02:56 - 22.11.05
Upheaval
Well the good news is my youngest and I went to see the newest Harry Potter movie - Goblet of Fire - tonight. It is always difficult for someone who has read the book to appreciate the screenplay and this was no different.The film is a very good depiction of the three contests that made up the Triwizard tournament but almost everything else had been stripped away fom the story and that was often what had held the meat of the story. It is a great action film. The dance and bath tub scenes are quite funny, especially the way Moaning Myrtle the ghost teases an adolescent Harry. They do capture the teenage angst theme reasonably well but the theme of accepting ones self and taking responsibility for one's choices is pretty much lost in the story.
The deaths of two characters bracket the beginning and ending of the story - both victims of senseless violence. Add in the death eater scene at the beginning and it might be considered frightening I suppose, although this is as close to being gratuitous violence as I ever expected to see in one of the films. In the book the subplots provide a context for that behaviour that provide some insight that at least delineates the character development that evolves both for the good and bad in the story's different characters. The two saviours in terms of salvaging some of that part of the original story were Alan Rickman as Severus Snape and Daniel Radcliffe as Harry. I liked Maggie Smith's contribution as Minerva McGonagall too. Both actors were able, within the context of the film, to provide some insight into the moral and ethical choices each character was compelled to make. It was only the focus of the sceenplay at times that impaired their abilities to fully illustrate those themes. They managed to convey a lot of their message non-verbally, and with emotion that is unusual in a film for teens so maybe that is all that is necessary at this point. This is closer to a role playing game than a movie in a lot of ways. Nothing wrong with that I suppose if that is what one is looking for. Maybe the intent in the end though was to encourage young people to actualy read the book itself and that would be a good thing.
As a segue, that is what my day felt like complete with all the angst about Christmas parties and judgements on the main character (me) that were driven by external agendas that reflected very little of what has actually transpired in the physical world. Apparently, the one supervisor encouraging me and a couple of other people to bring a guest to the company Christmas party upset a lot of apple carts/plans for the night of the party. Several of the staff spent a significant amount of the day arguing over the seating arrangements that had been rearranged. So much for productive work from them.
In the weekly meeting with the second in command ended the discussion by lecturing me because I had not responded to an invitation to a Christmas luncheon this coming Friday sent last week. I hadn't, partly because I have not yet had a predictable week since starting at the warehouse and have found it difficult to make any commitment to downtown activities. As well, I wasn't certain how it would be perceived if I booked almost one whole day to "playtime" when I keep being told how important it is to make headway on the boxes and records I am assigned to care for. Her comment was that I had better think carefully about refusing to attend based on the fact that I had told our supervisor that "I don't normally associate with the people I work with socially".
Well I think I did ok with the June playday despite the obstructions placed in the way of organizing the dance event and I spend time talking with and developing relationships with people both on and off my floor with whom I share common interests. She was ascribing a motive of feeling I was "better" than everyone else to the hesitation then at the same time scolding me for adding a second person - my guest - to the list for the Christmas party. Now I had messed up their plans for the way the social function would roll out. Whatever. I had been mislead by the supervisor on Friday and she had used false promises to lure me into going she stated. Huh? All she did was make me feel as though I would be welcome and safe in that context. I explained, as I had to our supervisor when I asked to be excused from her house paty back in the summer. that I found social functions - especially where alcohol was involved - very difficult because of past experiences with the boy's Dad. Being around people who drink can trigger some very strong emotional responses. A couple of the people I really enjoy talking with asked for and received verification about that later. However it was apparently used to determine that fact that I didn't fit in with the departmental goals well enough.
The other issue she skidded around was the one point I included in the action items asking for direction for the future. You see last Friday, when the second in command was taking a day off, she assigned her part time assistant some work with preparing new boxes for storage complete with the requirement to code those boxes for retention. She hadn't even given her the taxonomy to work from so it seems that the one supervisor who was also working on the Christmas party then suggested she come ask me for the coding so she could complete her tasks. I did so by providing her with a printout of the schedule that is also contained on the company website under "records management" and looking at a couple of the files she had brought with her for coding. It was curious that one of those boxes was full of very old legacy company data that had been mislabelled by the second in command or someone she was working with. The other boxes were a mix of record types and I asked her if she was allowed to code in the "split the box" section so that the single code requirement that is supposed to be respected for offsite records management on a go forward basis was met. She said no she wasn't so I told her to go through that with the second in command when she returned to work on Monday.
