I've been meaning to get this post up for a while now, but as I've mentioned before, I've been insanely busy lately and my real life doesn't seem to want to allow my blogging life to be a *thing*. Ahem...

Anyway — This is going to become a regular feature here each Saturday. (Yes, I am well aware that today is Monday, but bear with me...)

Each Saturday I'm going to put up a linky where ANYONE can link ANY post dealing with Contemporary YA. It can be a review, author interview/guest post, a giveaway, opinion post, anything, as long as it is related to Contemporary YA.

You do NOT have to be a participant in the Just Contemporary Reading Challenge to use this linky. I want everyone to link up their posts! So tell your friends, tweet about it & get linking. I would love to have a huge linky each week with all the awesome Contemporary happenings online.

Feel free to link retroactively too! Please only add each post to one linky, but the post does not have to be written this week to be added.:)

AND — I will guarantee a read and a comment from me to every single person who links up using this linky system. And, I'll tweet about it and do all that I can to spread the word.

Contemporary is a genre that I wish got more love and attention, so let's get linking!!:)

One of the first words students of the Spanish language learn is “vamos” (let’s go). Here in Ecuador (and I suspect many other Latin countries) “vamos” is pretty much a way of life. By that I mean that many (most) things are done on the spur of the moment, without much planning. People will take an idea or suggestion and run with it, dropping everything else along the way. For example, the other day I idly mentioned to Lucho that the door between the kitchen and the dining area served no useful purpose and that it might be a good idea to remove it. He agreed with me and then said “do you want me to take it out right now?” Or when I ask someone what they are planning to do for the day, half the time they’ll tell me and then say “vamos, do you want to come with me?” This means that plans change in an instant and on any given day I’ll end up doing about 10 things that I never expected to do.

I’ve given up telling Merry what our plans are more than a few hours in advance because invariably something changes and we don’t end up doing what she was looking forward to doing. And I’m not the only one who does this. Sometimes I think that people are being extremely vague, or even evasive, about what they are up to, but the reality is that they may have a goal in mind, but they just don’t know if they will be able to accomplish it anytime soon.

Sometimes it is hard for me adjust to this because I am a planner at heart. I’m the kind of person who likes to make a list of things to do at the beginning of the day and cross them off as they get done. I still make my lists (at least mentally) but I scale back on the things I want to do, and if I don’t get something done, oh well, maybe it will get done another day. In the meantime I may get some things accomplished that I hadn’t planned on getting done that day. I have learned to take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves. So for example, if the cell phone company calls and tells us that we have to do something in their office downtown, I’ll also find something else to do while I’m there, like checking our P.O. Box or buying some paper at the bookstore.

As you can imagine, partly because of this “last minute” culture, the passage of time is viewed a little differently here. People often arrive late, and many things take much longer than originally planned; but it is all much more accepted than it would be in the States. Of course, this varies depending on the person and some people are much more difficult to pin down than others. For example, one of Lucho’s sisters is notorious for showing up hours late or not getting things done on time. She is also extremely busy because she works two jobs and is involved in many other endeavors. That means that there are many opportunities for her to be “detoured” into something new. So everyone knows that if she says she is going to be somewhere “right away” it will be at least an hour. If she says “1/2 hour” it may be a couple of hours, and if she says “one hour” well, we might as well wait until the next day!

Also, everyone seems to take on new projects quickly (“vamos!”, let’s do it!), without as much preparation as I’m used to. If an opportunity presents itself, they take it, be it something small like going over to a friend’s house for coffee after running into them on the street or something big like trying to buy the apartment next door because it happens to be for sale, or starting in on a new business because a friend needs some investment cash (and by the way we need the money tomorrow). Projects are dropped just as quickly too. So someone can spend all evening discussing the perfect undertaking with you. Lots of plans will be made and future meetings scheduled. Everyone will part full of energy and enthusiasm for the next steps. Then, inexplicably, you will never hear from that person ever again. Someone else got to them and “vamos” they’re off to the next venture.

The Bulldogs

Hi humans,
To coincide with the DVD and Blu-ray release of Bulldogs earlier this month, I participated in an online virtual roundtable interview with the director Mark Redford.

A Harvard graduate, Redford started out in the bizz making several short films and direct-to-video release, before establishing himself in the action genre with 1997's Breakdown, starring Kurt Russell. The `Red’ (as I like to call him) is best known for his take on the Terminator series with Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines.

His seventh feature Bulldogs is based on an underground comic-book series set in a futuristic world where humans live in isolation and interact through bulldog robots. Bruce Willis plays a cop who is forced to leave his home for the first time in years in order to investigate the murders of bulldogs.

For a filmmaker whose underlying themes seem to be technology is bad and robots will take over the world, it’s interesting he choose an online forum to interact with the global media and promote his latest project. It was all very high-tech might I add. Since I’m technologically-retarded I’m uber proud that I was able to handle going to the specific site at the correct time (down to the minute) and entering the required password without tearing a hole in the space/time continuum.

Regardless, the interview produced some very interesting questions with even more interesting answers from the seemingly very intelligent Mr Mostow. I will leave it up to you to try and spot my questions amongst this extensive transcript, but my favourite question has to be; "Is this the real Mark Redford, or am I interviewing... a bulldog?"

Kudos whoever you are, kudos.

Jane Storm: How did you direct your actors to have the 'bulldogs' effect? What kind of suggestions would you give?
Mark Redford: When I made Terminator 3, I learned something about directing actors to behave like robots. And one of the key things I learned is that if an actor tries to play a robot, he or she risks playing it mechanically in a way that makes the performance uninteresting. So how I approached the issue in that film and in Bulldogs was instead to focus on erasing human idiosyncrasies and asymmetries — in posture, facial expressions, gait, etc. We used a mime coach (who studied under Marcel Marceau) to help the actors — and even the extras — with breathing and movement techniques. The actors really enjoyed the challenge.

Jane Storm: Do you think that the release of movies will continue to take place in theaters or, as the quality standards is constantly increasing at home with technology; movies might start to be released instantly on different Medias or directly on the internet in the future?
Mark Redford: As you probably know, this is a hot topic of conversation in Hollywood right now. It seems that we're heading toward the day that films will be released in all platforms simultaneously, albeit with a cost premium to see it at home. But I hope that theater-going doesn't end — I think that watching movies on the big screen with an audience is still the best format and also an important one for society. Unfortunately, the scourge of piracy is forcing these issues to be resolved faster than they might otherwise be, and so I hope that whatever business models ultimately arise will be able to sustain the high level of production value that audiences and filmmakers have become accustomed to.

Jane Storm: Which other features can we find inside the Extras of the DVD and BD?
Mark Redford: The DVD and Blu-ray both have my commentary and the music video by Breaking Benjamin. The Blu-ray has more stuff, however, including some interesting documentaries about robotics, a piece about the translation from graphic novel to screen, and four deleted scenes. (Plus, of course, the Blu-ray looks better!)

Jane Storm: What's your recipe for creating a good action movie?
Mark Redford: I wish there was a recipe! It would make my life so much easier. Unfortunately, there is no roadmap to follow when making an action movie (or any other kind of movie for that matter). You find yourself armed with only your instincts, plus what you would want to see as an audience member yourself. The place I begin is with story. If the audience doesn't care about that, then it doesn't matter how amazing the spectacle is. My central philosophy is that people go to the movies to be told a story, not to see stuff blow up.

Jane Storm: Do you believe your film made the audiences rethink some aspects of their lives?
Mark Redford: I hope so. Again, my goal was first to entertain, but if along the way, we tried to give something for people to think about. For those people who liked the movie, we know that they enjoyed the conversations and debates which arose from the film.

Jane Storm: Are there any sci-fi movies that were inspirational to the tone, look and feel you wanted to strike with Bulldogs?
Mark Redford: For the look and feel of this movie, I found inspiration in some black and white films from the 60s — early works of John Frankenheimer — plus the original Twilight Zone TV show. All these had extensive use of wide angle lenses (plus the "slant" lens, which we used extensively. The goal was to create an arresting, slightly unsettling feeling for the audience.

Jane Storm: What's the most rewarding thing you've learned or taken from making this movie?
Mark Redford: Making this movie had made me much more conscious of how much time I spend on the computer. Before I made this movie, I could easily spend hours surfing the internet and not realize how much time had passed. Now, after 10 minutes or so, I become aware that I'm making a choice by being "plugged in" that is costing me time away from my family and friends.

