This is the final announcement for the Polyamory Film Festival,
which is happening this FRIDAY NIGHT, February 10, 7 PM - 10 PM in
Berkeley. (That's FRIDAY EVENING, not Saturday!)
(Not to be confused with the party on the following night, or any
other event).
This month's film will be "BANDITS"
This is a highly entertaining film about a polyamorous triad, (two
males, one female) that forms after two felons (Bruce Willis and Billy
Bob Thornton) make a daring escape from prison. Once out, they go on
a crime spree that involves them taking a lovely redhead (Cate
Blanchett) as their hostage. As it it happens, the woman was not
exactly happy in her marriage, and ends up enjoying life with the two
bank robbers more than her previous life as a middleclass housewife
(Go figure). First she and Willis fall in love, then she and Thornton
fall in love, and then things get dicey. Will the two men bust up
their good friendship and highly successful partnership over her ?
Will they fight to the death over her?
She eventually decides she wants both of them. This situation seems
"immoral" and "wrong" to both men initially. I mean, everybody knows
it is "wrong" for a woman to be in love with two men simultaneously,
and for two men to share a woman. But upon reflection, since the men
are both escaped felons and the three are surviving by robbing banks,
exactly what "moral principle" governs this romantic relationship -
what authority are they answerable to? (And who is going in enforce
it?) Since they don't exactly follow the rules of society in any other
arena of their lives, why should being at odds with "societal norms"
stand in their way of simply doing what they all want in this realm?
A very fun poly movie!
VERY LIMITED SEATING.
We are requesting a $3 donation to cover cost of snacks etc, but no
one turned away for lack of funds.
We'll provide lemonade and Popcorn.
(You are also allowed to bring snacks to share, but they must be
simple items requiring no additional preparation, and you if you bring
something, you must be responsible for cleaning up any mess caused by
what you bring before you go home).
Notice this is an entirely SEPARATE event from the poly party which
happens the next day. Attendence at the Poly Film Festival requires a
separate RSVP, and vice-versa. We only have room for about 12 people
or so for the film. . This is an event that requires people to show up
on time, and it doesn't work well to have people banging on the door
half-way through the movie, so plan accordingly.
Chickpea wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (Serene Vannoy) wrote in
>> On 02/08/2012 12:28 AM, Dave wrote:
>>> We are requesting a $3 donation to cover cost of snacks etc,
>>> [...]
>>> We'll provide lemonade and Popcorn.
>> Wow, that's some seriously premium lemonade
>> and popcorn if it's costing you $3 a person.
> How many servings per person? Could be quite cheap!
Well, also, the lemonade and popcorn accounts for the
"snacks" part, but some of the total must no doubt be
reserved for the otherwise-unspecified "etc"...
Serene Vannoy wrote:
> On 02/08/2012 12:28 AM, Dave wrote:
>> We are requesting a $3 donation to cover cost of snacks etc,
>> but no one turned away for lack of funds.
>> We'll provide lemonade and Popcorn.
> Wow, that's some seriously premium lemonade and popcorn if it's
> costing you $3 a person.
Coming in a bit late on the discussion; my apologies.
With all due respect, Serene, and as someone who has hosted parties (not specifically poly, but similar sorts of gatherings), I find this a disingenuous comment.
We had significantly higher heat and electric bills and water use was much higher for the months we held parties, because we were keeping the house warmer for longer, we went through more water, more hot water, we ran the hot tub more than normal, and we had more lights on in more rooms than we normally do. We also used more of the spa chemicals. This is in addition to extra food that we made available.
I think $3 a pop is a very reasonable cover charge to help defray costs.
I don't know Dave's family's financial situation, but I can imagine one in which the difference between having the gathering and not having the gathering came down to "can we afford it?" We were willing to host if we could afford *all* the extra costs, and stopped hosting, in part, when it became untenable financially.
In any event, I hope the film festival was fun for all!
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>> On 02/08/2012 12:28 AM, Dave wrote:
>>> We are requesting a $3 donation to cover cost of snacks etc,
>>> but no one turned away for lack of funds.
>>> We'll provide lemonade and Popcorn.
>> Wow, that's some seriously premium lemonade and popcorn if it's
>> costing you $3 a person.
> Coming in a bit late on the discussion; my apologies.
> With all due respect, Serene, and as someone who has hosted parties (not
> specifically poly, but similar sorts of gatherings), I find this a
> disingenuous comment.
Snarky and disingenuous aren't the same thing.
> We had significantly higher heat and electric bills and water use was
> much higher for the months we held parties, because we were keeping the
> house warmer for longer, we went through more water, more hot water, we
> ran the hot tub more than normal, and we had more lights on in more
> rooms than we normally do. We also used more of the spa chemicals. This
> is in addition to extra food that we made available.
> I think $3 a pop is a very reasonable cover charge to help defray costs.
In this case, maybe so, as it appears to be less of a party and more of a public event. If you feel that way about parties in general, you and I have different ideas about parties, then, and that's okay. If I can't afford to throw a party, I don't throw one. Or I do something I can afford. I don't charge people to attend them.
As usual, I am of Judith Martin's mind on this question. If one cannot afford the expense of a party, I believe one should either throw a less expensive party or find another way to hang out with one's friends, not charge the friends for the privilege of being in one's company. HOWEVER, I really was just being snarky, and have no real problem with things like this, where it's more of a group event than an actual party, and though I'm not interested in attending them, and am personally irritated by them, I don't think it's actually rude to charge for them.
(Incidentally, I'm aware that Miss Manners would not approve of my being rude in return. I don't always respond the way I ought to to what I perceive as rudeness. I should have ignored Dave's post, as I usually do. It would have been the better part of valor.
> I don't know Dave's family's financial situation, but I can imagine one
> in which the difference between having the gathering and not having the
> gathering came down to "can we afford it?"
Again, in the case of what's more of a public event than an actual party, as this probably is, yeah, sure. Charge money if you need to in order to afford the event. In the case of an actual party, where it's a purely social event, if you charge money, you've just said our friendship is a financial partnership rather than a friendship at all.
Serene Vannoy wrote:
> Again, in the case of what's more of a public event than an
> actual party, as this probably is, yeah, sure. Charge money if
> you need to in order to afford the event. In the case of an
> actual party, where it's a purely social event, if you charge
> money, you've just said our friendship is a financial partnership
> rather than a friendship at all.
Actually, I'm in violent agreement :-) I think I read Dave's invitation as a "public event" more than a social/friendship event.
Deborah
probably should go back under the rock now
