Scholars and curious visitors have spent more than a century trying to unravel those mysteries and more work needs to be done.

That's why nearly 30 top archaeologists from universities and organizations around the nation called on the U.S. Interior Department on Tuesday to protect the area surrounding Chaco Culture National Historical Park from oil and gas development.

In a letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, they talked about the countless hours they've spent in the field, the dozens of books they've published about the Chaco society and their decades of collective experience studying its connection to modern Native American tribes in the Southwest. They call Chaco a distinct resource.

"Many of the features associated with this landscape — the communications and road systems that once linked the canyon to great house sites located as far away as southeast Utah and which are still being identified to this day — have been damaged by the construction of oil and gas roads, pipelines and well pads," the archaeologists said.

They're pushing for the agency to consider a master leasing plan that would take into account cultural resources beyond the boundaries of the national park. They're also looking for more coordination between federal land managers, tribes and archaeologists.

The Bureau of Land Management is revamping its resource management plan for the San Juan Basin and all new leasing within a 10-mile radius of Chaco park has been deferred until the plan is updated, likely in 2016.

Wally Drangmeister, a spokesman for the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, said the BLM's existing plan already takes into account cultural resources. He said there has been a push by environmentalists to tie Chaco to development in the Mancos shale more than 10 miles from the park.

Environmentalists have been calling for protections for the greater Chaco area, and Drangmeister said that expansive definition could put the whole San Juan Basin off limits.

The basin is one of the largest natural gas fields in the U.S. and has been in production for more than 60 years. More development is expected in some areas since technology is making it easier for energy companies to tap the region's oil resources.

Some archaeologists have theorized that Chaco's influence spread far and wide from its remote desert location. A World Heritage site, Chaco includes a series of great houses, or massive multistory stone buildings, some of which were oriented to solar and lunar directions and offered lines of sight between buildings to allow for communication.

Steve Lekson, a professor and curator at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History, has spent years studying Chaco and its influence over the Southwest. He likened the process to learning how to play baseball after discovering home base and the pitcher's mound.

"You keep poking around and find more bases and the warning tracks and all that stuff. You need the whole picture to understand how the game is played," he said. "Of course, Chaco being a political system or major regional system is much more complicated than baseball. You need enough of the package intact so you can actually understand the structure of the thing."

Lekson and others said the hope that there's more to be discovered doesn't mean energy development should come to a halt.

"I don't think anybody is saying that, but we need to pay a lot of attention to how that's done and be cognizant of the larger issue," he said. "It shouldn't be a site-by-site thing."

The archaeologists' letter comes on the heels of a tour of the Chaco area by U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, and Interior Deputy Secretary Mike Connor. The two met with land managers and others after the tour.

Connor said there are Navajo allottees who want to develop their resources and other Native Americans who want to protect those resources.

"It's a balancing act throughout all of BLM's lands and I think Chaco is particularly unique," he said. "The more I learn about it, the more I was struck by the more we all have to learn."

Author: Susan Montoya Bryan | Source: The Associated Press [July 01, 2015]

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)»

The Superintendent for Cultural Heritage responsible for the sites at Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabia said in a statement that the closure "highlights the critical situation...at Mt.
Vesuvius archaeological sites".

The 36 staff members at Herculaneum are divided between five shifts daily but that is inadequate for a site that covers an area of 4.5 hectares and requires six or seven staff per shift to supervise and protect the ancient site, officials said.

A sudden illness threw the schedule off and forced Monday's closure to the public, they added.

Herculaneum - like the more famous Pompeii - was destroyed by an eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD.

Both are UNESCO World Heritage sites and concerns about their protection and preservation have been increasing amid reports in recent years about cave-ins, natural disasters, and outright thefts of priceless archaeological relics.

Source: ANSA [July 06, 2015]

Dear All,

The recent snub by the British government to UNESCO's offer to mediate in the issue of the Parthenon Sculptures dispute and the arrogant wording directed at the Greek government's often repeated offer to negotiate the matter by discussion confirmed our position that Britain never had the intention to enter into good faith discussions. As we had said in recent fora,  the only road we saw to possible success was one of legal action, with a direct and dynamic confrontation with Whitehall.

The recent response by Britain dissolved any illusions we had regarding the powers in the UK to be brought to do the right thing,  and to right a historical wrong.  We too had hoped that Britain would succumb to worldwide public opinion to correct an outrage,  the stripping and vandalising of the Parthenon of 60% of its famous millenia-old  Sculptures ,  a crime committed when Greeks were under occupation and unable to defend their archaeological heritage and national symbols of identity.