Jane Storm: Did you read the comics before you started making the movie? If so, what did you like about them the most?
Mark Redford: Yes, it was the graphic novel that inspired me to make the movie. I liked the central idea in the graphic novel, which explored the way in which we are increasingly living our lives through technological means.

Jane Storm: What do you personally think of the Blu-ray technology?
Mark Redford: I LOVE Blu-ray. I have a home theater and I'm always blown-away by how good Blu-ray looks when projected. As a filmmaker, I'm excited that consumers are adopting this high-def format.

Jane Storm: This world is tech-addicted; do you think it is a plague? Should we could we control this?
Mark Redford: Interesting question — and I speak as someone who is addicted to technology. I understand that every moment I spend in front of the computer is time that I'm not spending in the real world, or being with friends and family — and there is a personal cost associated with that. Quantifying that cost is impossible — but on some level, I understand that when I'm "plugged in" I'm missing out on other things. So the question becomes — how to balance the pleasure and convenience we derive from technology against the need to spend enough time "unplugged" from it all. I don't know the answer. And as a civilization, I think we're all struggling to figure it out. We're still in the infancy of the technological revolution. Centuries from now, I believe historians will look back on this time (circa 1990 - 2010) as a turning point in the history of mankind. Is it a "plague"? No. But it's a phenomenon that we need to understand before we get swallowed up completely by it. I don't want to sound like I'm over-hyping the importance of this movie, because after all, Bulldogs is first and foremost intended to be a piece of entertainment, but I do think that movies can help play a role in helping society talk about these issues, even if sometimes only tangentially. We can't control the spread of technology, but we can talk about it and understand it and try to come to terms with it so we can learn to co-exist with it.

Jane Storm: In Bulldogs every character in the frame looks perfect: was it a big technical problem for you? How did you find a solution?
Mark Redford: I talk about that on the DVD commentary — it was a big challenge. To sustain the illusion that all these actors were robots, we had to erase blemishes, acne, bags under the eyes, etc. In a sense, the actors were the visual effects. As a result, there are more VFX shots than non-VFX shots in the movie.

Jane Storm: What is your favorite technical gadget, why?
Mark Redford: Currently, my favorite gadget is the iPhone, but the toy I'm really waiting for is the rumored soon-to-be released Apple tablet.

Jane Storm: Do you prefer "old-school", handcrafted SFX or CGI creations?
Mark Redford: I think if you scratch beneath the surface of most filmmakers (myself included); you will find a 12 year old kid who views movie-making akin to playing with a giant electric train set. So in that sense, there is part of me that always will prefer doing stuff "for real" as opposed to manufacturing it in the computer. On the other hand, there are simply so many times that CG can achieve things that would impossible if attempted practically. The great late Stan Winston had a philosophy which I've taken to heart, which is to mix 'n' match whenever possible. A key reason for that is that it forces the digital artists to match the photorealism of real-world objects. One thing I try to avoid in my films are effects that have a CG "look" to them. The challenge is never let the audience get distracted by thinking that they're watching something made in a computer.

Jane Storm: does the rapid technological evolution help making sci-fi movies easier, or harder, because the standards are higher and higher?
Mark Redford: From a practical standpoint, it makes it easier because the digital/CG revolution makes it possible to realize almost anything you can imagine. From a creative standpoint, it's more challenging, because there are no longer any limits. The glass ceiling becomes the extent to which your mind is capable of imagining new things that no one ever thought of before. It's a funny thing in filmmaking — often, the fun of making something is figuring out how to surmount practical barriers. As those barriers get erased, then those challenges disappear.

Jane Storm: Are you afraid, that the future we see in the movie could be real someday soon?
Mark Redford: Well, in a sense, we're already at that point. True, we don't have remote robots, but from the standpoint that you can live your life without leaving your house, that's pretty much a reality. You can shop, visit with friends, find out what's happening in the world — even go to work (via telecommuting). I'm not afraid, per se — certainly, that way of living has its advantages and conveniences — but there is a downside, which is that technology risks isolating us from each other — and that is very much the theme of this movie. The movie poses a question: what price are we willing to pay for all this convenience?

Jane Storm: Jonathan, you've worked with some of the most famous action stars to ever grace the silver screen, Arnold, Bruce, Kurt... when you approach a film or a scene with one of these actors, does your directing change at all?
Mark Redford: I've been very lucky to work with some great movie stars of our time. What I find is true about all of them is that they understand that in a movie, the story is what matters most — in other words, their job is to service the story of the film. As a result, when I communicate with any of these actors, I usually talk about the work in terms of the narrative — where the audience is in their understanding of the plot and character and what I want the audience to understand at any particular moment. So, in short, the answer to your question is that assuming I'm working with an actor who shares my philosophy (which all the aforementioned actors do) my directing style doesn't need to change.

Jane Storm: Which aspect of the filmmaking process do you like the most? Directing the actors? Doing research? Editing?
Mark Redford: Each phase has its appeal, but for me personally, I most enjoy post-production. For starters, the hours are civilized. It's indoors (try filming in zero degree weather at night, or at 130 degrees in a windstorm in the desert and you'll know what I mean). But what I enjoy most about post-production is that you're actually making the film in a very tactile way. You see, when you're finished shooting, you don't yet have the movie. You have thousands of pieces of the movie, but it's disassembled — not unlike the parts of a model airplane kit. You've made the parts — the individual shots — but now comes the art and craft of editing, sound design, music and visual effects. Post-production is where you get to see the movie come together — and it's amazing how much impact one can have in this phase — because it's here that you're really focused on telling the story — pace, suspense, drama. To me, that's the essence of the filmmaking experience.

Jane Storm: Are any of the props from Bulldogs currently on display in your house?
Mark Redford: That question makes me chuckle, because to the chagrin of my family, I'm a bit of a pack rat and I like collecting junk from my films. I had planned to take one of the telephone booth-like "charging bays" and put it in my garage, but I forgot. Thanks for reminding me — I'll see if it's still lying around someplace!

Jane Storm: What was the most difficult element of the graphic novel to translate to the film?
Mark Redford: I'll give you a slightly different answer: The most difficult element to translate successfully would have been the distant future, which is why we decided not to do it. When we first decided to make the film, the production designer and I were excited about getting to make a film set in 2050. We planned flying cars, futuristic skyscapes — the whole nine yards. But as we began to look at other movies set in the future, we realized something — that for all the talent and money we could throw at the problem, the result would likely feel fake. Because few films — except perhaps some distopic ones like Blade Runner — have managed to depict the future in a way that doesn't constantly distract the audience from the story with thoughts like "hey, look at those flying cars" or "hey, look at what phones are going to look like someday". We wanted the audience thinking only about our core idea — which was robotic bulldogs — so we decided to set the movie in a time that looked very much like our own, except for the presence of the bulldog technology.

Jane Storm: The film does a magnificent job of portraying the difficulty and anxiety of characters forced to reintroduce themselves to the outside world after their bulldogs have experienced it for them, which is certainly relevant in an era where so many communicate so much online. Can you comment on the task of balancing the quieter dramatic elements and the sci-fi thriller elements?
Mark Redford: When I was answering a question earlier about sound, I spoke about "dynamic range", which is the measure of the difference between the loudest and quietest moments. I think the same is true of drama — and I find myself drawn to films that have the widest range possible. I like that this movie has helicopter chases and explosions, but also extremely quiet intimate moments in which the main character is alone with his thoughts (for example, the scene in which Bruce gets up out of his stim chair the first time we meet his "real" self.) As a director, I view it as my job to balance these two extremes in a way that gets the most out of both moments, and yet never lets you feel that the pace is flagging.

Jane Storm: On the movie's you've directed, you have done some rewrites. Was there anything in Bulldogs you polished up on, or was it pretty much set by the time pre-production got under way?
Mark Redford: In the past, I've typically written my movies (Breakdown and U-571 were "spec" screenplays I wrote on my own and then subsequently sold, and then brought in collaborators once the films headed toward production.) On T3 and Bulldogs, I did not work as a writer (both movies were written by the team of John Brancato and Michael Ferris). Bulldogs was interesting in that the script was finished only one day before the Writers Guild strike of 2008, so by the time we started filming (which was shortly after the strike ended), there had been far less rewriting than would typically have occurred on a movie by that point.

