In my opinion the proposed Buddhist Temple on Cactus Canyon Rd is a fine idea. Buddhism is a peaceful life concept that doesn’t hurt anyone. The temple would be a tranquil place where locals and tourists will be able to learn about a different culture and perhaps experience something new and pleasant. I mean, this whole local area has been built on multiple cultures really, hasn’t it?
But according to the Messenger newspaper on the 20th October, a grand total of 50 whole people (wow, count ‘em. 50. I’ve seen more people in the check out queue at Coles on a Sunday afternoon) packed the Sellicks community hall in a heated debate over this proposal.
A local councillor was quoted in the same article as saying the height of the 35m pagoda would be “... totally out of scale for the environment...” Well, that means we can’t build anything higher than a grapevine or one of the six remaining almond trees, then, if the environment in question is the flats of this shire. However, if I class the environment as the rolling hills of Willunga and Sellicks, then by that scale is the pagoda perhaps a little small?
Other Nay Sayers were concerned about the noise of a bell at prayer times. If a bell is too loud then we’d best put a stop to all aircraft taking off or landing at Aldinga airfield as well. Because planes are loud. Also there will need to be an enforced ban on all doof doof music that emanates from houses and passing cars, as that’s highly offensive to the ears of people over 35, including mine. Trucks must also use quieter mufflers and are to be blown up if they are caught using exhaust brakes anywhere. Oh, and I want the use of scare guns in vineyards abolished and tractors are to be outlawed and you can only use horses and carts at vintage time.
Another point that was raised is that the site would be distracting to motorists. Now, I don’t know about you, but if a stationary building in the near distance is cause for a driver to lose concentration from the task of controlling their vehicle, at great risk to themselves, passengers and other motorists, then I think these particular drivers should have their licences revoked. Does this mean that every time they drive through a city or past a bridge or a phone tower above three storeys high they suddenly become mesmerized by these structures and instantly veer off the road and crash? By this token, all advertising billboards larger than a shop front should be burned as they are designed for motorists to see them and read them whilst in the act of driving. In fact, why don’t we just use taxpayers money to build giant concrete walls like those that used to divide Germany to line South Rd so that no drivers with attention spans shorter than that of a cabbage can be distracted by those horridly intrusive and disruptive sunsets over the ocean and fields that plague us each day as well?
Is it because it’s of Asian background that this temple proposal has caused such concern? Would a Church of England building cause as much fuss? Because in case you had forgotten, anything or anyone that originated from England or a country other than this one is not actually indigenous to this area either, and therefore, no different to a Buddhist temple. The only group that would have actual right to complain should they need to would be the indigenous Australians, anyway.
Is it fear, perhaps? Read up on Buddhism as a religion or way of life, then. Not too many Buddhist extremists out there. No Buddhist monks launching a Jihad against anyone who uses cutlery and toilet paper instead of their hands. No pages of the history books about the Buddhist Crusades where armies of Monks and peasants marched across the lands raping and pillaging in the name of their God.
People travel miles to see such structures. And with them come tourist dollars for the surrounding area. Heaven forbid we have a tourist attraction that doesn’t involve excessive drinking and gluttony or a bunch of men in tights with shaved legs on push bikes. Interestingly enough, few people minded when an American place of worship was proposed and construction commenced. Actually, it received a warm welcome for the most part. Which makes me think no one would have cared about the pagoda if it had a McDonald’s sign on top of it.
Clearly, I despise racism in all its forms. And I’m not being all pious here, though. I judge people and have subconscious prejudices the same as anyone else, but I base mine on the merits of the individual, not their race or background. Were the proposal for a walled biker fortress with razor wire or a training camp for gun toting zealots, or a compound for those who force disciple s to wear blue tracksuits and new sneakers before drinking poison, then, yes folks, that would be out of line and highly negative for the area.
But it’s not. It’s for a place of peace and beauty.
And those are good things.
Monday, November 15, 2010
BLADE RUNNER - Director's Cut Review
What does it mean to be human? What is human? What is it that defines us sentient beings? These are the questions at the core of Ridley Scott’s sci-fi noir classic, Blade Runner.
On its initial release in 1982, the film failed. People didn’t understand it; they didn’t like the last minute voice over narration or the drive off into the country- side ending. So in 1991, the Director’s Cut version of the film was released with out the narration, and with several important improvements to the edit. This is the version we are looking at here, as it was this one that turned things around and renewed interest and excitement for the story, and in my opinion, is one of the best examples of the sci- fi genre.
