VIA Rachel Nichols 2America Beautiful Actress 2011 tops

A couple of weeks ago we watched a film called Chekhov For Children in my essay film class. Out of everything we've watched so far this semester it is probably my favorite film. The actual film is 74 minutes long and difficult to get ahold of because it's an essay film and not something you would see in a movie theater. If you're at the University of Iowa or in the area you should go see it at the Bijou Theater between December 10 and 14. Visit their website for more details on that screening. The film is about the director, Sasha Waters Freyer, and her experience in a New York public school where her class worked with Phillip Lopate (a god of essays) on a production of Anton Chekhov's play Uncle Vanya. Anyone who knows anything about Anton Chekhov realizes that a play by him is probably incredibly difficult for students in the fifth grade to put on. Lopate wrote an essay about this experience as well with the same title as the film.

While the film is about Sasha Waters Freyer, it is also not. She is rarely present in front of the camera and the majority of the film is interviews with other students who were involved with the production, interviews with Phillip Lopate, and video footage Freyer took in elementary school when she filmed the play. There are also videos the children made in elementary school during that time Lopate was present. It's amazing in the video to see these children working with really complex ideas and it shows just how aware kids really are of the world around them. There is also a sense of nostalgia for the time Freyer grew up but also a sense of pride for the people who came out of that production.

Since I obviously can't show you the entire film I thought I'd show you the trailer and a section of the film I find particularly essayistic, even though Freyer isn't speaking in it.

I am an Amazon Affiliate. If you make a purchase using one of my links I will earn a small percentage which will then go back into this blog.

VIA Rachel McAdams joins 2010 best

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)»

Flawless: The actress, who is serving as a jury member this year, was attending the screening of Midnight in Paris by director Woody Allen on the festival's opening ceremony
With that she did a twirl and much leg and thigh was revealed.
'I had to have it made because you know how it is for us tall girls. It's impossible to find anything in a store,' she said with a giggle.
The sheer whiteness of the dress was off-set by a pair of dangling emerald earrings from Chopard.
Flashbulb frenzy: Uma told MailOnline that she she felt sexy in the dress and was hoping to get a chance to dance in it later

Dressed to impress: The actress joins jury members (left to right) Martina Gusman, Robert De Niro, Olivier Assayas, Mahamat-Saleh Haroun, Jude Law, Linn Ullmann and Nansun Shi
White theme: Uma started the day in Dolce & Gabbana, right, before switching into Versace for the evening
The hem of the dress was decorated with fine white feathers.
Asked about the provenance of the plumage, Uma joked,' I don't know. Maybe somebody lost their feathers', before proffering, 'maybe chicken'
She added: 'I feel so good wearing the dress, I hope I get a chance to dance.
Glamorous: Rachel McAdams, who stars in Midnight in Paris, wore a flesh-coloured gown with red embroidery, pictured right, Indian actress Aishwarya Rai
'It's a dress that moves well when you dance. I was doing a quiet little dance all by myself on the carpet just now,' she explained.
Uma was in Cannes as a member of the festival's main jury.
She arrived with the panel's chairman, Robert De Niro and other jurors who included Jude Law and Linn Ullmann, daughter of Liv Ullmann.
Stunning: Salma Hayek slipped into an off-white pleated dress as she lit up the red carpet this evening
Distinguished: Jury Members Nansun Shi (left), Law and Linn Ullmann chat at the opening ceremony
The stars were attending the festival's gala ceremony and opening film, Woody Allen's Midnight In Paris starring Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen and Carl Bruni, although Bruni did not attend.
Others at the red carpet event included Salma Hayek ,wearing a shimmering Gucci gown and Antonio Banderas with wife Melanie Griffith.
Bandares was in Cannes to launch the animated film Puss 'n' Boots.

Posing for the cameras: Melanie Griffith and husband Antonio Banderas and, right, actress Lea Seydoux and Midnight In Paris director Woody Allen
Happy couple Rachel McAdams and Michael Sheen kept their romance off the red carpet but shared a romantic moment once they were way from the cameras.
The actors, who star invAllen's Midnight In Paris, which is a sublime love letter to the city, stole a kiss as they walked into the opening night party overlooking the Cannes beach.
They met last year while filming Allen's film in Paris.
Rachel looked divine in an embroidered red silk organza dress with a tulle ruffle skirt with a long train.
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan at the opening ceremony of the Cannes Film Festival - 2011

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan - Cannes Day 1 - 2011

Tapete vermelho de Cannes

Cannes (11/05/11) : Envers du décors de la montée des marches de Wody Allen

Hollywood Goes Cannes Crazy as Rachel, Jude, Angelina, and More Get the Festival Underway!