The latest declaration by the new minister of culture in the UK continues with the hard line of his predeccesors, namely that "The marbles were legally acquired according to the laws of the time. " So Mr Minister were 3 million African slaves, captured,  transported and sold,  "according to the laws of the time." Opium too was purchased and sold, in tons "according to the laws of the time". Those who did not agree to buy your opium had two wars declared on them,  and so China paid with the loss of Hong Kong and a treaty to buy your Indian grown opium.  This, Mr Minister, is NOT that time.  We are disputing your CURRENT possession of symbols of our heritage, removed from Athens and held by you in a totally government financed and controlled museum institution (all the board is appointed directly, or indirectly by the UK government or by the Queen).

This,  though,  is not the issue.

One more British government acting like  an infant  petulantly hugging another child's toy,  saying "It is mine, mine!"  is understandable,  because there is no home-made item that can compare in beauty,  artisanry,  historic or other value to those created  by a superior ancient civilisation.  We may understand the feeling,  and commiserate,  but that does not justify the possession of the looted Greek scultures taken from the Parthenon.  There is no justification for it.  We sympathise with the situation the British Museum is in,  but our sympathy doesn't extend to giving up iconic and defitive items of our heritage,  nor did our illustrious and talented predecessors in Ancient Athens build the Parthenon to have its facade torn off and damaged  by a British ambassador to decorate his Scottish residence. The Parthenon was built by Pericles and the Greek city states to commemorate the victory of Greek civilisation against the very type of barbarity  and lack of respect that Elgin indulged in 2300 years later.

The British position is well known and is in keeping with how official Britain has acted in the last few centuries.  To win in a contest the basic rule MUST be to understand your opponent and create your game strategy around this knowledge.

Anyone who has studied British history and politics will know that Britain NEVER,  but NEVER,  gives anything back unless forced to do so.  India, Cyprus,  as well as dozens of colonies of the Empire,  and other possessions acquired without the consent of the people, often with great bloodshed caused by British troops were only given back by Britain after a bitterly contested conflict,  on the field of battle,  in courts,  or with a series of extended non-violent political actions by those who had lost their heritage,  freedoms,  or historical archaeological treasures.  Britain today in its museums and in the Tower of London still holds numerous purloined and pillaged items as well as those taken by reason of  military superiority from a vanquished foe defending himself on his own soil.  The Kohinoor Diamond in the so called Crown Jewels  taken from a defeated 15 year old prince in India, is but one example. Manifest Destiny demanded it.  We oppose this way of thinking.

This lengthy introduction,  and I will apologise,  was to emphasise my conviction that dialogue for the return of the Parthenon Marbles, after so many valiant and polite efforts by Greece,  and its overseas friends in all walks of life,  is not a viable option,  and only  incurable romantics or people without an understanding of the official British character and its limitations can insist that this dead end is the road to the Restitution in Athens.

The problem is not the obduracy and intransigence of British officialdom.  It is a given, and we have to act  with that in mind.  It is with the very knowledge of the historic failure of Greek diplomacy,  both cultural and political,  and that of our own self-financed voluntary Parthenon organisations, to bring about the return, that it was encouraging when the Greek government,  that for 40 years has not asked Britain officially for the Sculptures return,  not long ago decided to involve an experienced and prestigious British legal firm Doughty Street Chambers led by George Robertson QC,  to represent our interests and to write a report regarding  what options were open for Greece to act.

Overall public awareness of the issue and additional sympathy for the Greek case was given very welcome boosts,  human nature being what it is,  by declarations of public support by celebrities such as George Clooney,  Matt Damon and others,  while a visit to Greece by Mrs Clooney with her senior colleagues at the UK law office created a media frenzy and a heightening of public interest in the Parthenon issue.  The Doughty Chambers law group produced a 140 page confidential report for the Greek government describing,  as leaked to the press,  5 options.  The one considered to have the highest chance of success was,  and this is no surprise to us,  for Greece to go immediately to the  European Court of Human Rights where,  according to the report,  there was  the greatest chance of a Greek legal victory.  The lawyers were specific: it is  now or never,  if the opportunity is  not to be lost with issues such as statutes of limitations in the near future killing Greek chances of recovery of the items through international court decisions.

