Real brilliant

VIA «Symbol of illusory love»

I thought you all might want to know how things are going with Merry. She seems to be doing well, for the most part. She still has meltdowns once in a while but she really enjoys having so many other kids around. She sees her cousins all the time and there is also a little girl next door who comes over to visit a lot. She still talks mostly in English but the Spanish words are starting to come out. It is usually a noun here or there, mixed in with the English. For example she'll say "I want a 'galleta' (cookie)" or "I want a 'manzana' (apple). The other day she used two Spanish words together: "We have 'dos manzanas' (two apples)". Today she was playing with the little girl next door and I heard her say "come" (eat). It is really interesting to see how she is starting to pick up Spanish words. It must be frustrating for her at times because the other kids don't always understand what she is saying. Often I'll try to help her by translating or telling her what to say in Spanish. But I'm not always there so she is on her own a lot. Despite the language barrier she has made a lot of friends at school, and as I mentioned before she loves playing with her cousins.

Surprisingly she hasn't been sick much. Last week she had a slight fever and we kept her home from school one day but besides that things have been pretty good. When we were here visiting two years ago she had a cough the whole time and on top of that she got sick and she got an ear infection. But so far things have been going well. I'm making sure that she gets lots of rest and I give her vitamins every day. Lucho, on the other hand, is sick in bed with a fever today. I've been giving him teas and medicine all day.

For those of you who have been wondering…. yes, our stuff arrived safely in Loja about a week and a half ago. Lucho was able to get everything through customs without any problems. The only snag came at the end of the first day. The truck was on the way out the door and the last step was to weigh the container. For some reason the weight was about 1,000 pounds less than what was stated on the document. We don’t know exactly what happened but we think that it wasn’t weighed correctly in the States, or they estimated it wrong. At any rate, the truck was almost out the door but was turned around at the last minute, very frustrating. The next day everything was re-inspected (we were charged an additional $70 for that) and it was allowed to go. It was such a relief to call Lucho and find out that our stuff was out of the port and on its way to his uncle’s warehouse.

The next step was to get our things from Guayaquil, which is located on the coast, to Loja, which is in the mountains. Lucho’s uncle lent him one of his trucks (we never would have been able to do all this without his help) and we paid the driver and another guy to help Lucho pack up the truck and drive to Loja. The trip usually takes about 8 hours, but it was slow going because of the loaded truck and because the roads were bad due to the recent rains, so the trip ended up taking about 12 hours total. They left Guayaquil at 7 a.m. on Saturday and arrived in Loja around 9 pm that night. We had rented a storage unit around the corner from Lucho’s mom’s house so the whole family was waiting there for him to show up. We were all there to greet him when they rounded the corner, horn blaring. I took some pictures (see below) of the unloading.

Since then we have been slowly going through our stuff and bringing selected things to our place. Some of our things will remain in storage until we build our apartment. Unpacking is hard work, and we are both exhausted. On top of that we live on the 4th floor so everything has to be hauled up 4 flights of stairs (luckily we have the help of Lucho’s family for this). It’s been good exercise. To date we’ve unpacked our beds, our TV and DVD, some kitchen supplies, most of Merry’s toys, some of our clothes, and, today, the computer. We were happy to find out that our computer and printer made the trip intact and are working perfectly. We also brought a bunch of things for the restaurant that Lucho is slowly putting to use. One of the things is an espresso machine and I’m looking forward to relaxing in Siembra with a hot cappuccino sometime in the near future.

I’ll have to say that it is nice to walk around the apartment and see so many familiar things like our bed, the TV, even my knives in the kitchen! When we sent everything off in Sacramento I decided that I wasn’t going to worry about if everything would arrive safely or not. I just put everything out of my mind and told myself that if they arrived, great, if not, well, we did the best we could. So it is very satisfying to have everything arrive safely.

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)»

Clouds over London

Clouds by Tomas Saraceno

VIA «Olympic clouds»

Some parts of the exotic temple complex will remain open to tourists during the renovations, but not the main pyramid-shaped structure.

The agency estimates that the renovation will be completed in 2016.

Before work can start, however, the agency and a team of archeologists will remove some stones from the pyramid to study the best method to stop the main temple from further damage.

The pyramid is now bulging on one side and could threaten the integrity of the entire structure.

The first stage of restoration is estimated to cost around Rp 1 billion ($79,000).

“Restoration was proposed last year as the temple’s foundation has continued to shift every year, making the pyramid lopsided,” the agency spokesman Wahyu Kristanto said.

The agency has also limited the number of tourists entering the pyramid on fears that overcrowding will trigger the foundations to collapse.

Wahyu said the pyramid’s structure is fragile as it is composed of rudimentary carved rocks held together with soil and clay, which is different from the Borobudur and Prambanan temples, which are made entirely out of stone.

Sukuh temple is located in Ngargoyoso on the slopes of Mount Lawu, around 1,186 meters above sea level. It was built at the end of the Majapahit Kingdom in the 15th century and “rediscovered” in the 19th century by British voyager Thomas Raffles.

The temple’s architecture is unusual as its main building resembles pyramids of Egypt and Mesoamerican civilizations.

Author: Ari Susanto | Source: Jakarta Globe [January 30, 2015]

Every city throughout the United States has been impacted by the recent economic recession. The combined forces of the credit crisis and the foreclosure crisis led to plummeting home prices in every region of the country. The ripples were felt from San Francisco condos to homes for sale. However, some metropolitan areas were able to avoid the worst of the turmoil and are now emerging from the mess faster than the rest of the country.