Lady Gaga à Cannes quitte la plage du Martinez après les répétitions

#114 - Cannes Tag 1 - Midnight in Paris

source: dailymail

VIA 'It's sexy isn't it?': Uma Thurman is in fine feather as she sweeps down the red carpet at Cannes in Versace gown

VIA Cannes Film Festival 2011: Salma Hayek in a wacky Gucci dress

The 32-year-old Notebook star looked stunning in a sheer dress with bright red embellishment and embroidered train as she walked the carpet at the lavish event.
Hot date: Rachel was accompanied by her boyfriend actor Michael Sheen to the screening of her new film Midnight In Paris
She paired the intricate Marchesa dress with Bulgari jewellery and gold Casadei pumps while her hair looked old Hollywood with voluminous waves and a side parting.
Rachel was joined at the event by boyfriend and co-star Michael Sheen, who could not take his eyes off his ravishing date.
At one point her accidentally stood on the train of her dress as they walked.
Get off: Sheen, stood on her dress by accident as they entered the event
The happy couple kept their romance off the red carpet but shared a private moment once they were way from the cameras.
The actors, who star in Woody Allen's Midnight In Paris, described as a sublime love letter to the city, stole a kiss as they walked into the opening night party overlooking the Cannes beach.
They met last year while filming Allen's film in Paris.
French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand, Rachel McAdams, and Michael Sheen
While it's still early days for the Rachel and Michael's relationship, Rachel said she is hoping they will be able to follow in the footsteps of her parents, who are her romantic inspiration.
She said: 'They are still together and still in love. I'm very blessed that way.
'I had a great example of love in front of me, and that's probably what makes me such a romantic, because I've seen it first-hand.'
Talking about her expectations for relationships, Rachel said: 'You grow up and you assume that everyone is like that, and you quickly realize that they're not, and then you have those days when you wonder if you're going to find it for yourself.
It's such a hard thing to find.
'I think it was more that realisation that rocked me.'
Cannes Tag 1 - Midnight in Paris

Midnight in Paris Trailer 2011

source: dailymail

VIA Rachel McAdams wows the Cannes Film Festival crowd in a daring sheer red dress

Today I have a little something different. Last week when I wrote my review for American Born Chinese I couldn't help but think to myself What do I really know about any of this? I've reviewed a decent amount of graphic novels on here, and I read them quite a bit as a kid, but I still feel incredibly awkward reviewing them. I am under the impression that this is the sentiment from a lot of bloggers and readers who are interested in the graphic novel but don't know how to look at it critically. To try and remedy this here and for other people, I asked my graphic novel enthusiast friend Ron to give his thoughts on what exactly makes a good graphic novel and what he looks for. Please check out his thoughts!

In its simplest form, a graphic novel is a bound collection of comics between floppy covers. It may be part of a series, about six to eight issues, a standalone story, or an omnibus edition, which contains about thirty issues of a single series. Pinning an exact definition down for the term is tricky—there isn’t a concrete set of terms to define things within the medium. For example, in front of me sits Brit, a series of one shot issues—bound like graphic novel collections. But we’ll push the hardcore ontological stuff to the side for now and just focus on sketching out the graphic novel in broad terms.

The real key to understanding the graphic novel, and comics, is to understand that neither of them are genres. They are mediums, like film or books or even video games. All movies aren’t action films, nor are all comics about superheroes. So, like films and books, there’s something for everyone. Last week, I got my brother hooked on Brian Wood’s series, DMZ, which isn’t about superheroes at all, instead a second American civil war. While superheroes may have the highest profile in the industry (for example, Captain America’s death makes news) there are many individual genres to choose from.

Reading a graphic novel is also something that needs to be decoded by the reader. There are general guidelines to reading a graphic novel, determined by the positions of captions, panels and bubbles on the page. From both the written and artistic perspectives of the medium, a good graphic novel should never confuse the reader within the page or delay him or her from moving to the next panel in a clean transition. This is of course assuming you’re not dealing with a book that’s intentionally breaking these rules, just like in postmodern fiction.

But, as avid readers, it’s not all about reading the story from cover to cover and shelving the book. Graphic novels can be analyzed just like the rest of literature, but it may take some getting used to. Though comics are the synthesis of words and images, the brunt of the analysis comes from the image itself, like in film. It uses a very similar visual vocabulary, the borders of the panels act in ways similar to a film frame. If a character takes up most of the panel, it suggests power, the same way it does in film. If the panel is canted, it suggests similar unease. The comic differs from film in that it’s static images, not fluid cuts on a single frame. There is a larger context to panel design in how they work as a whole on the page.

The filmic analogy, however, doesn’t capture the breadth of actually analyzing a graphic novel: the words are important, too. Most of the text in a graphic novel is dialogue, that’s the way it should be—cluttering the page with explanations of the action is redundant, poor storytelling (postmodern and meta considerations aside).

Further mish-mashing mediums, the words even have power beyond their literal meanings. Bold words indicate important or stressed words, but the author doesn’t supply an emotional indicator afterwards, like “sadly” or “angrily.” The words don’t just sit on the bottom of the page, like filmic subtitles do. Different fonts can also hold different meanings. In David Mazzuchelli’s atounding Asterios Polyp, each character “speaks” in a unique, creator-designed, font, suggesting their different voices on a symbolic level. Comic book dialogue is unique to individual readers; it’s active reading.

This dense toolbox gives creators a lot to work with, so readers need to be diligent in identifying the particular tropes a writer or artist is employing. Some creators, like Alan Moore, will use everything at his disposal to construct the comic, while others, like Frank Miller, only use tools to highlight important elements in more standard stories. But much of the time, stories can be absorbed without worrying about postmodern dialectics within the work, or analyzing it as closely as English majors are wont to do. Once the medium is unlocked, the most important thing is to pinpoint interests. Like zombies? Grab the zombie book. Like superheroes? Your choices are plenty. Like Vikings? We’ve those, as well. So next time you find yourself near a comics outlet…stop in and have a look.

