’ one another.

 

 

#1 Shambles – the first message.

There’s 3 very distinct ways of doing this. I’ve tried all 3, and all 3 work to a varying degree. I imagine a muscly tattooed male probably only needs to try one and will eclipse my success rate in a matter of minutes. And if he’s got a beard? I might as well just give up entirely. Ah women, certainly not as fickle as men, no siree.

The first is, you see a lady you like – and no matter what ANYONE says, the first thing you’re going to be drawn to is her looks. Photos are almost a requirement now on these sites, and for Tinder, they are really pushed to the forefront. This is the huge difference with a natural old fashioned type meeting. Where it might be a work colleague, or a friend, or a friend of a friend’s second cousin. You’re thrown into a situation with them that you might not have chosen naturally, but it turns out you get on great and romance blossoms. For online dating this isn’t the case at all, you don’t have those ‘meet as friends and see what happens’ type situations. You’re naturally messaging someone you like, or think you might like. You’re not messaging them to friend zone you for life and unload their actual man problems on are you. (Are you?! Because if you are, get out). Also can I recommend that girls who list 2+ social media contact details (FB name, SC etc), tread carefully. It’s a bit stakerish if you go all in and just add everything straight away. Though saying that I have added one SC before where the girl didn’t realise it was me and thought I was a total random and seemed to like this new me more than the me who had spoken to her on POF!! Ah love my weird life sometimes.

Anyway, I digress. I said 3 types and here they are:

1)      The generic message – this is a standard no name, “how’s it going” / “had a good weekend” type message. I think we’ve all found it boring simply reading this point!

2)      The template – it’s your staple approach, your bread and butter. It’s a bit fun, maybe with a couple of questions (Not the ones above!), and this is crucial, you always include their name! And obviously remember to change it for each person you send it to. That doesn’t go down too well. As then that’ll really dazzle them, you’re fun AND paying attention who you’re sending it to! It couldn’t possibly be a message he sends to every girl…

3)      The deeply personal message – this is where you’ve taken the time to craft a message that touches on a multitude of interests and likes on that persons profile. You’ve addressed her by her name and probably linked to a few of your own interests. It’s taken you 10 minutes to do whilst listening to Drake, thinking that one day the two of you will have your own Marvins Room moment

 

 

#2 Shambles – the reply.

You’ve chosen from 1 of the 3 above, fired it out to a girl you think you could be compatible with, and now you wait.

Generally speaking, guys will always make the first move. This shouldn’t surprise you, and contrary to bigamists, is not sexist. It’s as old as the hills, the guy courts the woman. This shouldn’t be any different. The guy spots his prey/girl he likes, whatever, and he makes his move.
Now I’ve given this section its own conclusion already by indicating there is a reply. But to even get to this stage it can be painstaking. Some apps let you know when the person was last active (a gift or a curse, you decide. I’m firmly in curse territory as you’ll come to see), and so getting one who is means odds are she’s going to see your message fairly soon. However never underestimate your fellow gender pals. I imagine if you’ve found a lovely looking/sounding (really looking) lady, then so have a few others. They’ve all sent a message, now her inbox is full of a range of 1, 2’s and 3’s. What does she go for, what’s she after, does she like F*CKING TRIBAL TATTOOS!!!

The giveaway that she’s read it is simple. She’s viewed your profile *gulp*. Immediately you’re thinking does she like what she sees?! Does she like what she’s read?! Does she like the combination of your football kicking picture mixed with your “how’s it going” message?! Did she even do both! (Some mental women have read and replied to messages without ever looking at my profile. They might be all about ‘personality’. It didn’t work out.)

So now you’re waiting. And waiting. And waiting. She’s been online for 2 hours straight (you’ve kept a log, it’s been 2 episodes of Keeping Up With The Kardashians by your reckoning) and she’s still not replied. You’ve punched a pillow and sent a selfie to everyone on snapchat to try and feel loved. I don’t think it’s going to happen mate.

 

 

#3 Shambles – the next step.

This is so generically written, thanks for reading if you are. I’ve not planned this out at all. However I’m being logical and the next step feels a good place to be.