The recovery is swiftest in those areas that didn’t have as much of a housing price run up to begin with, either because the economy in those areas has stayed healthy or the economy has been limited for decades and residents have adapted or left. The top recovering areas also had lower rates of sub-prime and negative amortization loans financed in the years leading up to and during the crash.

In December of 2009, Forbes Magazine released a list of the number of loans that were foreclosed upon in the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Forbes then calculated the percentage of loans that were descending into further delinquency versus those that were improving.

For example, the number of foreclosed homes in Austin was examined to see which loans continued towards the path of complete default versus those which inched their way back towards normalcy. The lower the rate of deterioration was for a given area, the higher their corresponding ranking with regard to recovery.

1. Harrisburg-Carlisle, Pa.
2. Austin-Round Rock, Texas
3. Ogden-Clearfield, Utah
4. Buffalo, NY
5. Knoxville, Tennessee

Source: Forbes, Francesca Levy (12/09/2009)

The Pennsylvania region of Harrisburg, and the Austin area of Texas were rated the best, followed by Ogden, Utah and Buffalo, NY. The homes seem to be recovering quite well as that region came in fifth in the study.

VIA «Top 5 Recovering Real Estate Markets in the U.S.»

Innovative embodiment

The Western technologies and East culture

VIA «Public health services high technologies»

It is always a shock reaching Bamiyan, coming face to face with the two huge cavities in the cliff face. The upright tombs stare out over the valley, a splash of vegetation surrounded by wild mountains. The town straddles the Silk Road, close to the point where it used to enter Persia, dwarfed by two massive mountain ranges, the Koh-i-Baba and Hindu Kush. The void left by the two destroyed Buddha figures is appalling, it rouses an emotion almost more powerful than their once tranquil presence did for centuries.

To understand what happened you must go back to the beginning of 2001. The Taliban-led regime was on very poor terms with the international community and increasingly tempted by radical gestures. The decision to destroy the two monumental Buddha figures at Bamiyan was just part of the drive to destroy all the country’s pre-Islamic “icons”, an act of defiance to the outside world.

Demolition work at Bamiyan started at the beginning of March 2001 and lasted several weeks, the two figures – 58 and 38 metres tall – proved remarkably solid. Anti-aircraft guns had little effect, so the engineers placed anti-tank mines between their feet, then bored holes into their heads and packed them with dynamite. The world watched this symbolic violence in impotent horror.

Now almost 14 years on, reconstruction work has yet to start as archaeologists and UNESCO policy-makers argue.

The two cavities resemble open wounds, a blemish on the long history of Afghanistan, which experienced the fervour of Buddhism long before the arrival of Islam. For 15 centuries the two mystic colossi gazed down as the trading caravans and warring armies streamed past. Monks came from China to worship here. Others meditated in nearby caves.

The two Buddhas, draped in stucco robes, are testimony to a unique case of cross-breeding, which flourished in the early years of the first century AD, drawing on Buddhist influences from India and Greek aesthetics left behind by Alexander the Great. It gave rise to the kingdom of Gandhara and made a mark so deep that even the disciples of Allah, who reached here in the ninth century, made no attempt to disturb it.

Today the site has recovered a certain serenity. Children play volleyball below the cliffs and archaeologists work unhindered. Whereas a low-intensity war is still rumbling on elsewhere in Afghanistan, the central Hazarajat region and its capital Bamiyan (population circa 60,000) has been relatively spared. Most of the inhabitants are Shia Muslims and they had little sympathy with the Sunni Taliban from the Pashtun south. In the 1990s there was fierce fighting between the two sides. In Bamiyan there is a fairly enlightened view of Islam, and few women wear burqas. They proudly explain that 40% of girls in the province are in education, the highest proportion in Afghanistan.

So the outrage perpetrated by the Taliban came as a huge shock, a blow against a tolerant community that sees itself as unusual in the country as a whole. “The statues symbolised Bamiyan,” says mullah Sayed Ahmed-Hussein Hanif. Bamiyan had adopted and integrated the statues, making them a part of local legend. They had become an allegory for unhappy love, a foreshadow of Romeo and Juliet set in the Hindu Kush. He was Salsal, prince of Bamiyan; she was Shamana, a princess from another kingdom. Their love affair was impossible so, rather than live apart, they turned into stone, beside each other for all eternity.

“Local people had completely forgotten they were figures of the Buddha,” says Hamid Jalya, head of historical monuments in Bamiyan province. The Taliban and their dynamite reminded them of the original story. Ever since, people here have been unsure what to do about them.

An incident in 2013 demonstrated the sensitivity of the subject. A decade ago UNESCO authorised archaeologists and engineers to consolidate the two niches, with props and grouting. But nothing else. Almost two years ago someone noticed that, on the site of the small Buddha, a team from the German branch of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (Icomos) was beginning to rebuild the feet. This was contrary to UNESCO policy, based on the 1964 Venice charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites, which requires the use of “original material”. If work on the Bamiyan remains disregarded this rule, then the site would be struck off the World Heritage list. The Afghan authorities ordered the Icomos team to down tools, leaving the remains even less sightly than they were before.

The incident highlights the lack of a clear consensus on the future of Bamiyan both internally and among the international community. “Bamiyan seems emblematic of the way international aid has treated Afghanistan,” says Philippe Marquis, former head of the French Archaeological Delegation in Afghanistan (Dafa). There has been endless dithering, underhand rivalry, pointless discord and mistakes.

