Sunday, 16 October 2022

WHEN DIRECTORS GO TOO FAR

 WHEN DIRECTORS GO TOO FAR!


I guess its easy to say this in hindsight but putting an actor in jeopardy for the sake of a shot is not the way to go. Actors train to fake emotions, or rather draw upon their own experiences/inspirations, to bring a role to life. 

So when a director literally pulls the rug from beneath them to get 'realistic performances', its a really shitty thing to do, particularly where stunts are concerned. Stunts are for stuntmen, not actors. 

Time and time again directors put their "vision" before the safety of their actors and crew. During Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter,(1984) actress Judie Aronson suffered hypothermia, after being forced to stay in freezing water for hours, while the camera crew set up a shot in a lake. It was only when Jason actor Ted White threatened to walk, that she was finally rescued. 

Alec Baldwin accidentally shot dead cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the western 'Rust' (2021). Brandon Lee died during the making of The Crow (1994). And these are just the tips of some very nasty ice burgs. During the aerial scenes filmed for You Only Live Twice (1967), cameraman John Jordan lost his foot when a helicopter rotor blade got too close. 

James Cameron put Ed Harris thru hell to make the sci-fi film 'The Abyss' (1989), in which the actor almost drowned. Numerous technical problems plagued the production and co-star Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio walked off set. The crew even made up badges that read 'The Abuse'. 

Director John Landis was sued for the deaths of actor Vic Morrow and child actors Myca Dinh Le and Renee Shin-Yi Chen who where all killed during the making of Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983), when a helicopter crashed on set.  Malcolm McDowell suffered a scratched cornea and temporary blindness filming the brainwashing scenes for A Clockwork Orange (1971). 

The list goes on and on. The more ambitious the movie, the more likely accidents and fatalities will occur. 

Even with the simplest of scenes, requiring no stunts, directors still find a way to put their actors in harms way. Some Directors are simply not a people person, because they lack acting experience themselves and don’t know how to communicate with actors. That is often the problem when one stays behind the camera. They might have lots of imaginative ideas but they expect an actor to become a puppet to realise those ideas and then become frustrated when they don’t get the best results. 

Its like the passenger grabbing the wheel coz they don’t like the drivers style. Plenty of times I’ve put my heart in my hands getting lifts in cars with bad drivers but I’ve never felt I had to drive the car myself. 

If a director is not getting the results he wants from an actor, then maybe they should have thought about that before giving them the job in the first place, which is the whole point of a audition. 

Give me your best scream. 


Tuesday, 9 August 2022

AWSUM SERIALS: Russell T Davis: 'DALEK'

 

AWSUM SERIALS: 

Russell T Davis: 
'DALEK' 




'Dalek' was a fantastic re-introduction to the Doctors oldest nemesis. Bare in mind, that by the 1980s the Daleks popularity had been reduced to Spike Milligan comedy sketches etc. 




This was not helped by dwindling Dr Who budgets and cheap looking Dalek props that made them look like, well... cheap looking Dalek props. 



The show also suffered a decline in the public perception (and a less-prominent transmission slot). Unable to compete with ITVs The A-Team, Battle Star Galactica, Air Wolf, Knight Rider etc the show ultimately died a death in 1989. 



When Russell T Davis rebooted the series, it was one of his prime objectives to resurrect the Daleks as well. So he made sure that the Daleks would return, bigger and badder to keep in step with the times. 



Thus 'Dalek' achieves this ethos perfectly. However most kids in 2005 had no idea what a Dalek was and Davis was fully aware of this. And so he devised the idea of one solitary Dalek, to show this new audience why Daleks were the most feared race in the known universe...

Saturday, 23 July 2022

NOT-SO AWSUM MOVIES: BEYOND STAR TREK BEYOND

NOT-SO AWSUM MOVIES: 

BEYOND STAR TREK BEYOND

or 

WHY BLOWING UP THE ENTERPRISE 
(FOR A THIRD TIME IN A ROW) 
IS REALLY GETTING OLD 


I have no real problem with Star Trek Beyond, honestly. Good solid acting, spectacular effects, its all very entertaining. But still, there is that niggling issue about the USS Enterprise getting destroyed YET AGAIN. I suppose its more than a niggle. Ok fuck it. I’ll be totally honest. WTF?  