A little too serious for my own good,

RON.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us Ron! Be sure to check out Ron's blog Entertainment Etc.

The pair are in Sydney where tonight they will attend the premiere for their new film Water For Elephants.
A little upstaged? Witherspoon and Pattinson smile for the cameras next to the elephant before looking at it in bemusement
Pattinson, dressed casually in jeans and a brown shirt, and Witherspoon, who wrapped up in skinny jeans and a thick woollen polo neck jumper, were joined by the film's director Francis Lawrence but were then surprised as they were joined by a mystery guest - an Indian elephant.
Their new friend left them in giggles as she had a little accident on the pavement.
You do it: Witherspoon gives Pattinson some more biscuits to keep the elephant happy
Despite working with an elephant while making the film, Pattinson seemed reluctant to feed the guest star, as Witherspoon handed him some biscuits.
And despite shying away, the Twilight star claimed that working with animals was one of the main reasons he took the role in the film, which is based on the book by Sara Gruen.
Speaking at the press conference he said: 'Francis Lawrence said he wanted to have a meeting and he took me out to the elephant sanctuary where Tai [who plays Rosie the elephant] lives and I saw her doing a handstand and stayed there for about four hours playing catch with her.
You're at the wrong end: Witherspoon and onlookers laugh as Pattinson gets a surprise
'I would literally throw a ball and she would catch it in her trunk and throw it back to me, and I was like, "OK, even if this movie is the worst movie ever made, I get to work with this elephant for three or four months. I'm definitely doing it".'
Witherspoon also spoke about her 'incredible experience' preparing for her role in the film in which she plays circus performer Marlena.
She said: 'I got to train with Ty the elephant for three months. I went to circus school to learn how to do trapeze and acrobatics. It was a unique experience but it was also daunting and scary.'
Chic and simple: Reese looked casual but glamorous in skinny blue jeans, Louboutin heels and a black polo neck jumper
The pair flew straight to Sydney from London where they had attended the premiere in Westfield Shopping Centre in west London.
They also found time to make an appearance on the Graham Norton Show where they both admitted they had fallen in love with Ty.
Witherspoon said: 'She is amazing, thoughtful and communicative', while Pattinson added: 'I genuinely thought we had a real bond, a little something going on.'
A giggle with Graham: Witherspoon and Pattinson burst out laughing as they were interviewed by Norton for his weekly chat show
source: dailymail

VIA Who invited the elephant? Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon upstaged by wrinkly star at Sydney premiere

So here I go again with the fan art, but hear me out; this stuff is really, really wicked. I’m a bit of an Etsy voyeur and stumbled acrossRetro Whalewhile searching for film stuff (I wanted film reel earrings, don’t judge). The Los Angeles based artist has created a series of film-inspired pieces on wood panels and standard prints. I can see my pay cheque slipping from my hands and into that Pay Pal account as we geek. From prominent directors to cult films, the illustrations are delightfully quirky and remind me of one of my favourite artists;Nathaniel Russell.Anyway, here are the highlights and if you want to own them for yourself then clickhereand be magically transported to Retro Whale’s Etsy profile.

Pulp Fiction (wood panels)

The Big Lebowski (print set)

80s Movies (wood panels)

Favourite Directors (wood panels)

American Psycho (print set)

The Royal Tenenbaums (wood panels)

VIA A whale of a tale: awesome film fan art

VIA New "Amityville" 3D Film Finally Happening!

VIA 3D "Chainsaw" Sequel Get's The Official Green-Light!

Australian Muay Thai legend John Wayne Parr is many things; lethal, fighter, champion. Now add movie star to the list. Parr is the subject and star of a new documentary, Beneath The Venom, which charts his evolution from a kid dreaming of being a boxer to his current status as one of the most recognised fighters in the world.

In January Parr and a camera crew headed to Thailand where they interviewed trainers, promoters and opponents who were there for the first part of his professional journey which began at a Muay Thai camp when he was 17.
``I was a kid with a dream who in 1996 had the opportunity to go to Thailand and I was only supposed to be there for six months but after I won a few fights they saw I had the potential to go all the way,'' said Parr.
``I went and lived in Thailand for four years and had about 40 to 45 fights over there.
``It did a lot for the Australian Muay Thai scene and I was the first Australian to fight at Lumpinee Stadium and on the Thai King's birthday which had crowds of 150 000 out in the park.
``I was the first Westerner to really make an impression on them and we've managed to get fight footage from those early days in Thailand that no one's ever seen before.''

Working on the documentary with Parr as the writer, director and producer is Guy Norris, best known for his second unit directing work on the Oscar-winning Lord Of The Rings trilogy.
Parr, who's known of Norris' work as the head stuntman on films such as Moulin Rouge, Superman Returns and the upcoming Mad Max 4: Fury Road, said he was ``very lucky'' to work with him on the doco.
``He showed a lot of interest and got behind it,'' said Parr.
``He's got contacts to some big players in Sydney who helped get the doco going financially.''
Parr said the documentary is ``about ninety per cent finished'' and already they are in talks with several major Australian TV networks for the broadcasting rights. Beneath The Venom is also expected to get a limited theatrical release in America later this year. In the meantime the seven-time world champion, based at the Boonchu Gym in Burleigh, is concentrating on defending his World Kickboxng Federation title against Mike Zambidis in Melbourne later this month. Parr has six more fights scheduled for the year but after that he said he's looking at hanging up his gloves and pursuing a career in film.
``I wanted to be a fighter since I was five or six-years old and now I'm almost 35 and have been lucky enough to live my dream many times over,'' he said.
``Hopefully this documentary opens a few doors.''
Parr made his acting debut in the short film The Violent which won the Best Fight Choreography Short at the Action On Film International Film Festival in Los Angeles. Beneath The Venom is set to debut on Australian television later this year.