The Buddhas are a powerful symbol – of confessional tolerance, Buddhism in a Muslim country and the remains of the Silk Road – with scope for considerable political kudos, so academic quarrels have been diverted to serve strategic aims. The Afghans have watched this spectacle with growing amazement: Germany and its experience of post-war reconstruction; France and its archaeological exploits in Afghanistan; Japan and Korea, with their interest in the origins of Buddhism; UNESCO and its byzantine bureaucracy. The various parties have sometimes cooperated with one another, but more frequently waged secret wars. “All these endless discussions among experts are pitiful, yielding no positive results,” says Zamaryalai Tarzi, a Franco-Afghan archaeologist who has been in charge of the French dig at the foot of the Bamiyan cliff for many years.

Behind the squabbling there is, however, a very real controversy as to how best to honour the fallen Buddhas. How should we go about making sense of an obscurantist crime the better to vanquish it? Or, in other terms, how should we mourn the martyrs? There are two opposing schools of thought: complete reconstruction or keeping the status quo. For now, the latter camp have the upper hand. “The two niches should be left empty, like two pages in Afghan history, so that subsequent generations can see how ignorance once prevailed in our country,” Tarzi asserts. Many other sites have adopted this approach, in particular the Genbaku dome in Hiroshima and the former summer palace in Beijing.

There is also a practical side: any attempt at reconstruction would be extremely complex. The original material, as required by the Venice charter, would be a major obstacle. The 2001 demolition left a heap of scattered fragments. Barely a third of the smaller Buddha has been saved, consisting of a pile of rock behind a wire fence. Furthermore, some of what does remain is from more recent additions. Over the centuries, long before the coming of the Taliban, the two figures were damaged and defaced. In the 1970s Indian archaeologists rebuilt the feet of the smaller Buddha using new material. Given this, how can the Venice charter rules be applied?

The final objection is that it may be a mistake to focus so much attention on the two Buddhas, given that the Bamiyan valley boasts many other exceptional sites, as yet little known. The ruins of the Shahr-e-Gholghola fortress, and probably monastery, perched on a hillock across the valley from the Buddhas, and the fortified town of Shahr-i-Zohak are both at risk, worn down by weather and earthquakes. “The priority is to save all the endangered sites around Bamiyan,” says Amir Fouladi, of the Aga Khan Trust. “There is no urgency about rebuilding the Buddhas.” The economic development of Bamiyan, due to gather speed with the projected launch of the Hajigak iron ore mines, makes it all the more important to adopt an overall strategy.

Meanwhile, the advocates of reconstruction have not wasted their time. Although the current mood is hardly in their favour, the small structure resting on the remains of the small Buddha’s feet suggests that the German branch of Icomos has not given up hope. Its president, Michael Petzet, a professor at the Technical University of Munich, has made many statements in favour of at least rebuilding the smaller of the two figures. The local representative of Icomos Germany, Bert Praxenthaler, sees the controversy about the small Buddha’s feet as salutary in that it “stirred debate about what should be done with the Buddhas”. “We must be ready the day a decision is taken,” he adds. He is referring to the possibility that an ad hoc UNESCO group may give the go-ahead for “partial re-assembly of the fragments”. His organisation sees this as an opportunity to demonstrate the quality of its restoration work in combining old and new materials.

Local residents are in favour. The idea of leaving the larger niche empty but rebuilding the smaller Buddha appeals to them, particularly as they take little interest in quarrels about original material. They are more concerned about boosting tourism in a relatively isolated area in desperate need of revenue. But there is symbolic value too. “By rebuilding a Buddha we could regain possession of our history and send a message to the whole world in favour of reconciliation between religions,” says Shukrya Neda, who campaigns for a local NGO. “By leaving the other niche empty we leave a testimony to the damage done by the Taliban.” Kabul has officially approved this approach, but some in Bamiyan feel its support is rather timid, for ethnic reasons. The Hazara population of Bamiyan distrust the Pashtun leaders in Kabul. “The government doesn’t want Bamiyan to develop its identity and economy,” says Riza Ibrahim, head of the city’s tourist board. “It’s discrimination.”

UNESCO has tried to steer a cautious middle course on the issue of reconstruction. Its ad hoc expert committee has warned against rushing to make a decision. “It is neither for nor against reconstruction,” says Masanori Nagaoka, head of UNESCO’s culture unit in Kabul. The committee has ruled that before considering partial reassembly of the small Buddha, a thorough technical and scientific study would be required. All of which favours keeping the status quo. Will the reconstruction lobby finally succeed in resurrecting Shamana (the small Buddha)? Perhaps, by dint of patience, but everyone seems to have overlooked an essential detail: the legendary prince and princess wanted to stay together forever. If Shamana rises again, but without Salsal, it would break their oath.

Author: Frédéric Bobin | Source: Guardian Weekly [January 10, 2015]

The British Museum is considering three further overseas loans from the Elgin Marbles – but a reluctance to entertain the sculptures’ return to Greece is set to provoke renewed anger in Athens.

Last year the British Museum allowed part of the Marbles to leave the country for the first time when it lent the headless statue of Ilissos, a Greek river god, to the State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg.

Greece, which is seeking to reclaim ownership of the 2,500-year-old sculptures removed from the Parthenon in Athens in the 19th century by Lord Elgin, described the Russia loan as “provocative”.

A current request from the British Museum for a key antiquity from the Museum of Cycladic Art in Athens for a forthcoming exhibition on classical sculpture has been delayed, in what is being seen as retaliatory move by the Greek authorities.