Basically my gripe is the utter disrespect for the good old USS Enterprise, who's served her crew thru thick and thin, faithfully in two spectacular JJ Abrams movies. Then its like the third movie and whatever. She gets trashed, in the first ten minutes of this film, as if she's not even relevant! 

This concept just didn’t really work for me at all. There was no real reason to do it, other than cheap thrills. 

THAT THIRD ALTERNATIVE 

But here’s the thing. They coulda had their cake and eaten it, if they simply gotten the Enterprise thru the whole narrative somehow intact. 

It just seemed like nobody was in charge of script editing. 

If they had, it might have been like Kirks rant in 'Operation Annihilate.' Where Spock and McCoy are at a loss about what to do with the killer flying pizzas and Kirk is losing patience with their fumbling. 
    'Im putting you two on the hot seat with me!' He says. 'I want that third Alternative!'

In that respect, they should have gotten William Shatner on board to help re-write Simon Pegg's dumbass script. 

    'What Simon? The Enterprise gets blown up again? How about a third Alternative??' 

Why nobody objected to blowing up the Enterprise, is beyond me. Which is ironic because its actually called Star Trek Beyond.  But beyond what? Beyond the Enterprise? Beyond any sense what so ever? 

But lets talk about that Third Alternative for a second:

They could have had Kirk etc crash-land on the planet in a space shuttle (or whatever), while the Enterprise is elsewhere looking for it, while trying to evade the nasty space swarm.

Alternatively, they could have abandoned ship, (thinking it was doomed) but Scotty stays aboard and (somehow) manages to bring her back to life. This idea might have had more impact. The crew think the Enterprise is gone and with no hope of rescue they slug it out on the planet. 

But then its tad-arr! The third act, reveals the Enterprise is in fact not as badly damaged as everyone thought and Scotty has a full bank of phasers ready to kick-ass! 

They coulda done any one of a plethora of ideas, other than binning the USS Enterprise on the sacrificial alter of entertainment. 

Because blowing up the Enterprise is really a one trick pony idea. You can only really do it once (maybe twice) and that’s it. 

THIRD TIMES, NO CHARM

Jesus. I've almost lost count here. How many times has the Enterprise been blown up now? 

Lets do the math. Or Maths. Whatever. 

Echoes of 'The Search For Spock' and 'Generations' spring to mind. 

The first time they blew up the Enterprise, it was to up the stakes: 

It was all or nothing for Kirk: his son dead, his best friend Spock somewhere in limbo, his career in Star Fleet OVER. So the Enterprise’s destruction was kinda like the ultimate blow to Kirk, his ultimate sacrifice and fuck you to the no-win-scenario.

    Star Trek: The Search For Spock. A twenty-year old battered USS Enterprise is at an end. 

In Generations, the saucer-section detaches and crash-lands on the planet, its a spectacular scene and works for all the right reasons. Simply put, the stakes have to be so high, that blowing up the Enterprise is really the last resort and shouldn't be taken lightly and not just for kicks.  

                                 Star Trek: Generations, The Enterprise takes a clobbering. 

Because this iconic ship, is what glues all of Star Trek together. 

It was bad enough when they trashed Vulcan in the first movie (altering the entire time line for no reason at all) and then got the most inappropriate actor to play Khan for 'Into Darkness: Benedict (I am Khaaaaaaaan) Cumberbunch. 


TARANTINO APPROACH 

Some critics compare Abrams approach to the franchise, as akin to Star Wars but I would say it was more like Quentin Tarantino. In fact they even asked him to direct. 

Yep that’s right. They actually approached Tarantino to make a Star Trek movie. Of course it never happened but it does feel like they were trying to emulate Tarantino’s thinking, in this particular movie. Would Tarantino bin the Enterprise like this? He might have, if this film was a parody like Galaxy Quest.  

So its been a case of: what else can we do to wow the audiences, guys? Fuck it, lets get Simon Pegg to trash the USS Enterprise! Tarantino style! And for what? I’ll tell you what. Cheap thrills. 