Right so you’ve finished pouting into snap chat and had replies from male friends begging you to stop. The pillow is in bits and your tears have dried.

One of four things happen at this time:

1)      You do nothing. You man up. You take a breath and you move on. You go back to Shambles #1 and then just apply it to 50 girls. You’re now playing ‘a numbers game’. No I don’t think it means anything either, but say it to feel a bit better about your life. Celebrate by having a Chocolate Éclair, you’re now a ‘playa’

2)      You send another message, perhaps similar but not identical, you know just in case she didn’t get the first one (despite looking at your picture and vomiting in her mouth). You playfully mention you sent one before but not to worry BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPER CHILLED.

3)      You send another message, very different to the last. You laugh at how pathetic she is. You tell her she’s ugly anyway (whilst staring at her picture which you’ve made as your background). And that’s she would be punching with you. You high five the nearest wall. Celebrate by having a Chocolate Éclair, you’re now a ‘playa’

4)      She replies. Oh sh*t just got real!

 

 

#4 Shambles – the exchange.

Basically if you hit 1-3 on the previous #, just repeat until you hit the 4^th option. And then you’ve made it to this stage. Congratulations. But you can’t rest on your laurels, what happens next?!

You’re now smiling, you know she’s both looked at you and listened to your opening gambit and she’s in. Well I mean, she’s alright to go a little further and try to determine you’re not a total nutter (Always found this amusing “Are you a nutter?” “Nope. Promise” “Oh ok want to date?” ) like a few messages will tell her that. Just don’t tell her you dream of kicking Kittens or punching Donkeys and you should be ok.

But now the ball is firmly back in your court, she’s responded to you. Assuming you don’t playa it up and drive her to do 1-3 above, and aim to reply in a fairly normal manner (people who delay x amount of time to ensure they aren’t too keen, get in the sea. And girls who actually like that? End yourselves). So start constructing! Obviously you’re going to respond to anything she’s asked you, playing on any connections you’ve already made, maybe chucking in another question or two based on interests (generally, asking how big her, well whatever is, isn’t the ideal question despite what you think).

The whole thing is weird to me. Like you’re some quivering wreck asking her if she likes Apples or some nonsense, hoping she’ll give you more than 2 minutes before some 6’4” stacked lad called Gary from Leeds who bench presses cattle steals her attention away. With your aim being that you can hit the Holy Grail, securing her number. Also don’t panic and immediately send her your phone number, full name for FB purposes, SC addy, Fax number and National Insurance number, play it cool Trig, play it cool.

 Just be normal and ask normal stuff. There’s really no trick to this. But it’s just one of those cringey moments. My advice is try and keep a quick back and forth going so you’ve got her full attention, don’t let it go over days as she’ll lose interest generally speaking. Especially if you see she’s online and hasn’t replied to your last message (twice, you logged it down, never not log things. Like how often you hear a thump upstairs, like it’s another body being put on a pile).

Let’s assume it goes quite well, you’re comfy and chatting away and you’ve beaten off the competition (or so you’re told, I don’t fully believe this in most scenarios, women much like men will always have a couple of backups) and you’ve got her number, then well done, I guess you’ve come through the online maze successful and can move onto more normal human interaction. God forbid you might even want to go for a drink soon!

And no, 'Netflix & chill' is not a good first date suggestion!

Coming soon (if people want it): Part 2, actual dating.

True Detective Season 2 Summary Review

So Season 2 of the highly acclaimed True Detective aired on Sunday night in the US (Monday for the UK), and so after the smoke has settled, how was it?  (WARNING: Minor Spoilers Ahead)

Impossible not to compare to Season 1, which appears to have been knocked down a peg or two by some quarters ever since gaining universal praise last year. Especially around the finale, which apart from the main set piece, was fairly slow paced. Even the well known dialogue pieces that prompted endless discussions have been brought into question over potential plagiarism. Was that due to Season 2? Were people retrospectively seeing through the fog, and changing opinion? Possibly, or perhaps we simply over hyped the original (Personally, I stand by that Season 1 was great television).