The work has been requested for the show, “Defining Beauty: the Body in ancient Greek Art”, which opens in March.

The delay is ascribed to “tensions” with the Greek government, despite friendly curatorial relations between the two institutions – the British Museum currently has 24 items on loan to the Cycladic museum.

However the chances of securing the loan in time for the exhibition may be harmed by the news that the British Museum is seriously entertaining bids for further Elgin Marbles loans to museums outside of Greece.

“Three serious bids are being considered,” The Art Newspaper reports, including one informal loan request made before the Hermitage deal was revealed.

New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, Berlin’s museums and the Louvre in Paris are the kind of institutions which “stand the best chance of success” when formal loan requests are submitted, the art title suggested.

The British Museum would expect any museum to which it lends the Parthenon sculptures to “be generous in responding to loan requests” made in return by the London body. Requests for single sculptures will be more favourably received, it is suggested. Bids are also expected from the UK’s regional museums which could expect huge interest in displaying items from the famous collection.

The Museum confirmed that further loans from the Elgin sculptures are being considered. A spokesman said: “Museums around the world have shown interest in requesting to loan from our set of Parthenon sculptures, and we always welcome these conversations. The Trustees will consider any request for any part of the collection to be borrowed and then returned, subject to the usual considerations of condition and fitness to travel and this has always been made clear to the world.”

Further Marbles loans will inflame tensions with Athens. Antonis Samaras, the Greek prime minister, described the loan of the Parthenon sculpture to the Hermitage as “an affront to the Greek people”.

Some of the Marbles will be moved from their permanent display to the temporary exhibition gallery for the British Museum’s March show, including the pediment sculptures of Ilissos, which will be returning from Russia, Iris and Dionysos.

However time is running out to strike an agreement with the Museum of Cycladic Art for the work that the London museum is seeking. The British Museum spokesman said: “We have requested to borrow one object from Greece and await the official response. The Museum has very positive working relationships with colleagues in Greece and lends extensively to museums in Greece including 24 objects on loan to two temporary exhibitions at the Museum of Cycladic Art in Athens.”

The Athens museum declined a request to comment. A source said: “The museum is happy in principle to lend the work but the Greek government is stalling on the paperwork.”

Greece refuses to recognise the British Museum’s ownership of the sculptures, which make up about 30 per cent of the surviving decoration from the Parthenon.

Author: Adam Sherwin | Source: The Independent [January 06, 2015]

Mailboxes today

VIA «Modern mailboxes for your correspondence»

Eight towers are connected among themselves by a series of high-rise bridges which, by analogy to skyscrapers, have been named “skybridges”.

VIA «Steven Holl Architects have connected buildings in a multipurpose hybrid»

Bristol architect Angus Meek has won competition on restoration of landing stage Weston-super-Mare which have suffered in a fire in July of this year, having bypassed architects of five firms, including Grimshaw. Colourful and the shone 18 metre design which will cost not less than 10 million pounds sterling, has been chosen by owners of a mooring and 59% from 20,000 respondents voting for the project.

Exact data about voting are coded, but on hearings, company Grimshaw, the prize-winner of award Ferguson Mann has received less than 10% of voices, and the others of 31% were divided between AWW and Ray Hole Architects. The won project which consists of four similarity of a column and sidewalk round a building, is considered the most suitable to shape of the pier constructed in 1904.

Angus Meek — the director of company Roger Ellams — has told: “We scooped inspiration from quay elements — waves, beach huts, and also from radical architecture art-deco”. Kerry Michael, one of owners of a mooring, along with sister Michel, has declared, that “they aspired to find modern design which would be entered in historical surroundings of a pier”. This design with four pontoons — the best decision. Owners of a pier finance the project from the money resources private and received under the insurance. Building is planned to finish by 2010.

VIA «Landing Stage by Angus Meek»

Live Growing Jewelry

VIA «Bouquet on a finger»

I decided to do these two books as "mini"-reviews because I don't have anything good to say about either book and you know that old saying — If you can't say anything nice... Well, I've never been very good at not saying anything at all...

Brooklyn Burning by Steve Brezenoff is, in my opinion, a book that tried too hard. It wanted to be this big grand and mysterious book but instead managed only to be a rather dull and vague detail-less story that bored me.

Kid lives in Brooklyn and has spent the last year or so on the streets because Dad decided he didn't want to deal with Kid's issues anymore (specifically sexual questioning) and kicked Kid out. But we don't know any specifics about Kid. Not real name, not even gender. We do know that Kid falls for a musician that's more than a little rough around the edges (heavily into hard drugs). But something happened (a mystery, possibly involving fire) and the musician is always referred to in the past tense and now Kid develops a new love interest. (Also blurry around gender lines).

I appreciate what Steve is trying to do here. It is an interesting idea — making a genderless novel and leaving details almost completely out of the way. But instead of being a story that pushes boundaries and makes you think, it was instead, for me, boring and pointless. I didn't care about a single character in the story. I didn't really know anything about them, so what was there to care about?! A lot of the story is written in also 2nd person, which I've read and enjoyed before, but it made this book feel even weirder than it already was. I have to have a sense of character for a 2nd person narrative to work. I also need a sense of and connection to the characters for a romance to be effective and interesting and something that I care about. But Steve didn't give me that.