And thats what you get folks, when you have a bunch of kids with a ton of hollywood money, trying to imitate Tarantino and then applying that to Star Trek. 

The net result, is you end up blowing the crap out of your Golden Goose in an blatant attempt to out-do 'The Search For Spock' and try to morph Star Trek into something like Star Wars meets Reservoir Dogs , all safe in the knowledge that blowing up the Enterprise is no big deal. They can always build another one. 

After all, there’s plenty more letters in the Alphabet.  


Thursday, 23 June 2022

WHAT IF? STAR WARS WAS MADE IN ORDER?

 


WHAT IF  

STAR WARS 

WAS MADE IN ORDER?



This WHAT IF ? argument had to come sooner or later: What if director George Lucas had made a fantastical error by not making his movies in 'chronological order'? What if Star Wars had begun at the very beginning? What if instead of A New Hope we had The Phantom Menace - premiering across our movie theatres way back in 1977 ??  

That’s a lot of what-ifs. Thats like saying what if JFK wasn’t assassinated or Titanic hadn’t hit that iceberg? Lets face it, it would be a drag. It would be like having to read the entire Bible from beginning to end, when all you really want, is all the juicy bits, like: Noah and the Great flood, Moses and Christ taking on the Roman Empire. 

Its easy to say that The Phantom Menace should have been the first Star Wars movie but in hindsight there would have been repercussions: Running Star Wars in chronological order, starting with The Phantom Menace (circa 1977) would NOT have paid off in the '70s and heres why.  

For starters nobody would have got all the fuss about Anakin Skywalker. (Darth who???) Jabba would have been humanoid (played by Belfast actor Declan Mulholland) and to attempt to (un)create the many visual effects without CGI would have pushed the production team way over budget and 20th Century Fox would have cancelled the project.

Something as complex as Star Wars had to start somewhere. The original idea was something like Jedi Kane Starkiller and a complex story of revenge, cloning and where Han Solo was a ten foot tall green lizard in spandex. This was essentially the look of  Star Wars in 1974. It would take Lucas a little while longer to realise that this version could never be made with the current technology and opted for a simpler idea but even that became another epic story. 

In the end, Lucas realised Star Wars could only be filmed if he took one portion of it and make that into a movie - which later became A New Hope.  But back in 1977 it was simply called 'Star Wars' because folks, nobody had a clue what Star Wars was. So with that in mind, it was far simpler to use this first film as a vehicle to showcase the entire Star Wars concept.  

Lets also not forget that the original Star Wars very nearly didn't get made at all. NOBODY believed in Lucas's vision. They just went along with it because he had a little Hollywood clout. Lucas didn't help things by his shyness. His incessant mumblings and lack of stage direction frustrated actors and crew alike. 

‘Faster with more intensity’ would be his stock direction cue. 

To make matters worse, the British film crew downed tools every day at 5pm and production was dangerously close to getting shut down. Shooting the Tatooine scenes in Tunisia turned into a nightmare: as film sets got destroyed in sand storms and the crew mutinied to go back to England (presumably for more tea). 

If that wasn’t enough headache, the Special Fx Team were way behind schedule, frustrating matters. Without a break, Lucas desperately tried to get the film finished and it almost dam near killed him. In the end Lucas had to fire his editor and cut the film himself and perhaps this single act saved Star Wars.  

Looking back, it really was an ambitious project hindered at every turn. But Lucas's genius lay in turning each of those hindrances on their heads and the rest as they say is history. It was the biggest gamble of his career and it paid off but had Lucas gone with some half baked chronological story such as The Phantom Menace, the Star Wars Franchise would have sunk like a lead balloon and call it what you will, that is a educated guess and likely how it would have gone down. 

Take also into account that Science Fiction wasn’t terribly favoured by Hollywood at the time. What we got on the cinema screens in 1977, was basically a compromise between what Lucas wanted and what could be agreed upon by the lever pullers. 

Perhaps we wouldn’t have a franchise at all if the executives had gotten their way. The deplorable Christmas Special almost destroyed Star Wars. But that’s another story. 