The hype for Season 2 was phenomenal after the success of the first, especially when it showed true Hollywood star power coming to the smaller screen. So once the casting announcements were made for such heavyweights as Colin Farrell, Rachel McAdams, and Vince Vaughn the internet went a little mental with excitement (Sorry Taylor Kitsch, not quite yet).

As the dust began to settle and we started to get a little more information, it became clear that instead of Season 1’s direction of two central detectives, this would feature three with a Gangster portrayed by notorious comedic actor Vaughn. Immediate thoughts were how would he adapt to a serious role, in a series that is dark in tone with laughs few and far between (if at all).

In addition, we were told that whilst Nic Pizzolatto would be writing all the episodes as he did in Season 1 (apart from 2 where he had a co-writer in Scott Lasser), whilst directing took a very different format. Season 1 was purely directed by Cory Fukunaga, Season 2 had 7 directors for the 8 episodes.

Given the context, I got back to my initial question of how was it? My answer: It was ok.

Ok I’ll elaborate. Firstly, I’m trying to keep this separate from season 1 since it’s meant to be an anthology, but in some aspects it’s impossible not to compare them.

A big difference that helps establish this as its own series is the setting. Based in California (LA was purposefully avoided), the main feature being these vast sprawling highways and open ended landscapes mixed with an industrial inner city. The locations for the season were fantastic, and the cinematography which captured that was great. Every director seemed to have at least one token highway shot which was sort of unnecessary.

The plot itself, starting with the discovery of a body which turns out to be a corrupt city manager is what brings the main characters together. And without going into specifics, what exactly ties them together to this case and the larger series outline.

However early episodes were slow to plod along with fairly poor character development, a raft of supporting characters and a fairly convoluted plot. The dialogue was clunky, and whilst trying to clearly hit some of the highs from Season 1, just appeared to miss repeatedly.

As the episodes went on, things did improve, but for an 8 episode season there isn’t a great deal of time to get things right. The final 2 episodes were the seasons best overall, in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean we simply ignore the rest. Too many initially developed plot ideas seemed to just vanish, the high speed rail line being one example. Too many supporting characters were given next to no screen time, yet we’re meant to care to certain outcomes by the end. In fact, there is plenty of fun being pointed to the character ‘Stan’ who is referred to in almost every episode, including a trip to his family’s home, yet is only in 2 scenes as a standby character. How are we meant to care?! And that’s without speaking about Caspere’s killer, which follows a trend set in some murder mystery’s, but only the most absurdly eagle eyed would be able to work out ahead of the reveal in episodes 7/8, once more very little screen time and most of the ‘reveal’ was done prior to that character even having a second scene in the season!

The plotline gets complicated unnecessarily, and whilst it might be needed to really show how shady various factions and situations can be, the concept of mob money invested into developments etc, once more it didn’t really work. In fact, the whole character of Frank, played by Vaughn, really wasn’t really needed. And served as almost an afterthought vs the 3 detective leads. He was given some awful dialogue early on in the season, whilst Vaughn struggled to make us care about his character, and for a while many couldn’t see him outside of his comedy guise. By the time he started hitting the right notes and even have us root for him at times, it was a bit too little too late.

Looking at the 3 detective leads, there were some good points. Farrell played Ray fantastically through a series of situations bringing about different emotions and issues. His voice going weird in the final episode, and somehow having a ginger child aside, he was the character you could really empathise with to some degree. He also had great chemistry with both Vaughn and McAdams and really helped drag through some parts of the season. Speaking of McAdams, she was also pretty good selling the tough character of Ani. And then comes Kitsch’s Paul, who like the others had a dark incident in the past, though his is left the most ambiguous in terms of specific details. Whilst he was fine, and did lots of moody staring and not saying a great deal, he was also not hugely needed or intricate to the plot, and his big scene in episode 7 towards the end only happened due to a bit of a far fetched plotline.