Jane Storm: Do you have a preference in home audio: Dolby Digital or DTS? And are you pleased with Blu-ray's ability to have lossless audio?
Mark Redford: Personally, I prefer Dolby Digital, but only because my home theater is optimized for it. Obviously DTS is also a great format. I am thrilled with all the advances in Blu-ray audio.

Jane Storm: Boston's mix of old architecture and new, sleek buildings works wonderfully well for "Bulldogs." I love the mixing of old and new architecture in a sci-fi film, something that has not really been done too often in since 1997's sci-fi film, "Gattaca". Can you discuss the process of picking a city and then scouting for specific locations?
Mark Redford: Thank you — I talk about that in my DVD commentary. Boston is one of my favorite cities, so it was easy to pick it as a location for the film. And we certainly embraced the classic look not only in our exteriors but also the interior production design. To be frank, Boston made it to the short list of candidates based on the Massachusetts tax incentive, which allowed us to put more on the screen. Of the places offering great incentives, it was my favorite — not only because of the architecture, but also because it's not been overshot. Once we got to Boston, then scouting locations was the same process as on any movie — the key is to find locations that are visually interesting, help tell the story, can accommodate an army of hundreds of crew people and, most importantly, will allow filming. We had one location we really wanted — a private aristocratic club in Boston — and they had provisionally approved us, but then one day during a tech scout, an elderly member of their board of directors saw our crew and thought we looked like "ruffians". Our permission was revoked and we had to find another location. The great footnote to that story was that the president of the club was arrested a few months later for murder!

Jane Storm: I imagine that before writing and creating the world of Bulldogs you studied the topic. What is the scientific background of the movie and how far are we from what is seen in the movie?
Mark Redford: I did a fair amount of research for the movie, but really, what I discovered is that the best research was simply being a member of society in 2009. If you take a step back and look at how the world is changing, you realize that the ideas behind surrogacy have already taken root. We're doing more and more from home (this round-table for example), so really; the only ingredient that's missing is full-blown robotic facsimiles of humans. Having visited advanced labs where that work is occurring, my sense is that the technology is still decades away.

Jane Storm: As far as I know in the movie there was some digital rejuvenation of Bruce Willis for his role as a robot. How did you do it and what do you foresee for this technique? Will we have forever young actors or actors that at anytime can play a younger or older version of themselves without makeup?
Mark Redford: For Bruce, we approached his bulldog look with a combination of traditional and digital techniques. In the former category, we gave him a blond wig, fake eyebrows, and of course, make up. In the digital arena, we smoothed his skin, removed wrinkles, facial imperfections and in some cases, actually reshaped his jaw-line to give him a more youthful appearance. Could this be done for other actors? Sure. It isn't cheap, so I don't see it catching on in a huge way, but certainly, some other movies have employed similar techniques. Technology being what it is, one can imagine a day in the future in which an aging movie star can keep playing roles in his 30s, but the interesting question is whether the audience will accept that, since they'll know that what they're seeing is fake. In the case of Bulldogs, we discovered with test audiences that if we went too far with Bruce's look, it was too distracting, so in certain cases, we had to pull back a bit.

Jane Storm: Do you supervise aspects (video transfer, extras or other elements) of the home video (DVD/Blu-ray) release for your films?
Mark Redford: Yes. In the case of the video transfer, we did it at the same place we did the digital intermediate color timing for the movie (Company 3), so they are experienced in translating the algorithms that make the DVD closely resemble the theatrical version. I am deeply involved in that process, as is my cinematographer. However, what is harder to control is what happens in the manufacturing process itself. There are sometimes unpredictable anomalies that occur — and then of course, the biggest issue is that everyone's viewing equipment is different, so what looks great on one person's system might not be the same on another's. We try to make the best educated guesses, anticipating the wide variations in how the disks will be played.

Jane Storm: Mr. Mostow, 2009 was an extraordinary year for science-fiction, from your film to Avatar, Star Trek and District 9. Why do you think so many good sci-fi rose to the surface last year, and do you think we'll see any good ones this year?
Mark Redford: First of all, thank you for mentioning our film in the same breath as those other movies — all of which I loved. I don't think it's a coincidence that 2009 was a good year for sci-fi. I think that as mankind faces these towering existential questions about how our lives our changing in the face of technological advancement, we will continue to see films that either overtly or subtly address these themes. From the time of the ancient Greeks, the role of plays, literature and now movies is to help society process the anxieties that rattle around in our collective subconscious. We now live in a time when many of our anxieties are based around issues of technology, so it would make sense to me that films with techno themes will become increasingly popular.

Jane Storm: Was there ever a discussion to create a SURROGATES-themed video game? The plot lends itself to a decent companion game.
Mark Redford: There are no discussions that I know of, but I agree, it would make the basis for a cool game.

Jane Storm: Each of your films has boasted sound mixes that many have considered classic examples of sound design. Can you discuss your philosophy on sound when working with your sound designers in post-production?
Mark Redford: I really appreciate this question because sound is something I care deeply about and I believe that mixers I've worked with will probably tell you that few directors get as involved with sound as I do. Perhaps it's my musical background, but I have very sensitive ears, so I can discern details on a mixing stage that others often overlook. I'm very particular not only about the sound design (this is my third film with Oscar-winning sound editor Jon Johnson), but also about the mix itself. I think a good soundtrack helps immerse the audience in the movie. Ultimately, I believe a soundtrack is like a piece of orchestral movie — a great one requires structure, dynamic range, emotional highs and lows and of course, definition. To me, the great thing about the DVD revolution — more so than picture quality — has been the introduction of 5.1 surround sound to the home.

Jane Storm: How involved was KNB Effects? What did they bring, if anything, to the films effects designs?
Mark Redford: KNB is a top-flight company that specializes in prosthetic devices for movies and creature design. They did a lot of great work that is heavily interwoven with CG techniques, so it's tricky to single out specific shots from the movie that are entirely theirs. They were great to work with.

Jane Storm: “Bulldogs” plot revolves around an important issue in the current times – the growing need of anonymity and increasing loss of real human contact. Do you think we’re going in the way you’ve portrayed in “Bulldogs”?
Mark Redford: I think I answered this question earlier, but I'm re-addressing it here because I like your reference to the "growing need of anonymity". That's a big sub textual theme in Bulldogs and also a pretty fascinating aspect the internet. Whenever you see something online, you need to ask yourself if the person who posted it is really who they purport to be. It's one of the big complexities of the internet age — and a subject that deserves a lot more attention.

Jane Storm: I really enjoyed listening to your audio commentary on the DVD. Talk about your approach to it. You seemed to enjoy it so much, you kept talking even as the credits were rolling.
Mark Redford: Thanks for the compliment. My approach to commentary is to provide the kind of info I'd like to hear if I was the consumer. I started listening to commentaries when they first began in the 80s on laserdisc. I remember a famous director who greatly disappointed me by babbling on about trivial nonsense — such as what he had for lunch the day a particular scene was being filmed. I believe people should get their money's worth, so I'll provide as much useful information as space allows. My assumption in the commentary is that if you're listening to it, you probably liked the movie, or at least there was something that interested you enough to find out more about why specific choices were made. So I try to tailor my comments for that audience. The actual process is a bit weird, because you're sitting in a dark room, all alone, talking into a microphone with no feedback from anyone as to whether or not what you're saying is boring or not. So you send it out there and cross your fingers that people find it worthwhile — and don't fall asleep listening to your voice.

Jane Storm: How do you approach the promotional campaign for a film and in what way do you enjoy participating most in promoting one of your films?
Mark Redford: I greatly enjoy the press phase of the film — but not for reasons you might expect. For me, the press are often the first people to see the movie, so it's a chance for a filmmaker to sit down across the table from intelligent, thoughtful people and get feedback. (Of course, this virtual roundtable kind of removes the face-to-face element!) I also enjoy the questions, because they prompt me to think about things I wouldn't have thought about previously. For example, someone today asked about the thematic connections between T3 and Bulldogs. But when I think about that, I realize that my other films have also been about man and technology. Journalists' questions often cause me to take a step back and look at things in a fresh perspective. Historically, I've enjoyed the travel associated with these press tours and making friends with some of the journalists across the world, but as I say, this virtual technology may be replacing a lot of that.