This probably sounds rude, but I felt like this was a book full of its own cleverness and importance. You know people like that, right? Who are always walking around "saying" — Look at me!! Look at how funny I am or how clever and smart!- and really, rather than thinking them funny or clever or smart, all you can think is — Oh my gosh, shut up! — or -Seriously, who invited you?! This was a book trying so hard to be mysterious and murky that it completely missed its mark and landed in the realm of vague and uneventful.

It's a book that left me with a feeling of, Oh. That's all then? and I am pretty much positive that unless someone else brings it up, I will never think about this book again. BUT I will say that this is a polarizing book. All of the reviews I've seen are either like mine, or are completely enamored by and in love with this book. So if it's something you think you would like, might as well give it a try!

Lie by Caroline Bock was, unfortunately, even worse for me.

It is a book that should have been important and powerful and gut wrenching and soul hurting and empowering. It's about the repercussions of a vicious hate crime in a small town ending with the victim in critical condition and the boys under investigation. The MC's boyfriend is the main suspect (and if I remember right, is in custody throughout the book) and she saw the crime but has been lying to the police, because her boyfriend and best friend asked/told her too, and Jimmy is a good person who loves her and needs her support.

But, Jimmy is not a good person. I was expecting this to be a book that explores grey areas and tries to explain how good/normal kids can become involved in vicious crimes. But nope. Jimmy is scum. Seriously. And very possibly mentally unstable. But then again, the notes I wrote to myself upon finishing this book say that I felt that every single character was emotionally and mentally unbalanced. And awful. Lisa Marie is the worst best friend in the history of human beings and I hated her. ALL the way. Skylar is also a pretty weak character, seemingly incapable of making any decisions for herself or seeing people as they really are, and I'm not going to say anymore than that because I've tried to rewrite it three times and I keep sounding really, really mean.

What I think would have made this novel better is development. Rather than really developing the characters, Bock just gave them each their own chance to 'talk' and there were a lot of narrators in this book (like 9, I think). But having them speak doesn't necessarily give them depth and it doesn't do anything to make me relate to or believe them. Part of my problem is also that I never, not once thought that Skylar's decision was hard. Not once. You know pretty early on what she witnessed, although more details do come out as the book progresses and for me, that choice is black and white.

I wanted to like this one. Really, I did. But I just couldn't do it and I can't recommend it.

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

The magnificent formula

VIA «Shampoo-conditioner for care UGG»

It's Back! The Second Incarnation of the Award Winning Reads Challenge is here! Who else is totally excited for this?! I know it can't just be me!!:)
Last year, Jacinda and I hosted this reading challenge from May through September. And it rocked. I have personally been meaning to read all the Newbery and Printz books for years. And I've found some absolutely phenomenal books because of it. (Umm hello and thank you — Jellicoe Road, my absolute most favorite book ever.) And last years challenge gave me the motivation I needed to pick my list back up and get reading. (I think I read 16).
Because it was so awesome last year, Jacinda and I decided that this year, it would be a year long challenge of awesome (with extra awesome during the months of the original challenge).
My goal for this year is even bigger. I am so close to finishing both award lists. (Just the winners, not the honors). I only have 4 Printz winners and 13 Newbery winners left to read (including the 2012 winners to-be-announced). I would love to finish these lists next year.
So that is my goal. But I would like to read more than only 17 of the books on the list, so my official goal is going to be 24. That's only 2 a month, totally do-able.:)
To see the books on either list that I've already reviewed on the blog, you can click the corresponding tags below
Newbery Award
Newbery Honor
Printz Award
Printz Honor

And now — Onto the rules!:)

I am so excited to have a guest post today with Sarah Ockler! She has a really fun post today, in the spirit of love for all genres, which I totally adored and even though Contemporary is my favorite, I do read and love many other genres and I love this post talking about the common threads between all genres.

Contemporary Realism vs. Paranormal & Fantasy: Smackdown or Lovefest?

----------------------
As an author of contemporary realistic teen fiction, I'm often asked about the imbalance in the bookstores between contemporary titles and paranormals — yes, those sparkly black covers of awesome. Some have asked me why I write contemporary instead of chasing the fantasy "trend." Others want me to convince them to read one over the other, or defend my own favorites, or talk about why contemporary is so much better.

Some of this is in jest, of course. All in good fun. But sometimes it does feel like there's a bit of rivalry going on, doesn't it?

I'm not sure why. To me, fantasy isn't a "trend" anymore than realism *isn't*, and the only thing that's "so much better" is that teens and adults are reading tons of YA — way more than we used to. A big part of that is availability and choice. Even as recently as ten years ago, bookstores might've only had one YA shelf, or the teen fiction might've been mixed in with the younger children's stuff. Now, it's so popular that it usually has it's own section, and that section includes rows of ever-expanding shelves — plenty of room for magic *and* reality.

My favorite local indie, the Tattered Cover, just expanded its YA section, and they host young adult and middle grade authors almost every month — contemporary, fantasy, scifi, dystopian, romance, mystery — we're all represented, and we're all awesome.: -) Walking down those long shelves stuffed with sparkly black covers, pink ones, white ones, scenic ones, close up kissing ones, monster ones… it just makes me insanely happy to have so many choices for my ever-growing TBR list.

So what about the original question? Smackdown or lovefest?