All in all, The Phantom Menace could never have been made without establishing the concept of Star Wars with A New Hope and that’s evolution, folks.



Friday, 1 April 2022

WHAT IF? ALGO-RHYTHMIC

 

APP -TASTIC : 
 THE MUSIC OF TOMORROW  
ALGO-RHYTHMIC 
WHAT IF?  

               COPY-WRITE BOTS KILL OFF CREATIVITY ?
                           



In the wake of the latest Ed Sheeran plagiarism case, it will soon become fight or flight time for most musicians, struggling to survive in the post pandemic/New Cold War  world of the 21st century.  

All in all, if we are not vigilant, we may see the end- game for rock music as we know it. 

Plagiarism is a very loose word. Particularly when it comes to music. And music in itself is always evolving into something else.  

One idea builds upon another and follows trends. If there wasn’t a little leeway, then we wouldn’t have Rock & Roll sprouting from the blues, or Blue Grass evolving from Country music. Heavy Metal and Punk is the extreme of Rock & Roll and Grunge is built upon Punk and Heavy Metal combined. So no band can ever exist in a vacuum from other musicians. 

They learn and thrive off influencing each other. And yes, that includes lifting guitar riffs but hopefully to make them into something new.  It draws the line between plagiarism and homage, it defines copying from emulating and without that give and take system, there is no future for Rock & Roll. 

There was a time when The Beatles had to cross Liverpool just to knock on a fellas door and find out what a B9 chord sounded like. And if it wasn’t for the US Navy and the shipping trades, Rock & Roll itself would never have proliferated across Britain, Europe and into Communist Russia. 

With the advent of the internet, everyone knows who the Foo Fighters are, even kids forming rock bands, in what we class as third-world countries and war-torn provinces such as Iraq etc. But that proliferation might all end in the wake of unchecked artificial intelligences. 

Put it this way: once rock music becomes 'algo-rythmic' or app friendly, it will spell certain doom for all musicians concerned. The digital age (with its army of Copyright Bots) will essentially block all artists from attempting to put their tunes online, unless it passes certain music ‘requirements’. Thus there will be no more blues music or rock n roll because anyone creating a song with a 12bar riff, will be subject to copyright. 

Any A-minor to G’s or three chord progressions, would cease altogether because there’s only so many combinations and all of them and (again) would be subject to copyright. That’s before we even get into Melodies of songs and that in itself would be up against the firing squad, if we allow a free-for-all with lawsuits, on any given doe-ray-me. 

Drum beats wouldn't be safe either. Dave Grohl would be out of a job for sure. Drummers would get sued for playing Motown and disco beats. And it wouldn't just end there. Drum & Bass, Hip Hop, traditional Rap etc anything that uses a ‘sampled beat’ or a borrowed rhythm would all End. 

Technology itself would become the judge of what music we should be playing and in doing so would be become the soul arbiter of what is musically permissible. In the future, Digital guitars (with laser strings) and other instruments might even flag you with a copyright warning for strumming certain chords that might sound a bit like Stairway and essentially block you from playing that song. 

Hell, such futuristic instruments might not even let you play a chord at all, unless it passed some Algo-Rhythmic Authentication app, that ultimately only allows Gobbledy-Gook to be played. You wanna play that A-minor to G idea? Forget it. Your new Yamaha Digi-Lazer-Guitar3000 has now blocked your ass from ever playing that riff. 

Yep before you know it, we'll all be playing the equivalent of those kiddy toy guitars with the stupid buttons on the fret board. 

So yeah, in the future it would probably get to a point where music, (as we know it) would become unlistenable and only good for radio jingles to sell shower products. In order to survive, young up-and-coming musicians of the future, would have to replace the traditional 4/4 timing we all love, with new timings altogether, so complex, to the point that most conventional western music would go out the window and Dave Grohl wouldn’t know what to do with himself. 

Thus the music of tomorrow will be as alien to us, as our current music might be to the ears of the Victorians. That said, rules are made to be broken. And that is what musical expression is really all about. 