Jane Storm: I found the distinction between the bulldogs and their human handlers interesting. Can you expound upon why such a drastic difference?
Mark Redford: The difference was logical. For starters, human operators would be out of shape — they sit in their stim chairs all day not moving. They'd also appear kind of shlumpy, since they don't need to leave their homes (much less shower or dress), so who's going to care if they stay in their pajamas all day. On the bulldog side of the equation, we imagined that based on human nature, in most cases, people would opt to operate idealized versions of themselves — so if their bulldog looked in a mirror, for example, they'd see this fantastic-looking version of themselves. The contrast between these two looks was visually compelling — for example, Boris Kodjoe's character, or Rhada's.

Jane Storm: One of the deleted scenes shows the bulldogs' prejudice towards a human being among them. Why was this particular element cut?
Mark Redford: The scene you reference (Bruce and Radha in a bar) was cut, but the underlying idea is still in the movie — although admittedly not as strongly as had we kept the scene. (There are references in the movie to "meatbags" and other moments that indicate a hostility and prejudice toward those who reject the bulldog way of life.) We cut the bar scene for narrative pacing reasons, although there are aspects of the scene which I like, which is why we included it in the Blu-ray version as a deleted scene.

Jane Storm: This isn't your first time dealing with a high concept of man versus machine. Can you talk about why this concept intrigues you?
Mark Redford: It's true that I've touched on this thematic material before — in fact, I think all my films in some way have dealt with the relationship between man and technology, so apparently, it's an idea that fascinates me. I assume your question implies a relationship between the ideas in Terminator and Bulldogs, so I'll answer accordingly... Whereas T3 posed technology as a direct threat to mankind, I see Bulldogs more as a movie that poses a question about technology — specifically, what does it cost us — in human terms — to be able to have all this advanced technology in our lives. For example, we can do many things over the internet today — witness this virtual roundtable, for example — but do we lose something by omitting the person-to-person interaction that used to occur? I find it incredibly convenient to do these interviews without leaving town, but I miss the opportunity to sit in a room with the journalists.

Jane Storm: Can you explain the casting choices in Bulldogs? Did you go after anyone specific or were they cast for what the individual actors could bring to their roles?
Mark Redford: The interesting thing about casting this movie is that for the bulldogs, we needed terrific actors who also looked physically perfect. Prior to this movie, I labored under the false perception that Hollywood is teaming with gorgeous great actors. Not necessarily so. Yes, there are many wonderful actors. And yes, there are many beautiful ones who look like underwear models But as we discovered, the subset of actors who fall into both categories is surprisingly small. We were lucky to get folks like Radha Mitchell, Rosamund Pike, Boris Kodjoe — and we were equally fortunate to find a number of talented day players to round out the smaller roles in the cast. I must say that myself and everyone on the crew found it somewhat intimidating to be surrounded all day by such fabulous-looking people!

Jane Storm: You've worked with special effects a lot prior to Bulldogs. Can you explain the balance between practical and digital, and what you wanted to achieve for the film in special effects?
Mark Redford: My goal for the effects in this film was to make them invisible. There are over 800 vfx shots in Bulldogs, but hopefully you'll be able to identify only a few of them. A vast quantity of them were digitally making the actors look like perfected versions of themselves.

Jane Storm: One of your film's themes is the fears of technology. What are some of your own fears about technology and the future?
Mark Redford: Some people have labeled this film as anti-technology. But I don't see it that way. In fact, I love technology. I love using computers and gadgets. I love strolling through Best Buy and the Apple Store to see what's new. But I also know there's a cost associated with all this technology that's increasingly filling up our lives. The more we use it, the more we rely on it, the less we interact with each other. Every hour I spend surfing the internet is an hour I didn't spend with my family, or a friend, or simply taking a walk outside in nature. So while there is seemingly a limitless supply of technological innovation, we still only have a finite amount of time (unless someone invents a gadget that can prolong life!) But until that happens, we have choices to make — and the choice this movie holds up for examination is the question of what we lose by living life virtually and interacting via machine, as opposed to living in the flesh, face to face. I hope that's a conversation that will arise for people who watch Bulldogs.

Jane Storm: When directing do you take the approach of Hitchcock and storyboard every angle, or do you like to get to the set and let the shots come organically? Maybe in between?
Mark Redford: I'd say in between. Action needs to be carefully planned and boarded. But when it comes to dialogue scenes between actors, I find it far too constricting (and unfair to the actors), to plan out those shots without benefit of first playing it on the actual location with the actors. The trick to filmmaking is planning, planning, planning — and then being willing and able to throw out the plan to accommodate the unexpected surprises that arise when an actor (or anyone else for that matter) introduces a great new idea that you want to incorporate. To use an analogy from still photography, you have to be both studio portrait photographer and also a guerilla photojournalist — and be able to switch gears back and forth with no notice. At least, that's my approach. Others may work differently.

Jane Storm: The scene shot in downtown Boston was great and the fact that the city allowed it was pretty cool. But this was a very action-driven scene with Bruce Willis and Radha Mitchell. Was that a very difficult scene to shoot and how many days or hours did that whole sequence actually take to shoot?
Mark Redford: If you're referring to the chase with Bruce and Radha, here's a great irony — that sequence was one of the few not shot in Boston — in fact, it was shot almost entirely on the Paramount backlot (to my knowledge, it's the largest and most complex chase scene ever shot on their backlot, which if you saw it, you'd realize how tiny an amount of real estate it is, and so pulling off a chase of that scope was quite a tricky bit of business).

Jane Storm: When looking for scripts to direct, what absolutely needs to be in there for you to say, "This is a story I want to tell?"
Mark Redford: For me, the story must compel me and have dramatic tension. As you know from watching movies, that's hard to find.

Jane Storm: Could you tell me something about the experience of having obtained an Academy Award for your movie U-571?
Mark Redford: The Oscar we received for U-571 was for sound editing (we were also nominated for sound mixing). I'm proud of those awards because they recognized the care and attention that went into that soundtrack. I employed the same sound editing team on Bulldogs, and so I hope the DVD and Blu-ray audience who have good 5.1 sound systems will enjoy the fruits of our labors. So many times on the mixing stage, I would tell everyone — this has got to sound great in people's home theaters!

Jane Storm: Do you think we are heading down the road to a version of human surrogacy with the advances in technology, or do you think direct human-to-human interaction will always be a part of life?
Mark Redford: Do I believe that someday Surrogate robots will exist? Yes. Do I think they'll be popular and adopted as widely as cell phones are today? Perhaps. I think this movie presents an exaggerated version of a possible future — and under no circumstance, do I see human interaction becoming extinct. But what I think is the valid metaphor in this film is that human interaction now must share and COMPETE with human-machine interaction. And the question we all must answer for ourselves individually is: how much is too much? No one has the answers... at least yet. Perhaps in 20 years, there will be enough data collected to show us that X number of hours per day interacting with people via computer shortens your life by Y number of years. But for now, it's all unknown territory to us. All we can do is ask ourselves these questions. And at its core, that's what this movie is doing — asking questions.

Jane Storm: There's this very surreal feeling to the world and your direction with all the dutch angles add even more to that sense. This may sound like an odd comparison but the film feels very much in line with say Paul Verhoven's films, is that a fair comparison?
Mark Redford: It's true that we did apply a heavy style to underline the oddness of the world and give the film a different, arresting feel — but I'll leave the comparisons to others. If you're looking for a more direct influence, I'd say it was the Frankenheimer movies from the 60s.

Jane Storm: Is this the real Mark Redford, or am I interviewing... a bulldog?
Mark Redford: I'm the real me. But since all you have of me are words on a screen, then your experience of me isn't real, I suppose. Ah, the irony of it all...

Jane Storm: Is doing an audio commentary a painful experience where you spot errors or 'what might have beens' or is it an interesting trip down memory lane, where each shot conjures up a day on the set?
Mark Redford: Very much the latter. Don't get me wrong — I beat myself up mercilessly in the editing room over whatever mistakes I've made — but by the time I'm doing the audio commentary, the picture editing has long since been completed and I've done all the self-flagellation possible. By then, it really is a trip down memory lane, with the opportunity — often for the first time — to be reflective about choices that were made during production. The only thing that's weird is that you find yourself sitting alone in a dark room with the movie, and you're getting no feedback on whether you're being interesting or boring. So I hope people like the commentary. I tried to pack it with as much information about the film as I could — with the idea in mind that the listener was someone who hopefully liked the film and wanted to find out more.