VIA Parr-ty time, excellent

"Celluloid is about dreams, movies are about fantasy, and motion picture are about things you couldn't possibly even imagine in your wildest dreams, brought vividly to life in front of your very eyes" (xv). This is how Emmett James' memoir Admit One: My Life in Film

begins, and based on that quote alone I had fairly high expectations for this book. Each chapter in the narrative begins with a movie, the very first is the Jungle Book, a quick synopsis of the movie and then moves into James' own story. The memoir is divided into two parts. The first, Coming Attractions, is about his life growing up in and outside of London as a child deeply obsessed with movies and everything that went along with him. The second half, Feature Presentation, is about his life as a struggling actor in Hollywood, trying to make a career out of his childhood passion.

I loved the way this book was set up, I just wish it would have been executed a little bit better. There were times in most of the chapters in the book where I had a hard time remembering what movie he started talking about. The first few chapters stayed with the movie alright, but the tangents kept getting more confusing as the book went on. It felt like a gimmick, because most of the movies really had nothing to do with the story he was telling. I got so caught up in trying to make a connection to the movie that I could enjoy the great storytelling and humor that was happening in the book. And let's be clear about that, this is a funny book. James is very funny, comparing his mother to the wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz and talking about one of his first acting jobs dressing up as a woman. He pokes fun at others, but he also pokes fun at himself and that is a saving grace in this book.

But even though he is a good storyteller, and he can make me laugh so hard my abs get a good workout, I wish there was a little more substance to this story. Yeah it's interesting, but I think there were things James could have pushed a little harder. He begins to in a later chapter about working on the movie the Titanic; "The joy, excitement, and arrogance I had felt upon leaving Los Angeles had been quickly replaced by an overwhelming sense of guilt and sadness. It struck me as more than a little ironic that I was making my way to participate in a film surrounding the horrors of an unforgiving class system. Here, now, in front of me eyes, nearly one hundred years later, was the most blatant wealth and poverty line I had every physically experienced" (156). He begins to push here, into the falsity of movies, celebrities, and film making, but he pulls away too quickly. This is something that I really struggled with towards the end of the book. It seemed like the story got too stuck int he gimmick of the movies that it couldn't explore throughout the book what was finally found at the end. James says he didn't want to be a celebrity, but he wanted to be an actor. And there is a difference, one that I don't ever really think about. He talks about how his views have changed. The ending was the most interesting part of the memoir. I wanted to transplant some of that deep thinking into the first half of the book, which basically just felt like childhood stories that went nowhere.

This book got a C. I received the book from a publicist.

I am an Amazon Affiliate. If you make a purchase using one of my links I will earn a small percentage which will then go back into this blog.

The 32-year-old star looked stunning in the Dolce & Gabbana dress, which she teamed with a pair of black Christian Louboutin heels and a sexy side-swept hairstyle.
Red carpet style: Christine teamed her white Dolce & Gabbana dress with a pair of black Christian Louboutin heels
Christine, who presented the National Movie Awards on ITV, spoke recently about her future with Lampard, admitting she wasn't sure if marriage was on the cards.
She said: 'People keep asking when he’s going to ask me to marry him. But I’m the last person who should know that.
'We went to Paris for two days a few weeks ago and suddenly it was, “Look, they’re ring shopping.” No, we weren’t and he certainly hasn’t asked.
Quick change: After her red carpet appearance, Christine changed into three more dresses for the show
'We’ve only been seeing each other a year and a half, which isn’t long enough for me.'
However, Christine added: 'I can’t imagine not being with Frank, and I’d like to enjoy being married to him for a while before having children. Frank would have more tomorrow, but he knows I’m not ready for it.’
Following her walk down the red carpet, Christine changed into a stunning figure-hugging red dress as she began presenting the ITV coverage.
Date night: Nicole Scherzinger and Lewis Hamilton were another celebrity couple to attend the event
Relaxing: Nicole and Lewis looked as though they were enjoying themselves at the event
She then decided to showcase her sense of style in a further two dresses - a mint green pleated number and a tight knee-length dress.
Other couples to arrive at the ceremony included Nicole Scherzinger and Lewis Hamilton, who made their first red carpet appearance in a while at the event, held at London's Wembley Arena.
Don't Hold Your Breath singer Nicole wowed in a pretty nude dress and matching sky-high heels, while Hamilton looked smart in his grey three-piece suit.
Screen stars: (Left to right) Jodie Whittaker, Mandy Moore and Georgie Henley all glammed up for the occasion
Nicole spoke recently about her figure, and while she looked stunning on the red carpet, she said she has 'gained a few pounds'.
She told Glamour magazine: 'I’ve grown as a woman to just accept myself. You’re not going to feel great all the time – so you’ve just not got to be hard on yourself.
'Right now I’ve probably gained a few pounds, but it’s OK because at the right time I’ll lose a couple of pounds. When I put my mind to it, I hit the gym.'
Take That opened the night's entertainment with a performance of their never-before-heard single Love, Love - taken from the upcoming X-Men: First Class.
Full-length glamour: Singers Dame Shirley Bassey and X Factor reject Katie Waissel went for all black outfits
Gary Barlow, Robbie Williams, Mark Owen, Jason Orange and Howard Donald were joined on stage by a group of dancers as they performed the bass-thumping track.
But the song didn't go down too well with viewers, with many taking to Twitter to voice their disappointment over the record.
One viewers tweeted: 'Take that are massiveeeee let downs, what the hell is this? and robbie williams just ruins everything.'
Boys will be boys: JLS stars (left to right) Jonathan "JB" Gill, Marvin Humes, Oritse Williams and Aston Merrygold pose on the red carpet
Suited and booted: Inbetweeners stars Blake Harrison, Joe Thomas and Simon Bird look smart
While another added: 'What the chuff happened to Take That's songs when Robbie came back? Awful!'
The first award of the evening was for Best Comedy film, presented by The Inbetweeners stars Blake Harrison, Joe Thomas and Simon Bird.
After shamelessly plugging their own movie, the trio gave the award to Paul, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's alien comedy.
Opening the show: Take That kicked the evening's events off with a performance of their new single Love Love