At the end of the afternoon I had been slated for an ergonomic assessment of my work area.Compared to a lot of other work places I have been assigned it isn't that bad, but the physical set up is for a much taller person whose time would be spent away from the computer rather than me whose primary function is to be on that computer 7 or 8 hours a day. As she arrived our supervisor asked me to come and see her when we were done. This seemed to unnerve the ergonomic specialist a bit although she continued on with her questions of how I did my work and what is was comprised of mostly. WE managed to work out some simple solutions al though it was a rather disjointd interview with several interruptions while she went off to see if certain materials were available for my use.
In one of those breaks I went round to see the supervisor as requested. She said that my project was being reassessed for it's corporate value and so my contract would be ending a couple of weeks early - the week before Christmas as a matter of fact. She cited the coding issues and the "fact" that I hadn't been adhereing to the go forward single code requirement as a reason for that. "Things were moving to slow because I was focussing on details like legal requirements instead of the coding policy. That may be so but I didn't pack up those boxes. They need to be split to meet the taxonomy guidelines and the legal requirements for business records and she acknowledged that I had not been supported by them in arriving at a way to achieve the single code requirement that was the "reason" the project was being terminated. Somehow though it was stillbing limned that I was being "resistent" to direction. My weekly reports reflect otherwise based on week to week comments. She and the second in command saw those and approved them every week. So how is it that I am being punished for doing as I was directed in the moment as best I could and why is their failure to provide the framework so I could do the work differently according to this new "imperative" - new since the end of September - being downloaded on to me when my supervisor acknowledged those facts upfront in the end of the day discussion. I didn't argue the points at that time because I was so taken aback at the unfairness of the decision.
I left shortly after that as it was my regular quitting time but it was apparent from the congregation in the washroom that the word was already spread throughout the whole of the records team. So much for the privacy/confidentiality guidelines that are supposed to be in effect. Headed over to see the realtor to get the lease for the returning office signed as directed by elections Canada on the weekend. There had been no calls on my cell phone so I assumed there were no problems now that I had their written approval - it had arrived on Saturday. The realtor was his usual helpful self and apologized for not getting back to me on the weekend. He had been out of privince for a wedding and had just returned late last night. Headed straight out for the movie theater then while returning a phone call from the agency that assigned me to this contract. They said they hadn't known about the "problems" but had been advised my contract was being shortened by a couple of weeks. Wonder whose bonus is being bumped up at my expense. I know bitter aren't I? Stopped at the grocery store on the way home and arrived at our door about 8:45 to the great relief of the cats who were wondering where their evening snack had gone. Checked my email and found an "urgent" midmorning email from the local rep stating that the directions from the head office about signing the lease were being misunderstood by "a number" of Returning Officers and changing the directions substantialy. Part of the problem was that the lease was written so that certain clauses couldn't be removed because the document was electronically locked. If that hadn't beenthe case the one snag of the optional clause culd have been removed without major problems. I had emailed asking for that option last week and had received a voicemail from the legal staff saying it couldn't be done. Basically the direction today siad in a round about way that no lease should be signed but that possession of the office was still required to receive the first shipment of materials. Catch 22 and catch me if you can. I think becuase of the way the realtor and I had initialled the pertinent clauses and not touched the ones in question and because we calculated the total rent for the specified period that I am ok, but if it was such a worry why hadn't they called me on my cell phone? They were the ones who demanded we have it on and with us all day every day week days and week nights so why didn't they use them? Sent off an email to them explaining how I had executed my lease and asking if modifications were now necessary, then sent off the report requested by the agency about the events of the past month so they could approach my supervisor with it - at least I think that was the intent. When I had asked my contact said they had received no word about that one security incident or about the "problems" with the project either. Neither I nor they can address those "problems" unless we receive that information in a timely fashion now can we? Ditto for the election work. Alice down the rabbit hole I think.
�
�
