Whether you've seen the full film or just the trailer, we'd love to hear your thoughts on FUTURE MY LOVE.
You can post publicly or message us privately – just tick that checkbox accordingly.
There should be comments at the end of the film explaining this and maybe what have happend since the films release in the world (to get the points in the film linked with reality).
Thanks for the awesome work!
Thanks for getting in touch. Just emailed you to find out what happened.
I watched the whole film on svtplay.
Beautiful peace it is.
I usually like the fully quiet films the best, but this had the same quality to it, well done!
I love the idea of another society. Im 46 now and I always strived this way, since a little kid I felt detached from society, not that I couldnt participate if I wanted, I just felt it was wrong, still do.
I always helped even at times it meant I had something and ended up with nothing, still do, and its worth it, every time!
So just a simple comment from a non film-knowledgeble person.
Keep up the good work!
All I can say is thank you for creating this fantastic piece of art, very inspiring and really needed!
Many thanks for your feedback, and sorry you didn’t get to ask your question at the screening. There are many “solution films” to be made in this subject area, and of course change coming from communities themselves is a vital part of the equation. I think it’s interesting but also not surprising why Jacque provokes quite a few people, but I’d be careful not to equate his views with a corporation such as Monsanto; technological advance, such as GM food within the monetary/capitalist system can often be (as the film does point out) absolutely scary and destructive – for the environment, for people. Rather than “dissenting” with Jacque on camera, I think Maja does manage to question the focus on technology, and bring in a hugely important element to the debate, which is our emotional side and how we might relate to each other in such a future.
I saw Future My Love in Glasgow last night, but wasn’t time to ask the question I had in mind during the discussion afterwards. My feelings about the film are very mixed, although visually very interesting and thematically provocative, I came away feeling annoyed rather than inspired.
To me the main weakness in the film was the attention given to Jacques whose views of the “solution” were based on technology, science, design and control rather than grassroots change from communities themselves. Some of what he said in relation to having the technology to feed the world had disturbing echoes of the message being promoted by Monsanto, that the only way we can feed the world is through technological intervention in our food-chain, ie GM food. At a time of great ecological crisis, we need to be promoting simple solutions and alternatives that rely on a closer affinity to the natural world, less reliant on technology rather than more. As someone who works in a community based food project and campaigns on environmental justice issues, I felt the lack of a challenge or dissenting voice to much of what Jacques said weakened the film considerably.
By the way, you might be interested in this film too, by friends of ours: http://thehumanscale.dk/
I would like to see a version that engages the visitor as a creator themselves. That presents Jacque’s work as just one mans work alongside others. Otherwise people form the impression that Jacque is a dictator of some kind who wants to be the designer of our lives. Not the truth which is far more beautiful.
Sorry but there was only one minute between your last two messages… give us a chance! I believe my colleague Demelza already got in touch with you regarding the cinema suggestions you sent two weeks ago.
Regarding your proposal for the production of a new movie, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Who exactly did you contact?
I just got back from seeing the movie, Future My Love by Maja Borg. Unfortunately, Maja, whom I have never met, wasn’t there. They invited her but said that she is too involved in her current film to be in SF right now.
I don’t know if some of you have seen the film or not. It was just by chance that I happened to see it was here at the LGBT film festival which is called FRAMELINE, playing only once and less than a mile from my home.
I liked the film. It isn’t perfect and I won’t say it does Technocracy justice, but still I enjoyed the ideas being presented in a fairly straight forward way. Also I loved seeing George, and John Darvil with Paul Cordsmeyer in the background. There was quite a bit of footage of Arvid Peterson who I can’t remember if they identified or not, but the film kept going back to his presentation. I don’t think it was identified specifically as a video made by Technocracy (as opposed to something Jacques put together or gave the filmmaker). It was just in there and the film went back to parts of that video as it went along. There was a lot of archival footage so I am sure the audience wasn’t confused; they could tell it was OLD and not made yesterday.