In Greece,  as we all know there is a new government,  and the report was delivered to them.  With the understanding of the British penchant for intransigence,  fortified by the recent snub to UNESCO, and the history of failed attempts,  the new minister had a detailed road map in his hands,  to move forward,  with of course the support of millions around the world and at home.  Expecting his decision to do this,  using the British law firm and their international expertise and experience in cross border cultural issues we were stunned to hear the announcement of Under Minister Mr Nickos Xidakis,  a former journalist,  who announced,  in more words than these,  that " We will not go against Britain in court... This is a matter to be settled politically and diplomatically...this issue will be settled, bit by bit over, time..."

Looking at what the minister said let us examine the  viability of his declared course of action over that which the British lawyers and we ourselves at IPSACI believe,  and we all want the same thing ,  the return of the Parthenon Sculptures.

A) Mr Xidakis rejects the expert opinion of the British legal experts.  Claiming we may lose in court.  But for 200 years we have lost! We can only win,  or if we lose here, we can initiate a new legal action in another court.

B) Mr Xidakis says the issue can be won diplomatically.  The question is,  after 200 years of failed  diplomatic initiatives, is the government of Mr Xidakis in such a powerful international position to impose a solution using diplomacy? Does he know of Greek diplomats who can force Mr Cameron to sign a new law allowing/directing the Return of the Parthenon Sculptures?

C) Mr Xidakis told the press that the issue should be dealt with "politically" .  This is indeed one way countries settle disputes.  The assumption by lay persons like myself,  on hearing the Minister,  is that Greece at this moment has the political clout to bring the British Museum to its knees and to force Mr Cameron to sign the document of repatriation of the Sculptures to Athens. With all our goodwill towards Mr Xidakis, where does he draw this feeling of current Greek political power and superiority over Britain from?

D) Finally the minister says that this issue is being slowly resolved, "little by little".

But it has already been 200 years from the stripping of the friezes and metopes and Britain has not moved one centimetre in the direction Greece demands!

If the minister does not tell us why he feels his/our  government has the diplomatic and political power to solve the issue,  I very much fear that his position looks like a hot potato shifting of the issue to a future government because of  reluctance to take the bull by the horns,  as recommended by the UK lawyers, and get into court with his British counterpart.(Apologies for the mixed metaphors!)

I have a great fear that we are about to lose the Parthenon Sculptures for ever, and that the work of all our organisations, ministries,  diplomatic missions,  our volunteer supporters, and decades of dedicated work by people such as yourselves around the world, and in Greek and international  organisations are about to be lost down the drain.

I therefore beg those who believe that we must recommend to Minister Xidakis and his staff to listen to the recommendations of people and experts who know the issues well,  and understand the mindset of those walking the halls of Russell Square and Westmister,  to express their concern to the authorities in Greece.

Thank you for your patience in reading this long analysis of where I believe  we are today,  in view of the recent, and disturbing developments.

Best to all,
Alexis Mantheakis
Chairman of the International Parthenon Sculptures Action Committee Inc.
Athens office.
www.ipsaci.com
+(30)22990 47566

Alice In Wonderland: Johnny Depp

Weirdo. Loner. Outsider. These are some of the terms director Tim Burton uses to describe himself. You will notice `creative genius’ isn’t one of them, however, the term is being thrust upon on the quirky filmmaker thanks to Tim Burton: The Exhibition which opened at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image (ACMI) in Melbourne on Thursday. The show is an extension of an exhibition curated by the Performance Center Alexanderhoehe, Iserlohn (Germany), which attracted more than 850, 000 visitors and made it the third largest exhibit at MoMA ever, behind Picasso and Matisse.

It is a remarkable feat for someone who is firstly, not a mainstream artist, and secondly, alive.