I say lovefest. I love contemporary realism. I love fantasy, paranormal, and scifi. I love it all. Because in young adult fiction, contemporary realism and paranormal / fantasy are just two sides of the same coin. The difference is in the execution. Maybe your boyfriend broke up with you because the scent of your blood makes him want to tear you apart with his pointy little fangs. Or maybe he just likes another girl. Maybe your parents are getting divorced because Mom discovered that dad is a dark elf plotting to take over the world. Or maybe he just leaves the toilet seat up. These are silly examples, but the point is, the underlying emotional strife is the same. Both types of story explore complex emotions and issues like changing friendships, death, sexuality, sex, heartbreak, addiction, family problems, physical challenges, violence, and economic hardship, to name a few. Both feature multi-layered characters forced by difficult — sometimes life-threatening — external situations to dig deep to uncover their own hidden strengths. Both have the twists and turns and surprises that often come when teens experience new situations for the first time. And let's not overlook the best part — all the kissing. Sexy vampires, beautiful witches, six-pack-ab-rockin' shapeshifters, and plain old regular humans… there's plenty of romance to swoon over in most young adult fiction. Team Kissing, are you with me? Yes!

So whether you're typically into contemporary realism or paranormal, whether you like your boys human or bloodsucking, whether you go gaga for girls with wings or wands or just plain old pom poms, whether you're reading about transgender issues or trans-species ones, whether you like escaping to the beaches of California or the halls of Hogwarts, I encourage you to read a bit more of… well… everything. This is a lovefest, after all. Let's show some love!

Need a few recommendations? Check out the newly posted Best Teen Books of 2011 over at Kirkus. Editor Vicky Smith says, "With shelves fairly groaning under the weight of paranormal love triangles, it may be easy to think that books for teens are all the same these days. Not so, we are delighted to report. In sifting through the piles of great books published for teens this year, I was happy to discover soulful romance of the utterly normal kind, deliciously frothy historical novels, piercingly intelligent nonfiction, thrillingly inventive fantasy and science fiction and some great kickass horror, as well as some books that may leave you weeping with laughter."

Some of my faves from the list are Misfit, Winter Town, Virtuosity, Anna Dressed in Blood, and Daughter of Smoke and Bone, and many more are on my TBR list. There's something for everyone over there. Happy reading!
~ Sarah Ockler

Author of Twenty Boy Summer, Fixing Delilah, and the upcoming Bittersweet (which features the special magic of cupcakes and hockey boys… mmmmm...)

Thank you again Sarah, so very much! I love it!:)

And for all my awesome readers, Sarah has been generous enough to donate a signed paperback of Fixing Delilah to one luck winner! This is a phenomenal book, absolutely amazing, and I'm already excited for whoever wins this one!

Enter Below. Like all Just Contemporary Giveaways, it will end Dec 10th. This is also only open to US/CN.

Thou Shalt Not Road Trip by Antony John is one of the books I was most looking forward to in 2012. So when I invited Antony to take part in Just Contemporary and he sent me an ARC, to say I was ecstatic is an understatement.

I am going to warn you in advance that this review is all over the place and it's long. Although my feeling are overall positive, they range from surprised to shocked to disappointed to confused to annoyed to thrilled to amazed to Seriously? to pleased and pretty much everywhere in between. So.

To be perfectly honest, a part of me is devastated that I didn't love this book the way that I absolutely adored Five Flavors of Dumb. This doesn't mean I didn't like it, but this book lacked a certain authenticity in everything except the religion talk. Which makes that a great place to start.

I was surprised when I started reading this book to realize just how much religion plays a part in the story. I don't know how I missed it, because the title includes the words 'thou' and 'shalt' and the main character is on a book tour for the book he wrote called Hallelujah. So, I was instantly wary. Because, for a lot of reasons, that I'm pretty sure I don't need to numerate, books with really strong religious themes are not always my favorite and, in my experience, they aren't always done very well. But for me, this was actually the best part of the book. Rather than being a book about RELIGION it is more a book about a boy who happens to be religious. He believes in God, says his prayers, wants to see other people happy and he also questions his faith and beliefs. As someone who has been religious my whole life, this was incredibly refreshing to me. Here we have a mostly normal teenage boy, who is religious and it isn't this huge thing or problem or issue or whatever. It just was.

And Antony gets the full Ashley stamp of brilliance, because he managed to talk about religion a lot (Luke is on a book tour through Christian book stores) but he never, not once, came across as preachy to me. There were morals to the story, and life lessons learned but none of them were strictly brought about because of a religious lesson. They were normal. And it was amazing. Here is a book with religion in the summary that didn't turn into either an excuse to hate on religion and demonstrate its utter evil OR a 300+page Sunday School lesson. There are a lot of people and a lot of teens who go to church every Sunday. It an important but normal part of their lives. It's nice to have a book that gives us a religious character and handles it well. So, serious awesome points to Antony for that. Seriously.

However, I had a really hard time with just about every character in this story. Luke is supposed to be on tour for his book and his older brother, Matt, is brought along to act as his chauffeur. But Matt decides to bring along his girlfriend, Alex, and her little sister, Fran, who happens to be Luke's ex-best friend and major crush. Awkward. Fran has changed physically a lot in the past year, and Luke interprets this to mean that everything he knows about Fran has changed. And since she is a large part of the reason he's questioning a lot of his decisions (including his faith) and feeling disconnected from his life. So the author of this inspirational best-selling Christian self-help novel finds himself feeling... less than charitable as their road trip advances.

I found myself really frustrated with these characters. Luke's disinterest in his own life, his naivete and his complete and total self-centeredness were incredibly frustrating to read. Not that he didn't grow as a character, because he did and by the end of the book I was absolutely rooting for him. But it was a struggle getting me there. Fran has made some drastic physical changes — outrageous hair, piercings, tattoos, drinking etc. All things that usually signal a cry for help. But all Luke can see is that his best friend is suddenly different and he feels so wounded. When he talks to her, even when he thinks he is being so magnanimous and gracious, he's judgmental and feels as if her problems are all about him. Again, he grows as a character but it's a bit rocky in the beginning.