Jacques definitely gets the lion’s share of the coverage. Toward the end of the movie we see him putting up a for sale sign on his property in Florida though we don’t know if it sold. The reason given was that he and Roxanne Meadows could not afford to keep it. Where he is now, I don’t know. He talks about getting interested in Technocracy and seeking the Technocrats out, but then later he says he found those Technocratic scientists to be too narrow each in their own fields. I don’t know how he would claim that played out and caused him difficulties, he only says that that is why he left Technocracy. Maybe someone we know could enlighten me (us) on the topic. I am more inclined to think it was problems with people’s egos. I do know that John Taube was dead set against the Venus Project Video when someone (I can’t remember who) brought the film for showing at the Balboa Street Office. John had a argument with him too, partly about Jacques Fresco.
[Anyway, “principles not personalities” as 12 step programs stress.]
John Taube felt that trying to portray what a “Technate” might look like or even function like was a waste of time and misleading. Clearly, Jacques felt differently. Jacques loves to invent and draw pictures of buildings and inventions so it would be hard to condemn him on that score.
The ideas which Jacques discusses are to the best of my knowledge ideas he took from Technocracy, and I have always understood and certainly felt that the more people who take those ideas the better. I understand that Howard Scott was all for people stealing as much as they could from our literature. The ideas aren’t for sale and, god knows, nobody is making any money off them that I can see. I don’t know; maybe Jacques has been able to use those ideas to promote things lucrative to him, but I kind of doubt it. Witness he was losing his property.
Running through the whole film is a back and forth story of Maja’s (or maybe just the protagonist’s) relationship with another lovely, young woman. It is an on again, off again relationship, and by the end they are getting divorced (amicably it would seem). It is not a linear plot line, but it does break up the didactic nature of the material presented, and there is both some excellent photography and good music. You kind of gather as pieces go by that the two women have been in love and in that “altered state of consciousness” they also shared their concerns about the world and how to maybe save some of the beauty and people of the world before all our familiar crisis destroy everything.
I videotaped some of the film. No one said that I couldn’t. I hope Maja doesn’t mind. An usher did come and stop me a while into the film saying that having my phone on was bothering people behind me. I am sorry for that and that I had to stop filming anything.
With whatever caveats we might feel, Jacques did a respectable job of presenting the Technocratic position, even though he didn’t attribute it well. He discussed wars and the futility of our economy with its growing need to waste resources, and the danger of reckless and selfish individualism as it now predominates so often. He notes that we are products of our culture and don’t begin to have the “freedom” we may think we have.
There is a short piece in which he discusses meeting with Albert Einstein. Again he leans on the theme that “scientists” in their narrow fields aren’t necessarily willing to discuss social issues. He says Einstein wanted to talk about math and not social issues. Well, maybe, maybe not, is my feeling. They obviously weren’t regularly meeting; he notes only that they met once. My knowledge of Einstein is that he spent a fair amount of time concerned with social issues, including Israel and that he wrote a wonderful pamphlet which I once wrote an article on about how to reorganize our socioeconomic system which followed the lines of Technocracy rather closely. Whether Einstein developed or just knew of those ideas, he adopted them to the political situation of the Depression . Maybe he got them from Jacques in their one meeting for all I know. I can’t remember the title of the pamphlet Einstein wrote right now, but it was very good. So in this film Jacques is somehow trying to diminish Einstein’s abilities, which makes me think Jacques is being competitive. He is vulnerable to the same weaknesses as most people are. Still, to compete with Einstein is a pretty tough choice and makes Jacques look weaker rather than stronger.
Jacques circles back and lists a number of social/economic bodies of thought that came up in the Depression, including Technocracy by name, lumps them together and dismisses them, saying, “They all used old language and old values; they were unable to come up with something fresh and new.” So then he shows (the film shows) a much younger him sitting under a palm tree on some island. He tells us that he needed to get some new ideas so he traveled and observed fishermen who came back with their catches and just distributed the fish to whomever wanted to take fish. I don’t know. I suppose there have been such gestures and practices some places, some times. Most likely when and If everyone in the vicinity were considered part of the in-crowd, their family, their cohort.
By now Jacques may be sounding really bad; honestly he presented the material fairly well and that at 95 years old.
When I left the show I spoke with a lady who was much affected by the film. She said the ideas are quite a reach, and even though Technocracry wasn’t the star, she was pondering how it came to be that she didn’t know anything about Technocracy before this and also that she had never heard of Fresco. I gave her a copy of the Energy Certificate Pamphlet which we rewrote not that long ago. It is still a great size for passing out. I passed out a few more. And that was that.