“Most of this stuff was never meant to really be seen,” says Burton, sitting cross-legged in an ACMI room in his signature uniform of black jeans, a black shirt and black oversized cardigan. His famous curly hair frizzes out at all ends and his hands, fluid and always moving, add to its state by running through it as he describes the `freedoms’ of being labelled a weirdo.
“As soon as society says you’re a weirdo, then you’re a weirdo, whether you like it or not,” says the 51-year-old.
“After a certain time you just accept it and it gives you a sense of freedom because if you want to wear a bag over your head society will just accept it because they thought you were weird anyway.
“Like when I was at Disney they thought I was weird, so I would work under my desk for half the day.
“Sometimes if they couldn’t find me I’d just be in a dark cupboard working, like my private confessional.
“So there’s an amount of freedom when you’re categorised a certain way. “
Growing up in Burbank, California, Tim Burton was fascinated by the visual image and spent his formative years sketching, painting, animating and filming what he saw around him.
“When you circle outside of society, when you’re kind of, you’re not in there, you’re looking at things,” he says.
“A lot of it has to do with feeling out of society so you have a lot more observation.”
These observations make up the first part of the exhibit, Surviving Burbank, and include, among dozens of sketches and early short films, a handmade book he submitted to Disney in the 1970s and the accompanying rejection letter. Several years later Burton achieved his goal and began working at Disney’s Burbank studios as an animator. Some of his early work for the company was as on family hits The Black Cauldron and The Fox and the Hound, which Burton physically shudders remembering.
“I was never good at drawing foxes, especially the cute ones,” he says.
“That’s why I can’t look at the exhibit because it freaks me out too much.
“I know they’ve done a good job, but it’s like seeing your dirty laundry hanging up. “`Oh there’s my underwear from 1973 and there’s some dirty socks.’

Personal embarrassment aside, the exhibition is an in-depth look at the creative processes and twisted imagination of Burton, featuring more than 700 works including drawings, early films, sculptures, concept art, installations, puppets, costumes and cinematic ephemera. The second part of the exhibition, Beautifying Burbank, follows Burton’s step away from the Disney studio and his first early film and animation works, including his rarely seen Japanese kung-fu version of Hansel and Gretel and better known works Frankenweenie and Vincent, the latter based around one of Burton’s great inspirations — horror movie icon Vincent Price.

The final section, Beyond Burbank, looks at his feature film career, which has spanned over two decades. From his early works, such as Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands, to more recent films like Charlie and The Chocolate Factory and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street, Burton has made the leap from cult to commercially successful filmmaker. His latest film, Alice In Wonderland, has grossed more than $1 billion at the international box office and gone on to become the fifth highest grossing film of all time. But Burton is quick to write-off his recent success and says if spending half his lifetime in the movie-making business has taught him anything, it is that filmmaking is a `humbling process’.

“I remember after making Batman I thought `oh, that was a success, I can go and do anything now’,” he says.
“And so I went and pitched them Edward Scissorhands and they gave me a completely blank look.
“Nobody wanted to do that and nobody wanted to do Ed Wood, so I had to go about it in other ways.
“Then I remember pitching a musical version of The House Of Wax with Michael Jackson that he was into but they, the studio, were definitely not into.
“It’s always a struggle to make a film.”

Despite the many `challenges’ faced when trying to get a project off the ground, Burton says he has faith that everything works out for a reason. He cites the studio not letting him have Sammy Davis Jr play Beetlejuice as an example, because `it opened the door for Michael Keaton’ who also went on to play Batman in Burton’s two adaptations of the comic book superhero. Another near-miss occurred when, after three hours of auditioning, Burton talked a young Tom Cruise out of wanting the role of Edward Scissorhands, which was later filled by Johnny Depp, who has become a frequent collaborator and one of Burton’s closest friends. Failed projects and major successes go hand in hand for Burton, who says he has learned `not to regret anything’.

“I don’t really regret, it’s always important not to,” he says.
“Every movie I’ve done, whether it’s turned out or not, I’ve still enjoyed aspects of it, you know?
“I mean I think the one I got the most slack with is Planet Of The Apes because that was messing with a classic.
“But I still enjoyed seeing talking apes."

One of the highlights of the exhibition is the 2.7kg costume Depp wore in Edward Scissorhands (above), which is stationed at the entrance to the exhibit along with one of the scissor hands on display in a glass cabinet. Other featured works which will have the legions of Burtonites, the name given to passionate Tim Burton fans, gushing is the famous outfit Michelle Phfieffer wore as Catwoman in Batman Returns, original puppets from Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas borrowed from the Disney archives, costumes and sketches from Alice In Wonderland and the Burtonarium, a carnival tent buried deep within the exhibit which houses a light emitting sculptural work by Burton called Carousel (pictured at the very bottom).

ACMI Head of Exhibitions Conrad Bodman says the `diversity’ of the exhibits represents Burton as a filmmaker and goes a long way to explaining his loyal fan base.