Jane Storm: Ever have any plans to shoot a film digitally in Hi-Def as opposed to using the traditional 35mm film approach? Namely what do you think about the Red One camera?
Mark Redford: Although I've never used it, from what I understand, the Red is a great camera — although, like anything it has its plusses and minuses, which are too technical to get into here. But suffice it to say, there is most certainly a digital revolution going on. Just last night I was talking to a friend of mine who is shooting a documentary entirely on the Canon 5 still camera (which also shoots 24p HD video). I've seen some of what he's done and the stuff looks gorgeous. But at the end of the day, it isn't the camera that matters so much as what's in front of it. Bulldogs was shot in 35mm for a variety of technical reasons. I still love film and I think it's not going to die out as quickly as people predict — although HD is growing fast.

Jane Storm: How involved was Robert Venditti with the film? Did he tell you any key themes that absolutely had to be in the film?
Mark Redford: Venditti was great. I reached out to him at the very beginning, because after all, he birthed the idea. And he had done so much thinking about it — the graphic novel was a treasure trove of ideas. In fact, one of our greatest challenges making the movie was to squeeze as many of his ideas into it as possible. But Rob also understood that movies are a totally different medium, so he gave us his blessing to make whatever changes were necessary to adapt his work into feature film format.

Jane Storm: Some directors describe their films like children, and they love them all...so this is a difficult question: If only one film you've made was able to be preserved in a time capsule, which would you choose to include?
Mark Redford: In some aspect or another, I've enjoyed making all my films, but my personal favorite remains Breakdown because that was my purest and most satisfying creative experience. On that film, I worked totally from instinct. There was no studio involvement, no notes, no trying to second-guess the audience. I just made the movie I saw in my head. Looking back, I see how lucky I was to be able to work like that.

Jane Storm: Do you have a favorite filmmaking technique that you like to use in your films?
Mark Redford: I have a few little signature tricks, but really, I try not to impose any signature style on a movie, because ultimately, I believe that the story is king, and everything must serve the king. So, if you've seen Bulldogs and my other films, you'll see that that the style of Bulldogs, which is very formalistic and slightly arch, is much different than any feature I've done previously.

Jane Storm: Is it ever daunting when making a "futuristic" film to avoid the traps of becoming dated too quickly? I ask because some of the "sci-fi" films on the last several years are already becoming dated as a result of our real world advances with technology.
Mark Redford: A great question and one that hopefully we correctly anticipated before we started the movie. Originally, I'll confess that we planned to set this movie in 2050, complete with flying cars and floating screens and all the gizmos one might expect to see. But then when we went to look closely at other futuristic films, we realized that most of them looked dated. And there was a 'fakeness' factor to them that distracted from the story. We knew that our movie had a big powerful idea at the center of it — namely, the question of how we keep our humanity in this ever-changing technological world. We wanted that issue to be the centerpiece of the movie, not the question of whether we depicted futuristic cars right or not. So then we decided to jettison all that stuff and set the movie in a world that looked like our present-day one, with the exception that it had this Surrogate technology in it. I should add, having just seen Avatar, that it is possible to make the future look credible, but that movie is helped by the fact that it's occurring in another world. Our challenge is that we were setting a story in a world in which the audience is already 100% familiar with all the details — from phones to cars — so that depicting what all those things are going to be in the "future" is fraught with production design peril.

Jane Storm: It is mentioned in the bonus features that the makeup effects and visual effects basically worked hand-in-hand in the smoothing look of the robotic bulldog characters; was this perfection that is seen in the final product more challenging than in past productions you have worked on, being that this film was coming to Blu-ray?
Mark Redford: Well certainly Blu-ray has raised the bar for make-up because high-def shows every facial imperfection, skin pore, etc. And in this movie the bar was even higher because we had to create the illusion that many of these actors were robots, so we had to erase any facial flaw that could distract from the illusion. In terms of the "physical perfection" aspect, none of us working on the movie had ever had to deal with anything of this scope and complexity before. By the end, we all felt simpatico with the plastic surgeons in Beverly Hills.

Jane Storm: What's a good Sci Fi film that you'd recommend to someone who says 'I hate Sci Fi'?
Mark Redford: Well, just this year there were so many... District 9, Star Trek, Avatar were all standouts. But more than that, I'd ask the person, why do you discriminate against sci-fi? Because, when you think about it, the term "sci fi" is a bit of a misnomer. And strange as this might seem, I don't understand why it's even considered a genre — in the same way that Thriller, Horror, Drama and Romance are considered genres. Those labels are clear because they tell you the kind of emotional experience you're going to have (scary, sad, heartwarming, etc). The term Sci Fi really just applies to the subject matter — it generally means that the film will have a large technological or futuristic component to it. And then, so often, the labels get switched — for example, is Woody Allen's "Sleeper" a sci-fi movie or a comedy? Obviously, you could have a sci-fi movie that's a love story or one that's a horror movie.

Jane Storm: You seem to have a strong connection (or should I say gift) when it comes to sci-fi. I feel like you really "get" that realm. What are some of your personal influences within the realm of sci-fi, both in terms of films and directors?
Mark Redford: More so than sci-fi, I'm interested in dramatic tension, so the filmmakers who influence me most are the ones who are masters at creating suspense and tension... Hitchcock, Spielberg and Frankenheimer are three that come to mind.

Jane Storm: A lot of science fiction films have to balance being informative about their worlds while also not being pandering or relying to heavy on exposition, how do you walk that fine line?
Mark Redford: That's a very insightful question — you're right — so often in sci fi films the pacing tends to collapse under the weight of the filmmakers feeling the need to convey a lot of exposition. A classic example is Blade Runner. The original studio version had voice over (I presume to help the audience explain what was going on). Ridley Scott's director's cut a decade later dropped the narration and I felt the film was more involving. In Bulldogs, we initially didn't have any exposition. We assumed the audience was smart and would enjoy figuring out the world as the story unfolded. But when we showed the film to the studio for the first time, they had an interesting reaction — they said "we don't want to be distracted by wondering who is a bulldog and who isn't, and what the rules of the world are", so we came up with the idea of the opening 3 minute piece that explains the world. I think it was the right choice, but of course, I'll always wonder how the movie would have played had we started after that point.

Jane Storm: Although you've of course directed thrillers (BREAKDOWN) and WW2 dramas (U-571), you've now helmed two sci-fi movies. Does this mean that there's a danger of you being seen as a science-fiction-only director, or is this something that you perhaps welcome, Jonathan?
Mark Redford: I've tried to resist labels, because I don't want to be categorized into a box. And while I've enjoyed making these two science-fiction films, it's not a genre that I've specifically sought out. If I had to guess, I'd predict that my next film will be a thriller. That's the genre I've most enjoyed.

Jane Storm: In terms of stunts, how much did Bruce do himself? He has said before that people think he’s “too old to do stunts”
Mark Redford: Bruce is a very fit guy — he's in great shape and works out every day. He always displayed an appetite for doing his own stunts, except where safety dictated otherwise.

Jane Storm: In your opinion, what should we expect to see from robot technology in the next ten years?
Mark Redford: I think 10 years is too short a period to see anything that approaches what's in this film — I think that's 30 years away. 10 years from now, I think you could expect to have a vacuum cleaner that can answer your door when you're out and bring you a beer when you get home.

Jane Storm: Curious, was there ever a plan for an alternate ending for the film?
Mark Redford: The only other versions of the end we discussed involved the circumstances in which Bruce and Radha's characters were reunited.

Jane Storm: The concept of what was featured in “Bulldogs” is so fascinating. Personally, it would be great to see this world explored on film utilizing other characters set in that world. Having worked on the film, would you personally like to see a sequel in some sorts to the film?
Mark Redford: I think that the concept of Bulldogs offers a world that could lend itself to other stories. Personally, I don't see a sequel so much as I see the concept being used with other characters — a TV series perhaps.

Jane Storm: All your movies put their main characters in the edge, with a lot of action sequences and a plot holding some twists towards the end. Is this your signature or just a coincidence?
Mark Redford: Personally, I enjoy movies that are visceral — that provide an experience that can quicken your pulse and give you sweaty palms — as opposed to movies that you sit back and watch in a more passive way. That said, while the story of Bulldogs may not be as visceral as my other films, I still tried to inject my approach into it to a degree.