Focusing for a moment on the finale itself, did it do what was required to bring things back on track? To an extent. But there was a feeling that some of what happened was a formality. It was never going to be a happy ending for all, the tone is bleak, the backgrounds are bleak, there's a huge theme around lack of father figures, so this was no different. You could probably have predicted about 70% of it before watching. It tied things up, sure, but due to a couple of ridiculous 'eureka' moments, and some well timed situations which pushed our belief. However apart from that, there were a couple of very good scenes which played out well, a favourite being Frank in the dessert. Though part of me will always wish Ray didn't just lazily jab at you know what with his knife and actually make an effort, might have changed things and seemed a bit lazy.

Focusing a bit of that 'eureka' factor, or TV luck (or deus ex mechana to some degree ), some fairly large pieces of Season 2 were based on ‘luck’, or more accurately risky writing from Pizzolatto. Clearly aiming to expand upon the True Detective universe (not literally, but in terms of story scale etc), increasing the character count and the plot lines, just seemed to perhaps be a touch too much for him to pull off. He was given creative freedom, and who can blame HBO after what he delivered in 2014. Budgets didn’t seem to be an issue for one of the biggest TV networks around, and the pulling power from the cast would ensure solid viewing figures. Yet I still feel it had so much more potential than it showed.

Overall, Season 2 started off poorly, fixed up midway through to be a fairly run of the mill police procedural and finished better – but not greatly – to give the whole season a slightly above average rating.6.5/10 if you want a number. Some great set pieces, improved character performances in the latter half with the direction and cinematography keeping things looking great really helped drag this through but I think Pizzolatto really needs to think long and hard about Season 3, if he wants to do it, and perhaps bring another creative force in to help with some of the pieces he seemed to struggle with this Season. I’m sure HBO will back it for another season based on initial comments, and I think it can still pull in the star power it’ll want, as like I said – not a disaster this year, and you do have to tip your hat at the risks he took and the ambition of the project, however sadly it just didn’t work for me.

Another brief film review

Hi all,

As per I'm a bit all over the place, so decided on another quick set of film reviews. Seems easiest doing it in batches of 3!
So the previous lot you can read here, Rudderless is one I still regularly talk about!
The point of these are more to bring awareness to semi recent films that you might not have heard of or seen.

The Hunt, 2012
This is a Danish film, that was nominated for an Oscar as best foreign language film. Directed by Thomas Vinterberg, who has just done the Far From the Madding Crowd remake (and has close links to high profile director Lars Von Trier). It stars Mads Mikkelsen of 'Hannibal' fame for those who are watching the current TV show. He plays a nursery/kindergarten teacher who is trying to fight for custody of his son, when his life is turned upside down after a false accusation is made against him.
It's great in a fairly slow build up on someone just living a very normal life that quickly goes downhill from something fairly innocuous. A great watch but you should be in the right mind to deal with this drama
Available on Netlix - Subtitles - Drama



Frank, 2014
Sometimes, once in a while, a truly weird film will pop up out the blue led by one of the current actors that we love to watch. This one, 'led' you could say, by Michael Fassbender is about a young budding musician (Domhnall Gleeson, yes son to the very well known father) who joins a weird alternative music group led by Frank, a man who always has on a mask of sorts. He's very mysterious and enigmatic, and the group work towards recording an album and end up going to the SXSW music festival. I can't say much more without giving plot points away, but if you're up for something different on a black comedy, bit of a drama, with a great cast (Maggie Gyllanhal as well) then give it a watch.
Available on Netlix - Black comedy/Drama



The Kings of Summer, 2013
I'll be up front, this film isn't really targeted to my age group. It's a teen coming of age comedy (with a small side of classsic teenage drama). It's great though and I am not ashamed to say I enjoyed it. About 3 kids who decide to live in the forest over Summer, and overcome a series of challenges along the way. It sort of reminded me very low key about 'My Girl' (far more relevant to my age group!). I think this is one to watch when you fancy something light hearted or enjoy those sort of teen comedy films. One of the 3 of the kids is really weird and is very funny at what he does, plus he dances like a top playa. Well worth a go for a hungover Sunday afternoon!
Was showing on Film4 - Comedy/coming of age 

A quick film review

Hi all, been a little while.
Not really had any inspiration to write, and whilst I know I normally just verbally spew a load of nonsense I like to try and at least have some aim when I usually post.
Anyway, it's come back to me a little bit based on what I've spent some of my spare time doing which if you follow me on Twitter you probably know already, watch TV.