“One of the things that Tim has always done is work across a range of film genres - action films, animated films, family films, horror films - and I think all of those types of films have different audiences and when you pull all those inspirations together in the one place, people want to come,” he says.
“What we’re showing in the exhibition is a lot of original concept artwork for his major feature films and we’re kind of looking at the process of his feature filmmaking over the years.
“People can see that often the hand drawn is the starting point for some ideas and then that turns into a visual reality for a whole process of development.
“Tim still does a lot of that kind of drawing, painting and making puppets for himself and people will be fascinated to see that process in action.”

Unlike many other filmmakers, Burton says he has been able to maintain his artistic integrity and stay connected to his creative roots by separating himself from the industry.

“I don’t live in Hollywood,” he says.
“I moved away many years ago and once you start doing things they try to treat you as a commodity, a thing.
“You know, you spend your whole life to be recognised as a human being and then they try to tag you as a thing.
“Like `oh, you’ve done this and that’s what we expect’ so I don’t go back and look at my films too much because I try not to become a `thing’.
“I try to keep human... no person or people should be described as one thing.
“I think everybody has lots of different aspects to their personality.
“Some are dark, funny, sad, there are so many words for each person.”

Considering Melbourne was originally to be called Batmania, after one of it’s founders John Batman, it seems appropriate that it is to be the home of Tim Burton: The Exhibition, which runs until October 11. Already ACMI has experienced a fevour amongst Burton’s Australian fans, with all of his public appearances selling out within 24 hours of going on sale and hundreds of fans queuing through Federation Square to be the first to enter the exhibit when it opened on Thursday and have copies of the exhibition guide signed by Burton himself. It is ironic that his work and films are so accepted by the society he once considered himself `outside’ of. It is a phenomenon best summed up by Burton’s partner and regular collaborator Helena Bonham Carter, with whom he has two children. In a book on the art of Tim Burton she says: “When I see him surrounded by flushed and hyperventilating young fans I feel it’s a triumph of the lonely misunderstood outsider child he once felt he was. Now he’s the most understood misunderstood person I’ve come across in the world.”

In the meantime Burton says he is enjoying a lull between live action projects, while busying himself with a feature-length adaptation of Frankenweenie (concept art), due for release next year. He emphasises the stop-motion animated film is the only project he is working on and committed to, despite online reports which have linked him to adaptations of The Addams Family and super-natural TV series Dark Shadows, both which he blatantly denies were ever `considered’.

“That’s why I never go on the internet because it always seems like I have some sort of evil clone out there that is doing all these projects,” he says.
“I’m still recovering from the last one.
“Whenever I read this stuff I get tired, I think `God, I must be busy’.
“The studios often have a release date before they have a script, which is such a mistake.
“I’m trying to get out of that and, you know, into this strange concept of having a script before you announce a release date.”

P.S. I did the good Samaritan thing on Sunday and took some boys I babysit to see The Karate Kid. Considering what I endured sitting through that movie, karma better have a pet unicorn heading my way! And while you're in the laughing mood, you must must must watch the video clip for The Karate Kid theme song: Never Say Never by Justin Bieber, featuring rapping from Jaden Smith. Hopefully this is not an indication that Smith will make a rap song to accompany every movie he makes, just like his dad. But seriously, when you look young standing next to Justin Bieber then it's time to stop rapping and get back in the womb.

VIA Picasso, Matisse and... Tim Burton!..

The surprise announcement came only 48 hours after Amal Clooney and the team at London’s Doughty Street Chambers sent the Greek government a 150-page report admitting that there was only a 15% chance of their success in a British court, and that Greece should consider pursuing the claim at the International Court of Justice. However, quite understandably, the Greek government has decided that what Clooney is really saying is that they have no case.

The Syriza government is keenly aware that British courts are recognized the world over for their experience in resolving international disputes, including those involving British interests and institutions. So, quite reasonably, the new Greek government has concluded that an international court will probably not reach a different conclusion. Nikos Xydakis, culture minister, has therefore announced that Greece will drop its legal claim and pursue “diplomatic and political” avenues instead.

This is unsurprising, as — contrary to the widespread misconception — there was nothing illegal about the way in which Lord Elgin saved the Parthenon Sculptures from acute ongoing destruction. The mauling had started when the Greek church smashed up a large number of the ancient temple’s carvings in the fifth century. The Venetians then blew up chunks of the building in 1687. And in the 1800s, when Lord Elgin arrived in Athens, the occupying Ottomans were grinding the sculptures up for limestone and using them for artillery target practice.