Matt was probably my least favorite character (although undeveloped Alex isn't far behind.) He is supposed to be in charge of organizing Luke's schedule and getting him places on time. Instead, he regularly took long detours, made decisions about where they would stop without saying anything about it to Luke and there were a few times he outrighted lied to him. While it's very true that Luke needed to lighten up a bit, Matt's behavior drove me nuts. He ignored phone calls from Luke's publicist, used the emergency credit card too often and ignored Luke's distress without even trying to alleviate it. Pretty much every time he did anything, Matt frustrated me. You understand him and his motivations better by the end of the book too, but he still never really grew on me.

Fran was an interesting character and probably my favorite of the bunch. Aside from Luke, she has the most depth and personality and meaning, but even then, I felt her main purpose in the story was to bring balance and understanding to Luke and give him the motivation, reason and environment necessary to invite growth and change. Luke has some depth as a character (for good or bad) without Fran, but Fran had very little without Luke. She was the next best developed character overall, and I felt for her, I really did, but not enough.

The book also include excerpts from Hallelujah, Luke's books, and they are seriously laugh out loud funny. Written as Bible passages, full of 'and he spake' and 'thus sayeth' and 'art thou' they are basically stories of inspiration and hope and insight. Some are funny, some are motivating, and some are a little more tinged with despair, but each were placed perfectly throughout the book to build and move the story forward. These were a fabulous addition, one that added a lot of depth and feeling to the story that would have otherwise been missing.

I do have one other confession about this book, lest you think I was totally disappointed. I have been in a bit of a reading slump lately. And when I'm in this kind of mood, I read very slow, I start and stop books frequently, and I have to kind of force whatever book I'm reading. This has absolutely nothing to do with the book I'm reading, and everything to do with my personal mood. And even though I really and truly did enjoy this book, I am 99% positive that if I had read it when I was more in the mood to read, I would have really loved the book. It's definitely one that I'm going to reread. Maybe I'll even reread it soon, so that if my feelings change drastically, like I think they could, I can rereview the book closer to its April release date. Who knows.

What I do know, is that even not being as enamored of this book as I was of Dumb, it is definitely a book worth reading and it's one that I've already been talking about and recommending. I think this book has a lot to offer and Antony John is going to be firmly stuck on my favorite authors list for a long time. It's a story about life and love and second chances, about friendship, looking beyond the surface and being true to yourself. It's a story that makes you laugh, but one that also makes you think. And while it's not necessarily a story for everyone, it is a story that I believe is important. It's a book that is going to stick with me and even though they weren't my favorite, I have a feeling these characters aren't going to get out of my head for a long time

I read Antony's Five Flavors of Dumb earlier this year and was blown away. It is seriously amazing and I loved it. So of course I wanted to get Antony on board for Just Contemporary and he has been totally awesome to work with! He is an author that will be on my stalk watch list for the rest of forever! You can read my review of Five Flavors of Dumb here, and later today I will be posting my review of his upcoming novel, Thou Shalt Not Road Trip.

Five Flavors of Dumb is an awesome novel and the basic idea — a deaf band manager — is something unexpected. How did you get the idea for Dumb and what made you decide to make Piper deaf. (Or did you decide...)

First off, thanks for the HUGE compliment, and a big hi to all your readers. Since I often read your blog, that includes me. *waves at self*

Okay, moving on...

Before I started writing, I was heavily into music. As in, I have a Ph.D. in it. I always knew I wanted to write a YA novel about rock music, but as my agent ever-so-gently reminded me, there are quite a few of those already. So I sat down with my wife (who is much smarter than me) and asked if she had any ideas. Straight away, she suggested that if I wanted a true challenge, I should consider writing about music from a deaf teen's perspective.

I knew straight away that she was right. Still, it took another four months of research before I dared to write it!

Dumb has gotten a lot of attention and love (and least in the blogging world). How does it feel, knowing that a book you wrote has resonated so strongly with such a large and varied group of people?

It feels wonderful! And you’re right... it really is a varied group. I’ve had messages from deaf and hearing readers, young and old.

But it’s also a relief. When the book came out, I was nervous. I mean, really nervous. What if deaf teens felt misrepresented? What if just one said, “That’s not how it really is”? I knew I’d feel like I’d let them down. Realistically, no more than a handful of books featuring deaf narrators will be released each year. If mine had failed to give deaf teens a narrator they could root for, and failed to shed light on deafness for hearing teens, then it would have been worse than a flawed novel. It would have been a wasted opportunity. The first is inadvisable; the second, inexcusable.

The fact that the book resonated with readers has enabled me to sleep again at night. (So thanks, bloggers!)

I actually just realized that you had a novel come out before Dumb (saw the title in the signature of your email, actually) called Busted: Confessions of an Accidental Player. Have anything you'd like to share with us about your debut?

It’s definitely funny. And fast-paced. But Five Flavors of Dumb is better. Can we leave it at that?

Your third book, Thou Shalt Not Road Trip is coming out next year. What has been the difference in your experience waiting for each book release?

Ooh, what an interesting question...

I think with my debut novel, I wasn’t sure what to expect. There’s so much that goes on around the book (i.e. publicity, distribution, trade reviews, etc) that I felt swamped.