Now for most that equates to 'time wasted', which whilst I can understand, I don't agree with. I appreciate some people love being active and out and about, and on a nice sunny day I totally agree. However in a midweek evening, it's not so important to me (keeps me away from the pub!), same goes for those terrible rainy days.
Anyway, I've mentioned before about my TV show viewing, which hasn't let up, Netflix has been rinsed. I've toned it down a bit but would say if you can check out Banshee, it's a very unknown show but doubtful for very long, it's excellent.

Further to this I've gotten back into watching films. I've always watched movies and consider myself a minor 'movie buff' of sorts, but the TV shows took up way too much of my time. However recently I spent some time finding some of the lesser known films to watch which are available on UK Netflix. Also I was partly inspired to write a little something on a couple, because of some of the SHIT I see other people watching. Awful films being the main culprit, things people seem to keep watching when nothing else is on. Like at least try and educate yourself a bit sometimes. Maybe. Please. Just do it.

So below are 3 very good films I've watched lately which I thought I would recommend for you:


Rudderless, 2014
This was written originally back in 2008, and then went through a couple of re-writes before it got its director, well known to all William H Macy (US Shameless, Fargo, a billion other films!). It's a sort of musical drama with a bit of a light hearted side to it, which whilst normally doesn't need to be said, the film is largely centered on the aftermath of a school shooting. Which immediately makes you think depressing and horrible to watch, but it's handled so well, with how a father impacted deals with the situation by finding some of his sons music he was putting together, and playing them as his own.
The cast is fantastic, Billy Crudup (Watchmen, Public Enemies) playing the dad, with Anton Yelchin (Star Trek, Terminator Salvation) being a very likable guy who encourages the dad to play the music. There's a few other ones you'll recognize including Laurence Fishburne as a music store owner.
Something else to watch out for is the soundtrack. From the snippets offered throughout, to the songs played at the bar, to the final quite poignant song played offering some closure to everything, it's fantastic. And quite moving at times. I'd advise if you enjoy what you hear throughout, make sure to go back and properly give the tracks a listen.

Overall I can't recommend this enough. Some might find it a bit corny, and some may be put off by the premise, but I found it great, and I'm not one for depressing films (Though I have watched the whole depression trilogy, which was as you can imagine.... anyway I digress). Give it a go if you find yourself browsing Netflix with a couple of hours to kill, you won't be disappointed


Get Low, 2009
This film is hard to catagorize, but I suppose is kind of a dramatic comedy, of sorts. How can it not be when it has Bill Murray as a supporting actor. But the real star of the show is Robert Duvall who many thought would get an Oscar nod for his performance but for whatever reason it never came about. (Jeff Bridges won that year for Crazy Heart, but Duvall probably outdid Clooney on Up In The Air, I'd say)
It's basically about a hermit the local town is fairly scared of, due to knowing nothing about him, wanting to throw himself a funeral party.... whilst still being alive. It's a film that sort of spends a lot of time not really going anywhere but has some fantastic character interaction that leaves you both smiling and wanting to get to the bottom of the mystery surrounding said hermit.

It's on UK Netflix, it's a quirky film that you may find a little slow, but if that's what you enjoy then absolutely give this a watch - it was probably only just off the Oscars radar in all fairness.


Chef, 2014
Finally onto my last recommendation, which is pretty much a feel good family comedy-drama film. Directed, written, produced and starring Jon Favreau (Iron Man films, Swingers). Basically about a well regarded Chef sort of starting up from the bottom, again, and how he gets back into enjoying cooking and being proud in what he serves.
I've made it sound ridiculous, but it's not! It's really good, it's very feel good with a great supporting cast you'll recognize from all over the place. It's probably a good hangover pick me up film perhaps, but watch it when you've already eaten as it'll have you fiending for more food!


