Rather than Living in the Future the film reminded me of China Miéville’s excellent novel The City and The City, and so could have been called The Future and The Future: A parallel way of living that cannot wholly be acknowledged or wholly acknowledge the Other living. [Maybe that’s pretentious bollocks – but I can’t recommend the novel highly enough!] Living in the Future was interesting on so many levels: Age – Lammas isn’t fuelled by youthful enthusiasm but rather mainly experienced disappointment; Gender – living differently didn’t seem to have engendered (sic) fresh questions of male/female roles? [men seem better at Gaian portentousness?] Politics – I wonder if undertaking the Lammas project ‘on the radar’ (rather than ‘under’, which Roundhouse guru Tony Wrench did, and numerous others persist in doing) and getting Low Impact Development legislation in place actually makes it easier or more difficult for future LIDers? (perhaps it’s an option for the more law-abiding or unavoidably conspicuous project but personally I’d only be tempted into LID without having to deal with that slippery conflict/co-operative relationship with the frankly repellent paternalism and blinkered bureaucracy of the modern state); Legislation – if LID is going to work with the state the question the film highlighted about needing LID building regulations is vital (mains powered fire alarms required on properties without mains electricity, for example, and structural requirements that are over-the-top and inappropriate for different materials used differently); Leadership – more than anything, for me, the film problematised leadership and Paul Routledge’s notion of the ‘imagineer’ (1996?) – the man Paul Wimbush is the obvious candidate for the leader/imagineer mantle but the complexity of how a convergence space like Lammas is socially mobilised was evidenced by the various essential roles of others (different sorts of leadership?), e.g. the need for Simon Dale’s skills and having the materiality of a completed house to give Lammas a working identity, and the wonderful pessimistic, humour-filled scepticism of the Lammas guy commenting from the Aberystwyth showing – I’ve forgotten his name – is this leadership of sorts, or a virtuous type of non-following participation? (And I wonder, is there a different sort of leadership exhibited by Lammas women?). On another level, vis-a-vis the linked showings of the film, it’s interesting how tolerant we are of the inadequacies of modern technology? There’s obvious potential in a linking technology that works better – but can it work better through current platforms/media, are we at the limits of what the interweb can do? A set of human protocols would help. Last night’s showing hook up of five or six audiences had a resonance of early cinema… (can we look forward to advances the equal of colour , sound and 3D (not)?