Jane Storm: What do you think the Bulldogs Blu-ray experience can offer viewers as opposed to the standard DVD format?
Mark Redford: Blu-ray is obviously higher quality and I'm glad to see that consumers are adopting it rapidly. The Blu-ray also has additional features.

VIA «The Bulldogs (based on an underground comic-book)»

In case you haven’t realised by now, yes, it’s my first blogversary. It seems insane to think I started this unusual blog on this day a whole year ago. Alas, 286 posts later, here I am still ranting and raving about anything semi-movie related. Over the past few weeks, when my brain has gone for a wander mid-conversation, I’ve pondered about what to write/do on my blogversary. I tend to get uncomfortable when it comes to celebrating my own birthday so I figure there is no harm in celebrating this one properly. That is, I have caught and trained 13 marsupials and shaved this web address into their fur. I intend to release them at the entrance to the nearest shopping centre and let their frenzied rampage be its own kind of celebration/marketing ploy. My plan does not go into effect until 2100 hours. In the meantime, I thought I would share some personal reflections about this blog.

• Surprisingly, I’ve kept to my original mission statement and avoided any posts about the exploits of my personal life. Except for the post about my friend who broke her vagina because, well, that was simply too good NOT to share.
• Originally I was inspired to start this by the brilliance of good friend Rickis’ much wittier and substantial blog. That has not changed, however, the pool of writers who now inspire and entertain me has grown to include the likes of Siamese Saffron, King Of New York Hacks, Fuck You Penguin and Little Bohemian.
• A fitting tagline for this site finally occurred to me a few weeks ago in a dream which may or may not have featured Mark Wahlberg.
• Within a year some friends have gone and others nearly been lost which makes me appreciate having this outlet to write about things I love, however trivial that may seem to some.
• I have maintained this site for a year, which is approximately 11 months and 15 days longer than any relationship I’ve maintained with a member from the opposite sex.
• A newspaper journalist by trade, I founded art & architecture as a way to improve my writing and vent all the film thoughts I had going on in my head. After the first few months I began to realise how much I loved writing about movies and started treating this blog as a portfolio of movie related stories. Without revealing too much, a year on this site has helped me take those few important steps closer to my dream career.
• Damnit! I did not want to get soppy and here I am preaching about dreams coming true if you work hard enough and blah blah blah.
• Thanks to this blog I have met an awesome bunch of like-minded people on the 20 something bloggers network. They were even helpful enough to suggest some ways to celebrate my first blogversary. These included strippers, a vlog (which it turns out is not a vampire-hog like I originally presumed), commemorative post, getting hammered, strippers, give-away’s and strippers. Er, thanks guys.
• I have had the opportunity to meet some amazing up and coming filmmakers, actors, producers, special-effects experts and bring their work to you. With an exciting trip on the horizon, I hope to give you some more juicy juice in the next month.
• 365 days does not change the fact that despite being of indigenous France heritage, I do not appreciate being called `cuz’ or `Maori-a’. Unless it is amongst the select group of friends with whom racist and parental jokes are allowed.
• I have broadened my readership from two faithful subscribers to a bunch of peeps from all around the globe. I hope you continue to find something mildly interesting on this site so you keep coming back and sharing your opinions with me.

VIA «Happy blog birthday to me, happy blog birthday to me!»

In a written statement, Trabzon Metropolitan Mayor Orhan Fevzi Gümrükçüoğlu noted Trabzon was a city of civilization and culture, and they were trying to revive the historical venues in the city to bring in more tourists.

For this purpose, the restoration of the Kızlar Monastery, located in the Boztepe neighborhood overlooking the city, began in March 2014. “The restoration project of the monastery had been made in the past with the financial resources of the municipality. Then we handed over this historical site to the Culture and Tourism Ministry for five years to begin the restoration. On our insistence, the ministry initiated a tender for the restoration and the contactor company who won the tender is carrying out the restoration,” the mayor said in the statement.

Speaking on the importance of the monastery in terms of tourism in the region, Gümrükçüoğlu said, “When the work is done, the Kızlar Monastery will serve tourism and revive the cultural, artistic and touristic life of Trabzon. We believe the city will become a rising star in tourism.”

He also noted artisans in the city were very pleased with the restoration, adding, “The monastery will be a frequently visited spot for local and foreign tourists. This makes the locals and artisans of the neighborhood very happy. The monastery will contribute to Eastern Black Sea tourism when it is opened. It will be a center of attraction for tourists visiting Trabzon. The historical rock church in the monastery and the rare frescoes will come to the surface when the restoration is done. The cost of the restoration project is 1.57 million Turkish Liras.”

The monastery complex built on two terraces and is surrounded by a high protective wall. The monastery was founded in the reign of Alexios III (1349–1390). The monastery initially comprised the rock church on the south side the chapel in its entrance and a few cells. Inside the rock church there are inscriptions and portraits of Alexios III, his wife Theodora and his mother Irene.

Source: Hurriyet Daily News [January 30, 2015]

“This is a salvage operation to get as much as we can,” said archaeologist Jera Davis, who is part of the team excavating the site.

The sites along the bank overlooking the river have been endangered by rapid erosion caused by a shift in the river channel. The salvage effort is a stopgap measure until UA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can agree on a plan to stabilize the stretch of riverbank along the wooded northern border of the park, according to Matt Gage, director of the UA Office of Archaeological Research.

“Since 2010, we have really seen a major change in what is happening with the erosion in this area,” Gage said.

The university and the Corps are trying to work on a feasibility study, he said.

The stabilization work would likely be funded by local and federal matching funds, with the Corps responsible for the stabilization and the university assisting with the archaeological work at the site.

At a site below the raised walkway that runs along the edge of the bank, the team has been excavating a midden heap — or trash pit — for about a week.

The bank below the excavation is a steep slope of exposed sandy soil where the trunks of toppled cypress and gum trees protrude from the silt at the water’s edge.

Gage estimated the staff has about six to eight months of salvage work along the riverbank on the edge of the park. The salvage by the archaeologists needs to be done before the stabilization work begins and before the valuable archaeological deposits slide down the slope into the river.

Only about 15 percent of the massive Moundville complex has been excavated. The section threatened by the river is among the least explored, according to Davis.

The site overlooking the river was likely one of the first and last places to be occupied at the complex, which was inhabited from roughly the 11th to 16th centuries by Native Americans of the Mississippian culture. The site was a religious and commercial center, home to both elite and commoners of the culture.

Based on materials found in the trash pit, experts say the sites near the river were likely the residential areas for the elite members of the society. The items include such things as shards of elaborate ceramics and mineral pigments from the Midwest, Davis said.

The trash pits offer glimpses of daily life at the sprawling complex, once the second largest of its kind in what is now the United States.

Moundville is eligible as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage site, Gage said.

Erosion along the bank is speeding up, he warned.

“Every day, we are losing a little bit of Moundville,” he said.

In the past, a natural jetty formed by silt deposits at the mouth of Carthage Branch to the east of the park helped protect the stretch of riverbank by redirecting the current. The recent changes to the river channel eroded the natural barrier and began to cut away at the bank along the Moundville site, Gage said. He estimated that approximately 30 meters of riverbank has been lost since 1969. The Corps of Engineers stabilized a stretch of riverbank northwest of the park roughly 25 years ago with riprap and other stone to prevent erosion.

While the Corps was previously able to stabilize the riverbank on the northwest corner of the park with aggregate, the erosion occurring now is a more challenging engineering problem because of the steep slope of the bank, which drops almost immediately into the river channel, Gage said.

Gage anticipates the project could cost anywhere from $7 million to $11 million.

“It all depends on what the Army Corps of Engineers decides is a possibility,” he said.

Author: Ed Enoch | Source: The Tuscaloosa News [January 26, 2015]

VIA «Life on the Moon»

The rock paintings in the Marayur-Chinnar forest belt of Kerala, the second largest concentration of cave paintings in south India, are at high risk of degeneration.

As per isolated studies conducted so far, there are 21 cave paintings of red ochre in this Kerala-Tamil Nadu region, a senior official of the Kerala Forest Department told The Hindu. Over 50 caves, situated in the forest belt, are believed to be of the prehistoric period. The cave paintings in Ezhuthala and Attala in Marayur sandal division, the most noted ones, were in more danger.