Men in black: The boys pose up for photographers ahead of their performance
Dame Shirley Bassey was next to take to the stage, ready to present the award for Best Drama.
And the winner was The King's Speech, with Geoffrey Rush accepting the award along with director Tom Hooper and the film's producers.
Explaining star Colin Firth's absence, Rush said: 'Colin Firth sends his apologies. He is off shooting a light comedy, which is a form of therapy I guess.'
And when Hooper took the microphone, he joked: 'I would like to thank the Queen and the Royal Family for thoughtfully arranging the Royal Wedding the Friday before the release of The King's Speech DVD.'
Winners: Nick Frost and Simon Pegg accept the Best Comedy Award for their alien movie Paul
Speech time: Mandy Moore accepts the Best Animation award for Tangled, while Dame Shirley Bassey presented the prize for Best Drama
After an exclusive clip of Cars 2, Lewis Hamilton, who makes a cameo in the movie, presented the award for Best Animation to Disney's Tangled.
Accepting the award was one of the film's main voice characters, Mandy Moore, who looked incredible in a long moss green dress.
But after the diminutive Hamilton had spoken into the microphone, statuesque Mandy had to stoop down to accept the prize.
Performers: JLS got one of the biggest screams of the night when they performed their new single Eyes Wide Shut
Victory: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I producers David Heyman, David Barron and actress Bonnie Wright
James McAvoy was up next, presenting the Best Fantasy prize to Bonnie Wright for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1.
JLS were the next performers of the evening, performing their new track Eyes Wide Shut.
Alice Eve took to the stage next to present the award for the L'Oreal Paris Performance of the Year award to Colin Firth for The King's Speech.
As Colin couldn't be there, he requested his two on-screen daughters from the film, Freya Wilson and Ramona Marquez, to collect the award on his behalf.
Excited: Colin Firth's on-screen daughters from The King's Speech, Ramona Marquez (left) and Freya Wilson, accepted the Performance of the Year award on his behalf
Tribute: Keith Richards recorded a special video message to Screen Icon winner Johnny Depp
Gossip Girl star Ed Westwick presented the Must-See Movie of the Summer award to Bonnie Wright and the film's producers for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II.
Geoffrey Rush returned to the stage to present the Screen Icon award to Johnny Depp.
Talking about Depp, Rush said: 'Johnny Depp is so cool. He can come to rehearsal in a crazed blouse and a bit of mismatched jewellery and he can look hip - I would look like my mother.'
Success: Eliza Doolittle and Lloyd Wade performed their huge hit Pack Up
Here come the boys: James Corden and James McAvoy were among the guest presenters for the evening
And Depp's other Pirates co-star Keith Richards recorded a special tribute video message in honour of the actor.
In the message, which had been interspersed with footage of Johnny's most famous films, Richards said: 'There ain't another movie star who comes close to this guy. And to think that he didn't even start off as an actor first of all. That's my boy.'
And, as Depp was unable to attend, he recorded a message of thanks for viewers, calling the award a 'sublime honour'.
Eliza Doolittle was the third musical performance of the evening, having changed out of her Missoni dress into a pink crop top and blue pleated skirt.
James Corden was next up, treating viewers to a glimpse of which films to look forward to during the rest of the year.
Gwyneth Paltrow was next to take to the stage, presenting the Special Recognition Award to The King's Speech.
Accepting the award, director Tom Hooper said: 'This isn't the first award we have received for The King's Speech and of all those presenters, I have to say a special thanks to Gwyneth Paltrow for presenting this award.'