Elgin had intended to commission casts and paintings of the sculptures, but when he saw firsthand the ongoing damage (about 40% of the original sculptures had been pulverised), he acquired an export permit from the Ottoman authorities in Athens, and brought as many as he could back to safety in Britain. It was a personal disaster which bankrupted him, but it has meant that, since 1816, the British Museum has been able to share with its visitors some of the best-preserved Parthenon Sculptures in the world.

What is usually missing in the emotion of the Elgin Marbles debate is that the British Museum is a universal museum, which tells the story of humanity’s cultural achievements from the dawn of time. In this, the work of the Ancient Greek department is world leading, and part of a network of museum classicists — including those from the New Acropolis Museum in Athens — who work together collaboratively, sharing their knowledge and passion for the classical world with the widest possible public.

Coincidentally, the British Museum (the nation’s largest tourist attraction) is currently hosting a once-in-a-lifetime exhibition of Greek sculpture, drawing on its own collection and generous loans from other museums all over the world to showcase the evolution of ancient Greek ideas about beauty and the human body. In this breathtaking visual story of the march of classical ideas about aesthetics, the Parthenon Sculptures take their place, contributing eloquently to the state of sculpture in the golden age of Athenian carving under Pheidias.

The overarching misconception we need to get over is that museum objects belong uniquely to the country in which they were created. If that was so, the world should empty out its leading museums of the foreign artefacts they have purchased or been donated. Athens would be no exception in this, and would be required to return their extensive collections of Egyptian, Chinese, Islamic, and South American art.

Of course, it is an absurd idea. The world is manifestly enhanced by museums and their depth of specialised knowledge. They are, above all, educational places that enrich us all. The fact that half the surviving sculptures from the Parthenon can be seen in Athens, with the remaining half split between London, Berlin, Munich, Würzburg, Copenhagen, the Vatican, and — thanks to the British Museum — the Hermitage in St Petersburg earlier this year, ensures that the widest possible audience is able to experience for themselves the unique and bewitching ability of fifth-century Athenians to convert rough stone into warm, living flesh.

Another page has turned definitively in the story of the Parthenon Sculptures. The idea that Lord Elgin or Parliament did something illegal has finally been dropped, and not before time. Now the debate can proceed in a less antagonistic manner, and everyone can acknowledge that it is a question of politics, not looted artefacts.

As the world has recently discovered from the tragic destruction of Assyrian art at Nimrud, Mosul, and elsewhere in the Middle East, the planet’s heritage does not last unless someone looks after it. And so far, in the case of the Parthenon Sculptures (and indeed its holdings of Assyrian sculpture), the British Museum continues to do the world an enormous service

Author: Dominic Selwood | Source: The Telegraph [May 14, 2015]