With #2 (Five Flavors of Dumb) I was better prepared, and I knew that the book was much stronger, so I was just excited, rather than freaked out. I was also impatient, I suppose (a common trait among writers, I've heard).

For book #3 (Thou Shalt Not Road Trip) it’s different again. Dumb is still going strong, and so I’m going to be busy answering questions about that, and doing school visits connected with it. Plus, the paperback has only just come out, so it’s certainly not an “old” book yet. At the same time, the ARC of book #4 (see below) will be coming out at the same time as Road Trip, so I’ll be dealing with that too. In other words, it’ll be a really interesting (and possibly chaotic) period. But I still can’t wait!

What inspired Road Trip?

Growing up, I spent a lot of time at church as a member of the choir. Because of that, I was privy to a lot of really interesting theological discussions, not all of which made a whole lot of sense to me.

Oh, and I adore road trips. Route 66 is a national treasure. So...

I had an idea of a smart, religious sixteen-year-old boy named Luke who writes a bestseller called Hallelujah. To capitalize on the success, his publisher sends him on a road trip along Route 66. Trouble is, his older brother is driving, and the guy has some serious baggage (no, I’m not talking about suitcases). Then Luke’s ex-crush, Fran, hitches a ride. Suddenly the road trip is veering off-course as fast as the curveball questions at his turbulent book signings.

It’s funny, slightly crazy, but also (I hope) thought-provoking.

Why Contemporary?

Contemporary YA is my first love (in terms of books, I mean). There’s such extraordinary variety, and room for everything from laugh-out-loud comedy to highly literary explorations of personal tragedy.

To be honest, it’s far too broad to be a single genre, and it benefits from that, I think.

Whereas readers of adult genres often confine themselves to their favorite sections of the bookstore, fans of contemporary YA might be surprised by a book that’s a romance, another that’s a thriller, another that’s a comedy, and so on. I reckon that exposure to multiple kinds of book has to be a healthy thing for teen readers especially.

Aside from the writing itself, what would you say has been the most challenging part of being a writer?

That would have to be staying on top of publicity. I do regular tour events, school visits, even Skype appearances with book clubs. I love it too, but almost every one requires a lot of organization, and there’s never a day when I can focus exclusively on writing. I think this is maybe the one aspect of being a published author that most writers underestimate. Again, though... I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Are you working on book 4 now? Any details you can share with us?

Yes, indeed! Book 4, titled Elemental, is almost finished, and will be released in fall 2012. It’s the first in a fantasy trilogy set on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. It tells the story of a colony in which everyone is born with powers of the elements—earth, water, wind, and fire—except for one boy who is powerless... or is he? I’m so psyched about it I can barely see straight.

Thanks so much for having me along today, Ashley!

Website: http://www.antonyjohn.net
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Antony-John/124596187591570

You are so welcome Antony! Thank you so much for participating! This was such a great interview! I loved it! Also, I'm really intrigued by book 4! I'm always a little apprehensive when a favorite writer switches genres (because I'm a huge baby: P) but it sounds awesomeand I've always loved stuff that ties into the elements like that! It sounds amazing!! And now — YOU have a chance to win a copy of one of Antony's novels! He's offering a signed copy of both Dumb and Road Trip to two different winners! It's only open to US/CN and just enter below!

In the biggest shake-up of arts and culture of modern times, Matteo Renzi, the Prime Minister, has announced that the Government is to run advertisements in the Economist on January 9 to recruit new administrators "because we want to have the best directors in the world".

The leadership changes are part of a dramatic shake-up of the arts spearheaded by Dario Franceschini, the Culture Minister, in an attempt to make the country's galleries, museums and historic sites more profit-driven. Italy boasts nearly 3000 cultural sites that attract 77 million visitors a year.

The Colosseum alone draws 5.5 million of those.

Among the other "super museums" Franceschini wants to develop are the Borghese Gallery and National Gallery of Modern Art in Rome and the Uffizi Gallery in Florence.

Under a government decree, Franceschini hopes to generate earnings of more than 2 billion ($3.16 billion) in 2017, with further growth in the years to come. Italy's museums, galleries and archeological sites generated only 380 million in revenue in 2013, according to La Repubblica newspaper, and cost 350 million to operate.

The minister's office declined to comment on the new plans. But, according to La Repubblica, Franceschini wants to model Italian museums on the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and add more restaurants, gift shops, guides and accessories that will attract more visitors and ultimately more profits.

He also wants to create 18 new regional offices with responsibility for the country's biggest artistic sites and grant more power to individual directors who run them. Italian media also said he was expected to appoint 12 new directors-general within his ministry who would manage specific sectors such as tourism, cinema and live theatre.

Franceschini has openly favoured other measures to increase tourism by "adding value" to the country's heritage and strongly supports corporate sponsorship.

He recently backed a move to bring live cultural events and concerts to ancient monuments such as the Colosseum because he said they needed to be "brought alive" for visitors from around the world.

In June, he launched a $50 million appeal to preserve the vast Domus Aurea palace built by Emperor Nero beside the Colosseum.

The Domus Aurea, loosely translated as the Golden House, is a sprawling complex of interconnecting dining halls, frescoed reception rooms and vaulted hallways on the hill opposite the ancient amphitheatre.

"The state has very limited resources unfortunately," said Franceschini at the time.

"This is an opportunity for a big company to sponsor an extraordinary project, which will capture the world's attention. It would be scandalous if no one comes forward."

Source: The New Zealand Herald [December 26, 2014]