Keeping up With the Gardening - Revisited



Keeping up With the Gardening
"...In a decaying society, art if it is truthful,
Must also reflect decay...”
Ernst Fischer
What is the appeal of urban decay? Perhaps we secretly look forward to a science fictional scenario in which our indomitable human empire will finally fall prey to the ravages of nature and time. On many occasions in history, mankind's technologies, his architectural achievements, his various methods of global dominance have been destroyed by the power of nature. Let us look at it this way, by putting the scenario on your front doorstep; Will Portsmouth fall sway to the power of nature? 

If our economy collapsed, then yes, it is a possibly. Who’s to say that our workforces here would not be lured away by more lucrative contracts elsewhere? We all need money but if the current trend of austerity measures persists, then the workers in Portsmouth could be forced to find the next new contract, or proverbial gold mine further and further afield, leaving Portsmouth a virtual ghost town. Are we to rely entirely on tourism? Only if the tourists come but if the economic downturn is country wide, it is unlikely that Portsmouth could survive on tourism indefinitely. Its remaining population whether placated on benefits, or specialist trained are too ill equipped to deal with the rising tide of crippling economics. They too will have to find work or benefits elsewhere, whilst the city itself falls to ruin as foliage creeps back in, weeds overtake the streets and very few council staff (if any) will be left to maintain it all. 

South Parade Pier 
Southsea, Portsmouth
Climate change will also affect Portsmouth’s economic growth.  Rising tides will erode the sea shore further and further. Talk of sea walls to stave off the seas, is a possibility but still only that.  The Hampshire County Council Climate Change Commission in 2007 stated that: ‘without improvements to the cities flood deference’s, climate change will undoubtedly significantly impact on the economic well-being of Portsmouth…’ How we could arrive at a virtual ghost town, swathed in weeds is complicated but also quite simple. It boils down to good or bad management. 

It boils down to communication or lack of. It boils down to education, the availability of goods and other services, skilled work and what attracts us to such places. It boils down to where our priorities are founded. If there are no jobs, then the population moves on or we turn to crime altogether and ghettos and slums become the norm. A bad economy cannot be blamed on any one person, any more than climate change itself. If the economy is badly structured in the first place and if we fail to see the forces of nature around us as a contributing factor to how that economy is shaped, then we deny all reality. Who is to say we do not affect the composition of our atmosphere by the amount of pollution pumped into it by our factories vehicles and weapons of mass destruction? On all fronts: Architecturally, environmentally and economically, our present systems are unsustainable in the 21st Century.  

But is it inevitable that all human activities on Earth will succumb to nature, especially given our current abuses of the environment? What is the common factor in the failure of past societies? Call it capitalism, call it greed, call it stupidity. Has it always been the case that we are unable to respect and meet the needs of everyone in society? When we invented agriculture, we began to work the land about us, cutting back the forests and farming large stretches of the countryside until industrialization drew millions of people to the cities only to be ensnared in the detriments of mechanization. 

One only has to look at the history of the Luddite Movement as an example, where skilled workers rebelled against the automations brought on by the industrial revolution. Nowadays, in our "concrete jungles", citizens are alienated from nature and forced to work by a monopoly that constrains us in a vacuum from reality. We fight over a corner on a pale blue dot that hangs in the void. Thus when the illusion falters, the vines start creeping back in and in this respect; I have often thought that civilization is really about keeping up with the gardening…


Clarence Pier
Southsea, Portsmouth
Built in 1861, Clarence Pier has been extended and renovated a great deal since then. It was severely damaged by a Luftwaffe air raid during the Second World War, but not refurbished until 1961. South Parade Pier, once the seaside's mainstay attraction, has now closed after a steady decline over decades. Clarence Pier's future isn't bright either, and may become too costly to run and with most locals forced to leave the area in search of work elsewhere, the Pier will eventually close to the public sometime in the latter part of this century. 

Over the course of the next ten years the area will suffer from severe storm damage, high tides will have swept shingle into most parts of the lower levels and across the main sea road towards the Clarence Pier Bus Interchange, swamping most vehicles in the deluge. Thus, the area may produce many rare forms of flora, boasting some of the most intricate biospheres along the south coast...
 