Work it: (L-R) Mollie King, Una Healy, Vanessa White, Frankie Sandford and Rochelle were playing a short set at Metro Radio Live at Newcastle Arena - a kind of urban indoor one-day pop festival
However, one person who had most definitely overcome her nerves was Nicola Roberts, who made her live solo debut last night, just days after saying she was dreading going on without her Girls Aloud bandmates.
Talking to MTV earlier this week, she'd revealed: 'I'm nervous and I'm dreading the night before. I know I'm going to be like losing half a stone in weight overnight, so I'm going to have to get myself into the zone.'
She added: 'There does feel like there is a little bit of extra pressure, because it is just me and it feels a little bit like, is that enough, is it enough to just look at that?'
Solo debut: Nicola Roberts got over her nerves to play her first ever live gig without Girls Aloud at the show
Dainty doll: The star threw some shapes as she performed and totally won the screaming crowd over
However, she seemed to quash her butterflies and impressed the crowd, singing debut solo single Beat Of My Drum in a tiny red and pink dress accessorised with a kooky headscarf and multicoloured strappy heels.
Other acts playing the bash included dubstep queen Katy B, Chipmunk, Sophie Ellis Bextor, The Feeling, The Wanted, rapper Example, hot new band The Overtones and Amy Winehouse's goddaughter Dionne Bromfield.
Meanwhile, Nicola has been explaining why she chose to take such a different direction musically with her new single.
Strutting her stuff: Mollie was wearing titchy high-waisted orange shorts and a low cut see-through blue vest top that showed off her black bra
Working with hot underground music producer Diplo, she explained: 'I tried to drum in to him that I wanted these quirky dollops of sound like M.I.A. (who he's worked with before) or Major Lazer (his Jamaican dancehall project).
'Don’t try and make this record come back like a commercial, just-for-radio song with 500 dance synths all over it ‘cause it’s not where I’m trying to go.'
Scouse beauty Nicola also says she feels like she's unleashed her singing voice properly for the first time too.
On song: Frankie belts out one of The Saturday's singles wearing tight striped shorts and a blue top with a distressed denim top half, as Una sports ripped denim and a low cut purple top showing off her red bra
She said: 'I was sick to death of singing the quiet, whispery parts. I was like, no, f*** this, I’m going to sing!'
Talking to MTV, Nicola said it was good that it was so different to Girls Aloud: 'It was important my first single was different to anything else around.
'I love that it’s a song everyone can sing and dance along to.
Earning her stripes: Rochelle has teamed her jeans with a leather jacket and a midriff-exposing tiger print top
Thighs the limit: Una strikes a pose at the Newcastle Arena
Nicola Roberts will be releasing her debut album ‘Cinderella’s Eyes’ in October.
Meanwhile, the Daily Mirror is reporting that Girls Aloud are heading back into the studio in January.
But apparently, the girls are ditching their former producers, hitmakers Xenomania.
A source said: 'At the moment the Girls are really excited about their new beginning, although they are scratching their heads over who will create signature hits for them.
'They’re excited they’re going to be making a fresh start together on this next adventure of their lives.
'In six months time it’ll be back to work as normal – they are itching to get back in the studio.'
An audience with...Sophie Ellis Bextor was also on the bill at the bash
The band are reportedly set to reform to celebrate their 10th anniversary next year at a special festival for the London 2012 Olympics at the O2 Arena.
Nicola though is onstage again for a hometown gig at Liverpool's Radio City Live tonight, before playing T4 On The Beach on 10 July.
Beat Of My Drum is then released on 18 July.
Meanwhile, MTV Music show On Set With Nicola Roberts is on at 2pm tomorrow.
And the next Metro Radio Live is on 7 July and features JLS and Olly Murs.


source: dailymail

VIA Keeping it brief: The Saturdays play live in tiny shorts as Nicola Roberts gets over nerves to make solo onstage debut

Trick ‘R Treat (movie poster)

Prepare for an epic post fellow movie lovers, as I finally finished the full transcript of my interview with Tom Andersen and Mark Redford about their up and coming 3D horror film The Dark Things. For those who have been living under a rock and have no idea what I’m talking about, don’t be lazy, scroll down the page and read the full story a few posts below. Anywho, as I eluded to last week, the interview is extremely interesting and Farmer in particular shared some awesome insights on Hollywood, modern horror films and 3D technology. Enjoy and stay tuned for more The Dark Things updates.

Jane Storm: So now that you’re here, what have you guys been doing so far? Have you been busy scouting locations?
Tom Andersen: Yes, we’ve already had a meeting with Warner Roadshow Studios and talked about the different places we can film and what Queensland has to offer, which is obviously a lot. We’ve been very happy with that.

Jane Storm: So you’re definitely coming to shoot here?
Tom Andersen: Yes, definitely.

Jane Storm: Cool!
Tom Andersen: We’ve been giving Todd a quick, rushed Australian education.

Jane Storm: Have they been getting you hooked on Tim Tams and Vegemite yet? Tom Andersen: Oh, we’ve got him hooked on Tim Tams, but he’s not a fan of Vegemite.
Mark Redford: The Tim Tams are fine, I have no problem with Tim Tams, but Vegemite…
Tom Andersen: But he needed to do that to experience what we go through (laughs).

Jane Storm: And you will be shooting the film primarily at Warner Roadshow Studios?
Tom Andersen: Yes and on locations throughout the coast.

Jane Storm: When are you planning to start filming?
Tom Andersen: The start of the year, definitely next year.

Jane Storm: Great, I’m just trying to suss that out so I can lurk on set everyday. So, the storyline, it’s about Aboriginal legends that come to life? Have you started writing the script already?
Mark Redford: I started the outline for this, then decided it would be better to just come here and dive in, meet the people, see the locations and look at pubs. I can write pretending to be an Aussie, but I need to come here to experience it. We have consultants that we’re going to meet with. It’s been quite fun.