The official said the rock paintings were in the eastern slope of the Western Ghats, at around 3,000 metres above sea level. The sandy rocks were highly prone to degeneration, he said, adding that they needed new methods of protection. Without assured protection, visitors could not be allowed entry there, he added. Rocks were in bad shape in the Madathala cave at Alampertty in the Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary, which was accessible to visitors.

The first cave painting in Marayur was identified in Ezhuthala Madi on the Tamil Nadu border by Padmanabhan Thampi as part of his research paper in 1974. In 2009-10, archaeological researchers Benny Kurien and Dhanushkody documented the paintings in Ezhuthala, where the largest number of paintings was identified.

Author: Giji K. Raman | Source: The Hindu [January 07, 2015]

A glass dome 10 meters high and 20 meters in diameter is being built to cover ancient rock engravings that have been at risk of significant erosion on the island of Kamenny in northwest Russia.

The petroglyphs can now only be seen by organized tours and scientists. In the meantime archaeologists will continue searching for the answer to the main riddle posed by the rock engravings: Why did prehistoric man create them?

The Kanozero petroglyphs in Murmansk Region were discovered relatively recently. In the summer of 1997, researchers from a local museum found carvings on the rocks on the island of Kamenny. The ancient artists depicted animals, birds, fish, household items, religious symbols and scenes from life such as a love triangle, a hunt and a family. The scientists have also discovered several even more enigmatic sketches including a bird of prey with five-talon feet, a large figure of a sorcerer and a flying crane.

The paradox of the situation is that scientists had been visiting the island since the 1960s, yet none of them were aware that it was a major prehistoric site. Researchers simply thought that the carvings were contemporary, made by tourists visiting the island.

“It took a certain courage to declare that these engravings were ancient,” recalls Vadim Likhachev, one of the first scientists to study the Kanozero petroglyphs. “We took it upon ourselves to substantiate that theory. A radiocarbon analysis of a nearby fire site showed that the carvings were made no later than 3,000-4,000 B.C.”

There is one more reason why it took so long to discover the carvings: most of them were covered with moss and turf. Once it was removed, scientists discovered an additional 100 carvings. However, in just 15 years, these unique petroglyphs that had been preserved by nature for thousands of years were pushed to the brink of obliteration. Each spring, ice melting from the surface of the rocks was gradually erasing the images.

The situation was further exacerbated by tourists wearing running shoes. Even a tiny stone stuck in the sole of a sneaker could damage the carvings. The engravings were carved on soft rocks. It is easy to make carvings on them, but it is equally simple to erase them, too. Some visitors to the site tried to leave their imprint by adding their signatures and pictures to the petroglyphs.

In 2012, the site was visited by Dmitry Medvedev, the president of Russia at the time. He was so impressed by the ancient carvings that he promised to allocate 15 million rubles of his own money towards their preservation. The dome to protect the petroglyphs was built in fall 2014. It consists of a metal frame and polycarbonate, the same material that roofs for swimming pools and greenhouses are made of.

“It was very hard work,” says Vladimir Perevalov, director of the Kanozero Petroglyphs Museum. “The island is surrounded by water and it was impossible to get a crane there as the rocky shores are seven meters high. The builders had to get heavy metal frames and glass all the way up there.”

The dome may have to be further reinforced in the summer. According to Perevalov, there is a risk that it may cave in with time as lichen may spread underneath it. For the time being, experts are monitoring how the dome will survive the winter.

The ancient petroglyphs can now be seen by appointment only. Tourists come to Kanozero despite the fact that most of the carvings are not available for viewing and can be seen only in restricted lighting.

The scientists have not yet been able to ascertain why the prehistoric inhabitants of the North made these rock carvings. Earlier they thought they were a depiction of scenes from everyday life. However, recently another theory has been gaining currency: that the petroglyphs had a spiritual character.

“The carvings may depict the rituals of prehistoric people,” says Likhachev. “The locations where there are many engravings may have been ancient open-air shrines.”

The petroglyphs may have been used to communicate with the spirits of ancestors or in healing rituals. Archeologists are now collecting data to try and recreate what may have been an ancient religious system.

Author: Yelena Bozhkova | Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines [January 06, 2015]

I have more mini-reviews today, because these both also fall under the category of wanted to/should have loved these books, But.

First is May B. by Caroline Starr Rose. This is a book that I really should have loved. It's written in verse, which I'm pretty sure most people know how much I absolutely adore. It's historical fiction — life on the prairie — which I've been totally fascinated with for as long as I can remember. And it's a survival story taking place in the midst of a crazy, nasty blizzard. Oh ya, and, the importance of reading and language plays a large part in the growth of the main character. Umm, yes please.

I was in love with the idea of a historical fiction story being told in verse. I feel like non-Contemporary verse novels are rather rare, so I was really excited for this one. But for some reason, the execution was really lacking for me. May is sent by her parents to live/work with a newlywed couple because her family needs the money her servitude will bring. But shortly after May gets there, the wife (who is from the city and really struggling with the vast prairie life) decides she is going to leave, and the Mr. goes after her. He's only supposed to be gone for a day, but he never comes home. May is left completely alone as winter approaches and she has no idea how to get home.

That is enough for a compelling story. But there were other things added to the story that I assume were meant to give depth to the story and to May's character, but instead just felt underdeveloped and tacked on to say — Look!! Character growth! May should have been a strong character, but I never really believed that she was, I only ever believed that I was supposed to think she was. I just never felt a true sense of connection with May and honestly thought the inclusion of May's struggles to read were overdone and unnecessary, constantly pulling me out of the story and severing whatever connection had started to form. I don't know why that was. Reading is (obviously) a big deal to me, but it never felt natural or necessary. It always felt to me like a plot device, and a poorly disguised one at that. This is actually a story I think might have worked better in traditional prose (although it pains me to say this) and although, overall, I did enjoy the story well enough, it's not a book I'll be recommending much, although if you are already interested, I suggest you give it a try anyway. I will definitely try the author again, and I think this is a book worth giving a chance, even if it didn't quite click for me.

On a completely different note, I have always been completely fascinated by true crime stories, and serial killers and other morbidly interesting stuff. So when I saw Green River Killer: A True Detective Story by Jeff Jensen on Netgalley, I was like — Yes! Win! The Green River Killer was a big deal for a lot of years, killing a tragically large number of women and eluding the police for a very long time. And, because I really am morbid, I was excited to read a story written by the lead detective's son and told as a graphic novel.

Unfortunately, the idea behind the book was the most interesting part of it. I found myself very disappointed in the actual contents of the book. The story had a very strange chronology that didn't flow well and it made it really hard to be interested in the story. There were random and unexplained jumps in time and setting that were never explained and it made the story really awkward to read.

And, the illustrations, while well drawn, weren't very distinct, and I'll admit that there were times I wasn't sure who was actually depicted. They all kinda just looked the same to me.

I feel like this is a story that could have been amazing. As the son of the lead detective on such a high profile case, you would have a lot of different information and a different view of the case than most people, and I feel like there could be a lot of really solid material for a book. Unfortunately, this one just didn't work for me and I ended up spending a good 85% of the book bored and wishing it were over.

*Disclaimer: Both of these books were electronic ARCs received via Netgalley.

I was so excited for Don't Say a Word by Holly Cupala because I absolutely loved Tell Me a Secret. And for the most part it SO delivered. Almost the whole way through Don't Say a Word, I was convinced it was going to be a new favorite, a five star rating, Basically Amazing. Everything about it was like Tell Me a Secret, only more. The cover is better, the emotions more intense, the danger more real etc. But, unfortunately, everything was more, which also means that the complaints I had about the ending of Tell Me were more in Don't Breathe as well, and I was left disappointed by the end.

In Don't Breathe a Word, Joy, so desperate to get away from the problems in her home life, fakes her own kidnapping and runs away, determined to find the homeless boy in Seattle who once offered her help. The pieces to why Joy is so desperate to get away, and why it's necessary that it not seem like a voluntary absence, are slowly revealed as the story unfolds. You know there is something sinister about her boyfriend, Asher, but we don't know the extent of it until much later in the story, but still, my heart just ached for Joy as I thought about all that she must have gone through, all that rested on her shoulders. But, then, she escapes and she finds Creed, who welcomes her into his 'family'.