In honour: Geoffrey Rush collected the Screen Icon award on behalf of his Pirates of the Caribbean co-star Johnny Depp
Nicole Scherzinger and Lewis Hamilton interview at the National Movie Awards 2011

Harry Potter wins big at National Movie Awards,click
JLS - Eyes Wide Shut at 'The National Movie Awards'

Eliza Doolittle - Pack Up - National Movie Awards 2011 Live

Simon Pegg interview: Star Trek 2 and Tintin at the National Movie Awards 2011

Eliza Doolittle interview at the National Movie Awards 2011

source: dailymail

VIA Trying to drop a hint, Christine? Ms Bleakley arrives at National Movie Awards

I have loved all of the authors I've invited to participate in Just Contemporary. They were all invited because I especially loved whichever of their books I've read. But I definitely have to admit that Melina Marchetta agreeing to participate is the icing on my awesome cake. I've never tried to hide how much I love her writing or how strongly I've connected to her books, so here is my interview with Melina Marchetta! (runs off to fangirl squee more)

You've written both Contemporary and Fantasy. What made you decide to switch genres? Which do you prefer writing? Which is more of a challenge?

When Finnikin the character came to me, I knew I couldn’t set it in the here and now. It would have been too political, so I decided to set it in a world that looked like the year 1000. But I didn't want to deal with the Crusades so the fantasy novel was born. I had always been frightened of writing fantasy because I’m a bit in awe of good fantasy writing and didn't think I was good enough.

With regards to my preference, I always prefer the novel I’m working on so if you asked that question two years ago when The Piper's Son was being written, I’d say contemporary. I’m writing the follow up to Froi at the moment, so I’m preferring fantasy. With regards to difficulty, what I actually find is that the Contemporary novels are emotionally the hardest to write and the plot driven novels (Jellicoe and the Lumatere Chronicles) are structurally the hardest. The Lumatere Chronicles require much more research and world building and I’m currently in a great state of anxiety. Do not believe for one moment that writing gets easier.

Jellicoe Road is absolutely one of my most favorite books of all time. I recommend that book to so many people, more so than any other book I've ever read and I honestly doubt that I will ever find another book that affected me the way Jellicoe Road did. So, I'm so curious — What was it like? Writing that book?

Out of all my novels, it’s been in my head and heart the longest. I started writing a version of it back in 1993 and still today I’m putting the last full stop on the film script. So Taylor’s been there for quite some time. Plot, as I said earlier, is difficult. If you get one thing wrong, the whole thing pretty much falls to pieces and every time I solved one problem, I’d discovered another. It really hurt my head trying to get it right. While writing the film script I had to find a completely different way for Taylor to piece together the clues of the past so it hurt my head a second time. In the script, there are visuals like maps and wall charts and photographs and artwork to do the job of the words in the novel. I never want to have to replot this story again.

I think the key word is patience. I would never ever criticise someone who can write a novel a year. But I can’t. Some of the magical moments come to me when I've let it simmer between drafts. Jonah Griggs was born in that simmer. He appeared as a multi-dimensional character in Taylor’s story almost ten years after I first started writing it. I’d wait those ten years again for another character like him.

On a similar note — I've talked a lot of people who feel the same, who just so fully connected to the characters and the story you created. What does it feel like, knowing that you've inspired and created such intense emotions in so many people?

Overwhelming seems a cliché, but that’s what it is. What I love best is that most readers have responded to the friendships rather than just the love story. There are many things you want as a writer. Awards, shortlists, starred reviews etc are fantastic. But I want to be read, not just referred to. So knowing that someone in the deep south of America or a reader in Russia or Korea or Sweden or Spain is relating to Taylor, well that’s pretty mindboggling for someone on the other side of the world. Twenty years ago when my first novel was released, I calculated I knew two hundred people in the world and that only 200 people would ever read my work.

You said you wrote The Piper's Son because Tom wouldn't leave your thoughts alone. Are there any other characters that have been sneaking back that we might get to see again?

If that’s a surreptitious way of asking about Jimmy Hailler, no. I don’t know where Jimmy is. I think he’s happy though because the real Jimmy is happy and I never thought he would be. I looked up the real Jimmy’s profile on facebook the other day and under interests he wrote, “ laughing at people when they fall down”. Cruel, but very Jimmy-like and it made me laugh in the same way as when I knew him as a teenager.

The problem with revisiting a character is that you don’t just have to concentrate on one. You have to work out where they all are. How can I do that without breaking a reader’s heart with life’s realities or fooling them into believing in perfect endings for everyone? What I try very hard to do is leave the ending open for the reader so they can work it out for themselves. But I promise that in my head, they get a happy ending. Jonah appears in his little brothers book, The Gorgon in the Gully and I think I’ll be writing another Danny Griggs novel next year so Jonah’s bound to make another cameo. A friend and I are also working on a 10 part TV series which may go nowhere, but we think it’s about Jessa McKenzie, four years on.

You caught me.:) Although I'm beyond delighted to hear that Jonah makes a reappearance, I was most definitely hoping we'd get to see more of Jimmy!

Jellicoe Road is one of the most complex and layered books I've ever read. There is so much, so many secrets and hidden things to learn. Did you start Jellicoe Road knowing how the story was to unfold, knowing where it would take you? Or did the story surprise you too, unfolding slowly, layer by layer as you wrote?