The special effects all pre date the modern CGI and are far more effective as a result. Where today’s films rely on these overblown and overused extravagant scenes of wonder, Blade Runner’s 21st century future Los Angeles, with all it’s huge buildings and flying cars, is an illusion created by the skilled use of models and wires and matte paintings on glass. These effects shots evoke a far more engaging and hypnotic mood because of their subtleties than that of their modern counterparts.
The production is brilliant: the rain falling in the neon lit streets sends chills down your spine and combined with Vangelis’ truly haunting electronic score causes goose bumps on your arms. The mood is that tangible.
Although based on the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, it is the vision of director Scott and the plethora of screen writers who were involved that have created an intelligent and possibly prophetic vision of the now near future. From hints at climate change, (it’s always raining) and globalisation, the environment on screen is never too implausible to relate to, now.
Harrison Ford is superb as the Blade Runner himself, Deckard, and Rutger Hauer plays the best role of his career in the lead Replicant, Roy Batty. It is between these two that the moral question lies: what is human? Deckard is cold, calculating and dispatches death upon his quarry without hesitation, like a machine. Batty, who is labelled the “baddie” of the piece, is animated, articulate and poetic. He is confronted with the fact that he is destined to die and so he questions his maker, in this case a robotics corporation, as humans would question their God from their deathbed. Batty’s actions may be wrong and deserve swift justice, he has killed, of course, but that is his crime to be punished, as it would be for a human. Not for having the desire to live.
The cast is rounded out by Sean Young as the beautiful Replicant Racheal, so advanced she isn’t aware she isn’t human; Darryl Hannah as rogue Replicant Pris and Edward James Olmos as the mysterious Gaff.
It’s poetry in motion, but not everyone likes poetry. There is much ambiguity and the audience needs to fill in some of the blanks, but this is intelligent film making. You don’t want to be spoon-fed a story like it was yoghurt to an infant, you want to use some of your imagination, to think and to engage with the characters and make your own assessment of them and the meanings and interpret what transpires before you.
After all, that’s only human.
On its initial release in 1982, the film failed. People didn’t understand it; they didn’t like the last minute voice over narration or the drive off into the country- side ending. So in 1991, the Director’s Cut version of the film was released with out the narration, and with several important improvements to the edit. This is the version we are looking at here, as it was this one that turned things around and renewed interest and excitement for the story, and in my opinion, is one of the best examples of the sci- fi genre.
The special effects all pre date the modern CGI and are far more effective as a result. Where today’s films rely on these overblown and overused extravagant scenes of wonder, Blade Runner’s 21st century future Los Angeles, with all it’s huge buildings and flying cars, is an illusion created by the skilled use of models and wires and matte paintings on glass. These effects shots evoke a far more engaging and hypnotic mood because of their subtleties than that of their modern counterparts.
The production is brilliant: the rain falling in the neon lit streets sends chills down your spine and combined with Vangelis’ truly haunting electronic score causes goose bumps on your arms. The mood is that tangible.
Although based on the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, it is the vision of director Scott and the plethora of screen writers who were involved that have created an intelligent and possibly prophetic vision of the now near future. From hints at climate change, (it’s always raining) and globalisation, the environment on screen is never too implausible to relate to, now.
Harrison Ford is superb as the Blade Runner himself, Deckard, and Rutger Hauer plays the best role of his career in the lead Replicant, Roy Batty. It is between these two that the moral question lies: what is human? Deckard is cold, calculating and dispatches death upon his quarry without hesitation, like a machine. Batty, who is labelled the “baddie” of the piece, is animated, articulate and poetic. He is confronted with the fact that he is destined to die and so he questions his maker, in this case a robotics corporation, as humans would question their God from their deathbed. Batty’s actions may be wrong and deserve swift justice, he has killed, of course, but that is his crime to be punished, as it would be for a human. Not for having the desire to live.
The cast is rounded out by Sean Young as the beautiful Replicant Racheal, so advanced she isn’t aware she isn’t human; Darryl Hannah as rogue Replicant Pris and Edward James Olmos as the mysterious Gaff.
It’s poetry in motion, but not everyone likes poetry. There is much ambiguity and the audience needs to fill in some of the blanks, but this is intelligent film making. You don’t want to be spoon-fed a story like it was yoghurt to an infant, you want to use some of your imagination, to think and to engage with the characters and make your own assessment of them and the meanings and interpret what transpires before you.
After all, that’s only human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)