 
The Kings Theatre -Auditorium

The Kings Theatre, Albert Road, Portsmouth.
If Portsmouth was economically crippled beyond repair, then even such majestic architectures as the Kings Theatre would fall eventually to the might of external influences. Wood beams must rot with termites and water damage. Root systems find their way into the substructure, causing roofing to collapse and opening it to the elements. Alcoves and balconies that once seated patrons now become nests for various forms of flora and fauna...
Kings Theatre

View From Albert Road, Southsea, Portsmouth

 One has only to consider that such things are merely provisional, that all we can hope for is the eternal staving off of nature, whose vines and creepers wait patiently for the time when the gardening becomes too much for us to cope with...
A3 Bridge
A 3 Bridge (leaving Portsmouth)
As one of the main arteries leading into Portsmouth, (connecting it directly to London) with thousands of vehicles crossing over and under it everyday, such bridges as these are particularly susceptible to inclement weather. Rainwater has the knack of getting into everything, including cracks formed in the brittle concrete of bridges and buildings, a process known as imbibition, by which water molecules seep into a porous material causing it to swell, enabling plant life to creep their eventual way into the joints and supports that make up the backbone of such bridges. 
Water molecules within the root system expand, eventually breaking concrete apart, purely because concrete has no room for expansion and excess pressure from roots growing within, will force it apart. Bridges such as these, may stand more chance of lasting a little longer than their conventional contemporaries, simply because of their arched design. The roads beneath them however will not. 

Our 20th century road way systems were never designed for the onslaught of the 21st Century. With growing concerns over pot holes developing over the countries ridged artery systems, our roads cannot be maintained forever. Motorway maintenance costs on average £3000 per mile per year. The M1 alone is 200 miles long and costs £600,000 per year to maintain. Privatization of our motorways to foreign investors will only exasperate an already difficult financial situation; competing companies will only add further problems by increasing traffic on our already overloaded roadways, furthering road fatalities, due to the state of the roads and so on. For road taxes will rise respectively, to maintain roads that still require by-passes. But by-passes mean more by-passes, causing gridlock and endless toll gates, eventually forcing non commercial motorists (i.e. not transporting goods) to use other means of transport altogether.

The vast amounts of money thrown at the problem of our present system, is overly cyclical: Taxpaying motorists ultimately are unable to afford to run their vehicles. Staff shortages and lowly wages mean the very petroleum in the tankers will be not be delivered to their outlets as the cost of living increases.  The inefficiency of our present day economy, creates a domino effect on our very lives. For we as taxpayers are forced to foot the bill, a bill owed to a debt based system. Businesses large and small owe each other, we borrow money but we need to pay it back, with interest and if we cannot, then we either borrow more money or fold altogether, leaving buildings and infrastructure in a state of disuse. Like the gold rushes of the 19th Century, those people move on to more prosperous lands but their legacies remain, leaving potential ghost towns behind. Who is to pay for their upkeep is uncertain. For example: Like our roadways, the larger the infrastructure (of say the Spinnaker Tower) the more difficult it becomes to maintain it…
Spinnaker Tower
Gunwharf Quays and Spinnaker Tower as viewed from Gosport
With its iconic shape, chosen by local residents due to its association with Portsmouth’s Maritime history, the Spinnaker Tower has unfortunately been over shadowed by its own controversial history. Originally referred to as the Millennium Tower and at a height of 170 meters (a shortfall in itself) extensive delays, changes in contractors and budget overruns meant that the lottery funded tower was not complete for the Millennium Celebrations and eventually opened to the public some five years after its initial deadline. Notorious for its extensive construction costs (36 Million, 11 million paid by Taxpayers)  many disgruntled residents may recall the flurry surrounding the towers eventual opening in 2005, whereby the Project manager and representatives from Mowlem (the builders) and Maspero (the Italian Lift suppliers) became trapped in the Towers infamous glass elevator, suspended some 40 feet in the air. Even by 2012, the lift never worked properly and by 2015 was eventually removed altogether.