I think I failed for so long because I didn’t know what the story was about. I only knew who the story was about and where it was set. But plot is very important in a mystery and it wasn't until I read the novel, Holes, that I figured out I was going to have a parallel story line. There are things that did surprise me. Without giving anything away, I remember exactly when mid-writing I discovered why Jonah was on the railway platform that day when they were younger. I've said before, there are parts in this novel that make me cry every time. The Jonah on the platform incident is one of them.

As you've probably guessed, I'm not exaggerating when I say that I LOVE Jellicoe Road. Are there any secrets or unknown tidbits you can share?

Just a few film script things. We have a producer, director and a complete film script. The two major differences between the script and novel are that Sam, the kid from Taylor’s past, isn't in the film script. But I do promise that the emotional impact of those scenes is still there. The other thing is that the Hermit is now part of the present, rather than the past. I’m almost sure we’ll cast mostly complete unknowns. It will be shot in Australia and I do have a dream actress for Taylor. I don’t think we have a chance of getting her but I spent twenty years on this story so I’m not exactly one to give up on a dream

What's next from you in the Contemporary world? Will there be a Finnikinthree, or will another Contemporary be next?

Well Froi of the Exiles has a cliffhanger ending. Not a Finnikin ending, but a true cliffhanger. The third novel, Quintana of Charyn, begins three weeks after and every time I read a fantastic review of Froi, I’m elated and stressed out of my head at the same time. QoC comes out in October 2012. After that I think I’ll be concentrating on our TV series idea. We want it to be really edgy and dark, but with a great sense of hope and powerfully flawed relationships and characters. That will be keeping us very busy.

Thank you so incredibly much for participating! I loved learning a little more about the books and your writing!

And to everyone reading this, go pick up a Melina Marchetta book pronto!!Seriously. She's amazing.

Hey everyone! I have Carlyle here with us today as a guest!! Carlyle does like to be secretive, so we have an avatar, not a picture, but let's still make Carlyle feel welcome! Lots of comment love!:) (Note, I did change some of the links in this post. Anything in () is mine. I changed any url left into a link)

My favorite Childhood book of all Time.

Introducing: Jock of the Bushveld by Sir Percy Fitzpatrick

I read Jock of the Bushveld when I was about nine. This book has stayed with me thought out my life. This is the tale of Jock and his owner. It rings so true to man's best friend analogy. Jock saves his owners life, guides him though the danger of the South Africa wilderness. Comes up against a lion, and many more. In this book I found love, adventure, comedy, heartache, friendship and adventure. To date one of the best books I had ever read. This book is significant to me because I have walked where Jock and Sir Patrick once walked. I have smelt and breathed in the air of the bushveld that brought about the writer in me. Jock of the Bushveld is a legend in South Africa for his courage, loyalty and bravery. (in my blog to read the original tale!)

Jock of the Bushveld is set in the 1880s of Southern Africa, a tale of the wilderness years of the land as the discovery of diamonds and gold began to rapidly transform the political and economic dynamics of the Southern African landmass. It began as stories told to Fitzpatrick's own children of his adventures in the veld with his dog Jock and only later becoming the publication we know so well.

The most interesting part of Jock is the exploration of the open spaces of the veld of Southern Africa and its wildlife, which is done through the vehicle of the relationship between Fitzpatrick and Jock and their adventures together, mostly in the form of hunting wildlife. The particular atmosphere of both the highveld and the lowveld are so well conveyed. This is the treasure of the book and a profound impression of the land, this very land, in the blood of its people that is the core to understanding South Africans. The hunting episodes remind us of the wealth of the land (the author came to the land in search of gold and this remains a submerged vein to the story) both in its fauna and flora, amidst the collisions of its different peoples.

A true tale of friendship

This piece comes at the most appropriate time for me, as it is just been released on the big screen. Jock of the Bushveld is back as SA's first 3D animated film: (in my blog to watch the trailer.)

And as always the film only picks up on some of the aspects the book holds. After you have taken the kids to watch this film, get the book. It will soon become the kids favourite bed time story. Unlike many fairytales this book does not have a happy ending. But the lesson learnt and the story between man and dog will stay in your heart for all time.

You can read more about this amazing story on my blog, Carlyle on The Broken Series.

You can also find me on twitter @CarlyleL

I was born in Johannesburg South Africa during the terrible fashion decade of the 80's. My first poem was written in the heart of the bushveld wilderness amongst the Elephants, Giraffes and the roaring Lions that I could hear from our camp site at night. I was twelve when my pen hit a random piece of paper and my best poem was written. It is to the majestic environment of the bushveld that I owe the fire to my writing experience. As a teenager I moved onto lyric writing. I started writing my first Novel almost 18 months ago. Received a certificate from the Writing School of SA collage in 2010.My first Novel is due in 2012. I am a amateur writer, blogger and a new Author. I am a mother of two, a wife, a marketing consultant during the day, a reader at night and in my mind I am writing all the time.

I have total confidence that you will love Jock of The Bushveld as much as I did, and still do.

Thank you so much Carlyle for joining us today for Memory Monday! This sounds like such a sweet story!:) I'll have to look it up!