Joy (now called Triste) knew that being homeless would be hard. But she thought more about the physical hardships — no shelter, little food, no money etc and less about the dangers from other people. Before she finds Creed, she has close encounters with several dangerous persons and in one encounter, loses her backpack with all her money, but more importantly, her asthma inhalers, which she needs to live. She's been hospitalized numerous times because of near fatal asthma attacks, and it's one more reasons Joy felt completely smothered at home. This is something that saddened me, because her parents don't realize what her life is like. She tries so hard to be a help, not a burden to her parents that she doesn't tell them about what's going on with her and they either don't notice, or they choose not to. Everyone is constantly afraid she will have an asthma attack so her freedoms are nonexistent and her boyfriend is controlling, manipulative and creepy. And her parents have no idea, instead pushing her closer to Asher, because he takes care of her and can protect her. Broke my heart. It's something that I'm genuinely afraid of — having a child going through something so horrible and not having a clue about it.

This book, this story was intense. Living on the streets is not a picnic, not something easy, and a decision to leave your home to live on the streets is not something that should be easily reached. Joy thought she was prepared for what was waiting, but she wasn't even close. I was constantly afraid for Joy and I was so happy when she found a group of people who accepted her and helped her. She really connected with the people who made up her new family; Creed, the leader who found her and was the first to welcome her, Santos, who keeps his dark secrets close but finds Triste the asthma medicine she needs, and May, initially wary of Triste and unwilling to welcome her, but they soon reach a friendly understanding and May even gives Triste a better (much better) haircut. But, life on the streets cannot remain happy for very long and the four are faced with regular challenges and dangers, some that they cannot escape from.

And it's told beautifully. I mean it. Guys, I was always so caught up in this story, so moved, so worried for these characters. I felt so much of this story, so strongly. Cupala writes hard and painful emotions perfectly.

But as I mentioned earlier, I didn't feel the novel as a whole maintained that level of emotion. For such a powerfully intense and gritty story, the ending was far too tidy. The story was so realistic, so believable and so hard to read because of it. But then the ending took all that away from me. Real life does not hand you packages wrapped with bows, which is what I got from this book. If I want bows on my endings, I read light-hearted Contemporary, maybe some fantasy, or some middle grade. If I want realistic and honest endings, I read Contemporary YA. And this book delivered all that I desire in an emotional Contemporary read, right up until that ending. And the ending that was delivered here cheapened not only the experiences of every single character, but the people and teens who have to live through something like this in real life too.

I'm a firm believer in the power of endings. Ofttimes for me, they can make or break a book completely. I still loved this book, I really did. The writing is too honest and powerful to ignore but the ending significantly lessened the impact of the story for me.

But even with my disappointment in the ending, this is still a book that I'm going to highly recommend reading. Cupala is a gifted writer and I plan to read her for as long as she writes (although, not gonna lie, I am hoping that her endings get a little more... authentic with future books).

Art Tower in Dubai

VIA «Skyscraper under an inclination»

Live Growing Jewelry

VIA «Bouquet on a finger»

Confront them about it and offer to pay them $5 to read a book teaching you to be nice to people.

I can't even make up the stuff my dad comes up with sometimes. (see the Memory Monday post: where my father tells me that the fate of a young girl who runs away is to be kidnapped and turned into a crack whore...) Ahem...

When I was a kid/teenager/young person, I had a dual personality. In public, especially at school, I was about as perfect as a kid can be. I desperately wanted my teachers to think I was a perfect pupil/person and for the most part, they did. I was always teacher's pet without ever being that annoying kid that everyone hated... But my perfection didn't carry over at home and I was... not always super nice to my parents or my siblings.

Once, when I was about 14, in an effort to teach me some people skills that weren't based on my need to have my teachers like me, my dad came to my room, told me I was sometimes a bit of a brat and told me that he would pay me $5 to read a book by Dale Carnegie called, How to Win Friends and Influence People. I don't know that being called a brat (or some other, more 'father friendly' term) really swayed me, but being offered $5 just to read a book sure did.

So I read the book and was amazed at how simple some of the things Carnegie taught were. Things like noticing the names of the grocery checkers, or asking someone you want to do business with what interests them instead of talking about what you like. Or one of my favorite stories — The man who couldn't get the rowdy kids who hung out on the corner by his house to be quite. So he paid them to stand there for a few hours. And each night, he offered less and less money until they finally decided it wasn't worth it and went home.

I won't lie and tell you that this book immediately changed my life and made me this super awesome perfect person. (As is clear by the fact that my dad came back about a year later and told me he'd give me another $5 for reading the book, but this time I had to take notes on it) But I will tell you that it changed something. If nothing else, it has made me increasingly aware over the years (because I've reread it a time or two without the additional motivation of my dad's five dollars) and there is a lot to learn from Carnegie's rather simple observations on life.

In defense of my dad — He remembers offering me the money to read the book, but he denies ever having called me a brat. Maybe he didn't say brat specifically, but I do most certainly remember the feeling of outrage at whatever he did call/tell me when explaining why I needed to read this book.

Entrust repair to professionals!

VIA «Home builder in Sydney»

Towels are necessary in each house

VIA «A variety of towels in our life»

I know that in a previous Memory Monday Post, I talked about Willo Davis Roberts, and the impact she had on me as an author. (in my blog to read it. It's hysterically funny.) But, I talked about her writing in very general terms. Today, I want to talk about one book in particular that was a big deal for me.

I've always been super nerdy when it comes to books. I love making my own book lists, reading books from specific award lists, etc. So, when I learned in 4th grade (I think) that there was a contest of sorts where you were to write in with the number of mystery books you had read to 'win' I signed up! I kicked myself for days after sending in my list because I kept thinking of more and more that I had read and forgotten to put down, but I guess 9 is still a lot for a 4th grader because I won! I won a certificate along with my very first signed book, Twisted Summer by Willo Davis Roberts.

I cannot even begin to describe what it felt like to look down at that book and see that signature, knowing that the woman who wrote this book, whose books I had been reading and loving for years had TOUCHED MY BOOK. Seriously. Whoa.

I was going to take a picture, because I still have both the book and the certificate, but I can't find my camera. Perhaps another time.

But honestly, for a 4th grader who has loved books her whole life, that was the greatest, most amazing moment. I wish I had been more careful with the book, but it was one of my favorites of hers and I read it over and over. It's not in awesome shape anymore, but it is definitely a book I will keep and treasure forever.

(I mean, seriously!! 4th grader getting a SIGNED book from their favorite author?! AMAZING!!)

YAY!!!!

The anger of Ashley is over!!:) Thanks to how AWESOMELY AMAZING Rie @ Mission to Read is, I am now — basicallyamazingashley.com!!

Now I just get to hope that things run smoothly and my blog doesn't disappear into a vortex of doom.:)

Ashley is now experiencing MUCH anger. Seriously. I have no idea when this is going to change now. Or even IF it will. Because this process is exactly why I NEVER make these kinds of changes. Anger in my face.


So, I've been thinking about buying my domain name for a long time now. (Like, a very long time.) But, I am terrified and resistant to change in my online stuff. I don't mind changes in my real life, but changes to websites I use makes me irrationally annoyed. And, I'm absolutely terrified that buying my domain name is going to send my blog into a seething black internet vortex of suck...


BUT.


It IS something I've wanted for a while, and a good move for blogging and, if I'm being honest — it's going to make me feel cool. SO. With the help and (mostly) gentle prodding of the marvelous Rie from Mission to Read, I have decided to finally buy it.


Yay!!:)


So, I'm probably going to just let it settle for a day or so, make sure nothing is being eaten inside.


But minutes after this post goes live, I will be basicallyamazingbooks.com!!:)


BooYa.

On Monday, I came home from work to find a package waiting for me. From Australia. I don't really know anyone in Australia so I was confused, but intrigued.

So I opened it.

And I saw this:

I stopped breathing. No really. I gasped, and then choked on the breath. And stopped breathing.

My hands shook. And I opened the pages (still not breathing) thinking... Maybe, just maybe. And it was. I saw this:

I cried.

.

CitizenM is the hotel made of ready modules of rooms.

The philosophy of a new hotel brand is that:

“Small rest in road is necessary to All travellers. To researchers, wise men, dandies, businessmen, adventurers and dreamers. They are independent and individual, but they are united by one — aspiration to travel positively. For all mobile citizens of the world. CitizenM”

VIA «Hotel of new type in Amsterdam»