As the centre point of Gun Wharf Keys and the historic Portsmouth Dockyards, the tower is extremely susceptible to the elements and must be maintained with weatherproofing paint at all times. Without regular maintenance, the high salt content of the area will eventually peel away its protective paint exposing the concrete beams beneath. The tower will then begin to develop cracks in its super structure, allowing water to seep in and corrode vital metal supports, some of which will become loose and eventually fall upon the concourse beneath. To paint the tower, it costs on average £300,000. 

Subcontractors Beirrun, were given the task of painting the tower. Subsequently their business folded. The paint, supplied by Silka, was supposed to last twenty years. Due to bad weather conditions it has already began to peel. To counter this it would mean painting the tower on a regular basis. This could be anything from five to ten years depending on the battering it gets from the elements and how well the paint itself is applied. The application of paint requires surface preparation. One cannot simply apply paint to external structures without this consideration. If the surface is not sanded down or the paint is applied in cold/ damp conditions, it will eventually peel and leave areas exposed, leading to water seepage and cracks, requiring further maintenance. More money is required, the logistics of who will do the job is open to conjecture.

   Within the next few decades however, if funding for the towers maintenance falls short, it could become another scenario that we have seen before with the problems of the Tricorn shopping centre. It could mean the Spinnaker Tower will face closer to the general public, as the entire area thus becomes unsafe and falls prey to the rigours of time. Unkempt foliage will eventually work its way across Gunwharf, into the cafe at the base of the tower and work its way up inside the Spinnaker Tower itself. It’s ribbed like structure will become the basis of a trestle, encouraging vines and various floras to creep up the tower until they engulf the derelict cafe at the top. Eventually, the site may well become a centrepiece of ornithological interest, as sea gulls, starlings and other coastal birds begin to reside within the various stairwells, lattice supports and other parts of the abandoned Spinnaker tower...

Guild Hall Square
Portsmouth
Guild Hall Square: with crumbling Civic Offices and Clock Tower 
The recession is not only about lack of work, it is also about a mind set that has existed since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The idea that capitalism holds the key to our comfortable living is an illusion, simply because the idea of running a community on such a system is ultimately flawed.  If we regard the mechanisms by which it runs on, we only need to look at the state of our own environment.
 
The Guildhall square was heavily bombed during the Second World War in Luftwaffe air raids. It has been rumoured that the Luftwaffe were sold the additives to their petrol driven planes by American conglomerates. Money is always the problem, for such corporations have no allegiance to any flag.  It is time that we took a more mature look at the potentials of pulling our resources together, rather than fighting over them. It is time we looked to other alternatives rather than the stalemate concept of money. This could be classed as an open source system or library system. If our civilisation cannot understand this, then we have no hope in keeping up with the gardening. 

Look at our present paradigm: in a recession, schools and colleges close accordingly, highly skilled work then becomes scarce, communities must then move further a field in order to survive. Leaving behind them relative ghost cities (such as what Portsmouth might become) to the mercy of nature. This is true of every empire that has come and gone before us, for once the resources have been used up in that locality, the dynasty of Egypt and  Rome and so on, were all doomed to dwindle and perish over the passing centuries.

News Centre – Hilsea


...and unless it wants to break faith with its social function, art must show the world as changeable. And help to change it.
Ernst Fischer

In conclusion, now is the time, that we learn from these mistakes and begin the process of working together. Whether, Portsmouth unites in football with Southampton, or the nations of the world unite as one planet, we need to live together, instead of a series of petty divided countries. Much like gardening, we can shape our economies to suit our needs, we can trim them, prune them, allow them to flourish but we must keep them in check.
So long as we keep up with the gardening we have a chance. So please - trim your hedges, mow your lawns, prune your rose bushes. Before it is too late... 


Image & Text by JS Adams 



The Necessity for Utopia

Do we yearn for a utopia ? Perhaps.

Utopia may not be like the imagery I have provided of course, originally these were intended as personalised montages, to get an agoraphobic friend out of his house by enticing him with a flavour of the things he enjoys the most. In that respect I apologise in advance for any sexism that they may be employed but in defence I would question why our society deems clothing as an act of being civilised, when we clearly are not civilised at all. However the purpose of this essay is not about sexism but to discuss the over arching necessity for Utopia, or a least something that is better than what we have now.