So there you go, my recommendation on 3 films on Netflix that you should give a go when you're next wondering what to watch. If you do, give me a shout what you thought about it. If I feel like I've not just given people TERRIBLE advise then I'll try and do some more when I come across some other decent films

Cheers

Happy 2015, and then not quite so happy, but kind of happy

Happy 2015 everyone! Not written a thing for far too long, in fact 2014 was rubbish for me writing and is something I'll try and rectify. I find I only write about things I have a vested interest in or thoughts on I can't summarize in a tweet - which is few and far between. In fact I've been winging it since my first two posts which were the only reason I bothered with a blog!

Anyway, getting right back into the swing of things I thought I'd do a write up of a couple of films I've seen recently that somewhat resonated with me, for good or bad - and they are by the interesting and to an extent, extreme Director Lars von Trier.
His most recent releases were the controversial Nymphomaniac, which is so long it's split into two parts. It stars well known stars such as Shia LaBeouf, Willem Dafoe, Jamie Bell, Christian Slater and Uma Thurman. As the title suggests, it is largely based on sex, and the story of a woman's life as she battles with what can be a hugely destructive situation. It's made well, and is quite direct with its messages, but it's pretty bleak, slow moving and ultimately downbeat. This should not surprise you as this is part of von Trier's 'Depression Trilogy' with the previous films, Melancholy and Antichrist.
Melancholy I also watched very recently staring Kirsten Dunst who is utterly brilliant,  Keifer Sutherland and Alexander Skarsgard. And true to form whilst the story is totally different to Nymphomaniac they share many of the same themes. If you can handle films that deals with these themes of loneliness, depression, self hate, and bleakness, then I recommend the watch.

It's curious how films resonate with people, and can cause lasting impressions and what people take away from it. Superhero films can be empowering, love films influence happy endings in real life and endless optimism, whilst many of us can look back on a variety of films from our past and associate it with fond memories.
Well this trilogy did the same with me, which I'm not sure was even the intention - Lars, a known sufferer of depression, obviously found these films as a way to express his feelings and perhaps elements of his past (metaphorically I would envisage), which at the same time making films that encapsulate a wider audience and I suppose for them to ultimately, enjoy. We've all seen films that are bleak, violent, scary, or just horrible and found them to be great, it's strange - well in my mind anyway!
Going back to what I was bumbling on about, these films were interesting to an extent, I played Spider Solitaire throughout whilst watching (4 suits, get at me), which would indicate a lack of interest but I find I always do that to keep my mind moving. Which probably makes me mental. But let's save that for another time.
However what I found most interesting was that after of each of the films I was still thinking fairly intensely about them and what they meant to me. I said how things resonate with different people, I think a love film will impact a man in love with a woman, and to encourage them to keep their spark alive (not suggesting it's dying, just you know, reinvigorate it) more so than that same man who would watch it when single. I know it probably seems obvious, but what I'm trying to outline is situations impact us more than we probably realise. Well this is my 'love film' when in a non existent relationship!

I don't like fully laying it all bare, as it's a bit self pitying and attention seeking (in my eyes, it's part of my many failings), yet still surely even a blog post is in the same vein - ah the endless cycle and ends in self doubt! However some of you have read a couple of my other posts so know that depression isn't an alien concept to me, to say the least (I like to think I cope much better now). Well the same can be applied to loneliness (and let's not discount that the two are not mutually exclusive), and these films certainly made me consider that more than usual. I watch alot of films, I love films, I've seen good and bad, happy and sad, optimistic and end of the world films - yet none have triggered these considerations before. Which therefore makes me feel that these films are far more powerful than I thought whilst watching, even as I write this I'm still thinking of them and the themes, which I think is a good sign.

As usual, if you're still reading and stuck with me, then thank you, but you'll notice the chaos of this post and it's lack of actual direction - as I didn't have an agenda, except that I guess it's to say if you get a chance and feel you could handle it, watch these films. Watch more films that might impact you more than you would normally push yourself, find those films that you can relate to, try to do at least 1 that you might flick over in Netflix normally without a second thought, but go back and give it a go. Try and unsettle yourself and see what it does, you could be surprised with the results.

Will try and write something more driven and specific next time!