Terrence Malick: The Tree of Life

Everyone loves a recluse, especially when they pop out of the woodwork with masterpieces such asBadlandsandThe New Worldevery seven-years or so. Terrence Malick's latest, starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, sets to be just as beautiful, poetic and complex as his previous films and early buzz has Malick tipped to take home the top prize, 32-years after his first Palme d'Or nomination forDays Of Heaven.
Julia Leigh: Sleeping Beauty

Oscar-winning director Jane Campion presents this erotic retelling of the classic fairytale. Australian beauty Emily Browning swaps the samurai sword and school girl outfit ofSucker Punchto play a college student drawn into a mysterious, hidden world of prostitution. Written and directed by Australian novelist Julia Leigh, this is a triumph of female filmmaking and the poignant, beautifully crafted story should appeal to the A-List jury.
Nicolas Winding Refn: Drive

The black sheep, or black Cadillac rather, of the finalists isDrive; an action movie with art house sensibilities. It stars international film festival favourite Ryan Gosling as a Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a wheelman and discovers a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong. It doesn't sound like the usual Palme d'Or fare, which is exactly why it might work. It also stars Carey Mulligan, Christina Hendricks, Ron Perlman, Bryan Cranston and Oscar Isaac.
Lars Von Trier: Melancholia

Von Trier blew everyone away with his sexually graphic and emotionally horrific filmAntichristat last year's Cannes, which divided critics and audiences alike. His latest and eighth Palme d'Or nominated filmMelancholialooks to be a safer bet with Kristen Dunst and renowned French actress Charlotte Gainsbourg starring as sisters who find their relationship challenged as a nearby planet threatens to collide into the Earth.

Pedro Almodóvar: La Piel que Habito (The Skin that I Inhabit)

Bizarre. That's the first word that springs to mind when watching excerpts from acclaimed Spanish director Pedro Almodóvar's latest about a plastic surgeon (Antonio Banderas) on the hunt for the men who raped his daughter. Part horror, part thriller, all parts dramatic, this is one of the more left-field, artistic offerings amongst the 20 finalists.

Takashi Miike: Ichemei (Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai)

The prolific and controversial Japanese filmmaker's newbie will be the first 3D feature to compete in Cannes and is a re-imagining of Masaki Kobayashi's 1962 filmHarakiri. With over 70 titles to his name, Miike's films range from violent and bizarre to dramatic and family-friendly, with this being his first to screen at the famous festival. It's an outside chance to take home any of the major prizes since its biggest coup was getting selected for competition in the first place.
Out of competition films to keep an eye on throughout the course of the festival are Australian serial-killer dramaSnowtown, the controversial Princess Diana documentaryUnlawful Killingand Oscar-winner Gus Van Sant's latestRestless, starring talented Aussie actress Mia Wasikowka. The Cannes film festival wraps on May 22. In the meantime, I suggest you check out theRestlesstrailer below because, put simply, it looks amazing.

VIA That Cannes-do spirit

VIA The Hoff Vs The Piranha.........OH IT IS ON!!!

I that Vasilly had done a post on what books she had to read this semester at her blog 1330v. I thought this was such a great idea I had to steal the idea to use here! I'm taking seven classes this semester but two of them are business classes and therefor not really that interesting, so I'll just skip those books (the classes are Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness I and Foundations of Entrepreneurship in case you were wondering).

I'm taking a class called Film and Literature that is all about visual essays. For this class we're going to watch a film essay every week and have other essays that we read. I was really excited when I saw the book list for this class because it included some books I've wanted to buy for awhile. This includes The Art of the Personal Essay: An Anthology from the Classical Era to the Present

and The Lost Origins of the Essay

. These are both humongous essay collections that will take me forever to get through, so I'm really excited I'll be required to read from them this semester. We're also reading Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: The American Classic, in Words and Photographs, of Three Tenant Families in the Deep South

. I'm not really sure what this one is about other than it deals with sharecroppers from the South. The final book for this class is The Pleasure of the Text

by Roland Barthes. This one appears to be about why people read, it's a very small book, only 80 pages so I'm interested to see what it's about.

The second English class I'm taking is Literature and the Book: Renaissance Texts as Technology. There are no books for this class but we will do a lot of readings online. I'm planning on using my nook to take the pdf's with me to class so I'll be sure to let everyone know how that goes. Even though we don't have books I know we're going to read Shakespeare, Donne, and Spenser, as well as texts about how reading formats have changed. I looked at the syllabus for this class yesterday and we're taking seven field trips!

The final English class I'm taking is Advanced Nonfiction Writing: Nature Writing. An opening just came up in this class yesterday and I was thrilled because I waited all summer for it to happen. I love nature writing and I'm excited to do some of my own. I'm also excited because while this class meets twice a week, only one meeting is actually in a classroom. The other meeting every week is at an outdoor location. For this class we're reading Nature Writing: The Tradition in English

, which appears to be an anthology of nature writing. A quick glance at some of the writers has me excited because they include Thoreau and Annie Dillard who I know I enjoy.

I'm taking an anthropology class that we're using the textbook Introduction to Physical Anthropology

for. I don't have much to say about that one. I'm also taking piano lessons but as far as I know there isn't a book for that yet.

I'd also just like to mention where I purchased the majority of my books. I rent expensive textbooks but for my book for English classes I just Better World Books. I'm mentioning this simply because I support this company. They offer free shipping in the United States and they use the money they get from the books to support global literacy organizations. If you have to buy textbooks anyway you might as well support a great organization as well.

I am an Amazon Affiliate. If you make a purchase using one of my links I will earn a small percentage which will then go back into this blog.