To create a better world from the one in which we inhabit, is widely considered by most to be  naive and foolhardy and yet some would argue that the systems we currently live by are slowly destroying our eco systems and sustainable alternatives must be implemented. 

So surely it could be argued that Utopianist's are not dreamers after all but realists, selfless and driven,  inclined to literal truth and pragmatism.
 

 
The rhetoric against the Utopian ideal however, is plagued by the put down, which in itself is naive. The logic behind this,  is that a Utopia is an impossible goal mankind can never reach. Or so we are told. But who is telling us this ?  Economists, members of numerous political parties, the bloke in the pub, your friends and family, all with a vestige interest in keeping all things tied to the things that they consider to be normality. 

Yet is it normal a man to remain cooped up his house for years on end ?  Driving his family and friends to despair, one of the countless millions across the globe who suffer from this rather bizarre fear of open spaces.  Is this normal behaviour ? Or does this complaint vertically integrate into a column of numerous other social and mental disorders stemming from the advent of our industrial age?

When one considers how overly industrial our environments have become, so coldly mechanised,  so unwieldily and unsustainable - is it any wonder many of us wish for a better world ? In fact we demand it. Consider how so many of our current day ailments are a direct product of the environment we have created. Consider agoraphobia for example. This irrational fear of open spaces, confining a man to the limitations of a life indoors. We all try to help, but our efforts are all in vain. The doctors give him pills and therapy, his wife gives him encouragement but none of this makes a blind bit of difference to an individual who regards the outside world as hostile and threatening. That everyone and everything in it is negative to which one would be lying if they were to say there wasn't a certain amount of truth in that aspect. 
  
Perhaps we are looking in the wrong places to cure such infirmity. Perhaps instead of trying to treat the patient, we should be trying to treat the environment. Ah ! but it would cost trillions to do that, I hear you say. Maybe so but the same was probably said about the concept of a pocket calculator .

Never the less, our environment is hostile enough without the human race exasperating things further, yet we find ourselves still divided and fighting over finite resources that  should be shared by all.  Is it normal to wage yet another war on our tiny little blue planet?  And to what end is war but to overthrow dictatorships and implement the US Senates brand of democracy ? Regardless of all that, we live by the dictatorship wether we like it or not. But this is governed by a much higher order than man himself, an order bestowed relentlessly by the immutable laws of Mother Nature. 

For she can be more inhospitable than anything man could ever offer. All his nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction are insignificant to the brutality which nature  deliver's upon the planets of our universe, every single second. It is perhaps odd to think of Nature beyond the birds, bees and trees but all things environmental, should be considered as such. In the cold subzero temperatures of space, where an ejected politicians blood would boil, our little world makes its 365 day trip across a frozen black void drawn around a star in an elliptical orbit that hurls us forward at an astonishing 18.55 miles per second, or 66,700 miles per hour.

Returning to Earth, your street, your house and your television set, one only needs to tune into the daily slaughter of our own kind and think little of it other than accepting it as the way of the world. Anything else would be imposing against this norm, this senseless killing, waring, judging, mocking material insanity called the human race. Those in power perpetuate it and the rest of us must endure.

This interminable ethos has to be questioned and ultimately reformed. That is the problem and also the solution .  Considering the amount of money that is poured into cancer research or new ways to cure agoraphobia and so on, what if this money was also used to build a more sustainable and healthier environment ? For surely if all that money, instead of ending lives was used on saving lives, making our world sustainable. In doing this we would also eliminate or at least curb the rising social mental disorders inherent within our society.

Would such ailments exist if the environment were a more positive and healthier one? Depending on where you live, this is also dependent on the level of crime in your area. Many of us have either been a victim of crime or have known someone that has.  Certain underprivileged areas in  London, Manchester or even Portsmouth, are not the most inviting of places, at best, they are tolerable and at their worst, a living nightmare to those trapped within these concrete jungles.


On  the other hand, perhaps one day, it will no longer be deemed a pipe dream of Utopianists and scoffed at by Label Junkies, but will be an absolute necessity, for our planets continued survival.