Jane Storm: What kind of research have you had to do so far?
Mark Redford: Just researching…even film is different. Watching your films compared to our films, they’re different. So, watching films and what I like to do the most is just people watch. While that sounds boring, it’s actually fascinating because everything is different, everyone is different; the way you drive, the way you think. It's really quite fun because I've never done anything like this. At the end of the day it will all come down to the story, it will all come down to the characters. I grew up reading Stephen King and he was great at taking ordinary people and dropping them into extraordinary situations and that's exactly what I'm going to do.

Jane Storm: Right. As far as Aboriginal legends and Aboriginal culture goes, have you got some experts and consultants who are helping with the projects?
Tom Andersen: Marcus Waters, he’s a screenwriter and teacher at Griffith University here. We’re actually meeting him today and tomorrow and going over a bunch of stuff.

Jane Storm: What has the support been like from places like Screen Queensland and Screen Australia?
Tom Andersen: Everyone has been great and very supportive. You know, film’s not so hot here right now, so they’re excited to be getting a film over here. Everyone has been great, which is a lot different from the states.

Jane Storm: Why do you think that is?
Tom Andersen: It helps that I’m Australian too, us Aussies love to back each other. Another thing is I’m bringing home a good story with top Hollywood people. And it’s different, with all the remakes and sequels, it’s different. Everyone is excited to have a breath of fresh air.

Jane Storm: What made you decide to shoot the film specifically here?
Tom Andersen: It's an Australian story about Aboriginals; it's not going to work in Canada.

Jane Storm: No, I meant why on the Gold Coast, out of the whole of Australia?
Tom Andersen: Because I'm from here, I love it here. And the town that the story is set, it’s on the beach and I love Queensland. I want it here.

Jane Storm: Did the facilities help drawing you here? I know the studios have quite amazing capabilities. James Cameron’s Sanctum just wrapped filming here and the Narnia entry.
Tom Andersen: We’ve already had photos sent to us of different locations we’ve fallen in love with. There are some cool areas along the beach and we had some photos sent to us this morning and we saw that and were like `holy hell, that’s perfect’.

Jane Storm: With the cast, have you got that picked out and underway?
Mark Redford: No, we just have a wish list.
Tom Andersen: We’re just going to wait on that right now. We would like to cast Australians, established Australians.
Mark Redford: I would like to do another nude scene but other than that…

Jane Storm: (Laughs) What’s the budget?
Tom Andersen: Around $25 million. This is mainly a research trip, give Todd an education, get our feelers down and meet our producer. We have Mike Lake on board so we’ll be having a chat with him. We’re just flying our soldiers in and getting them ready to go.

Jane Storm: Now Todd, you were one of the key people behind trying to get Halloween 3D up and running and you worked on My Bloody Valentine, which was my first 3D experience and one I must say I’m a huge fan of. What is it about 3D that lends itself so well to the horror genre?
Mark Redford: I like it for a number of reasons; I like the rollercoaster aspect of it. There's a couple of ways to do 3D; there's the gimmicky, in-your-face way, which we were not afraid of in My Bloody Valentine. There’s also the Avatar version, which is the more voyeuristic, immersion-type where you are sucked in. But the truth is, you’re going to get that anyway with today’s 3D and you saw it yourself with Valentine and other 3D movies that you see, you’re literally inside. But with a horror movie, you’re even closer to the scares and the action. So I like that, the risk is that because we had a lot of success with Valentine and there’s been a lot of success with other movies, because of that everyone jumped on the 3D bandwagon and the problem is a lot of 3D has been rushed with the conversion process and a lot of the stories. I think at the end of the day it still has to be about the story, it still has to be about telling that story and you have to shoot good 3D. We will be shooting everything in 3D, we won’t be converting. We will be doing everything we did with Valentine and Drive Angry. I think as a result of that, especially here with all the sweeping vistas and the land, it’s going to look quite remarkable.
Tom Andersen: It’s a tool to telling a good story. There are a lot of crappy stories that are hoping to get by on their 3D and it’s a marketing gimmick. And it is, it’s a good marketing ploy for sure, but we’re using it as another tool to tell a really cool story.

Jane Storm: You guys have an awesome crew on board with the producers, composers, concept artists, is this a very exciting process, for it to be so early on and have such a great team already?
Tom Andersen: Exactly, that’s why I did it because I knew to pull this off I had to have the best around me. And I’m in Hollywood with the best so it was just a matter of pull. Everyone realises it’s something unique and who doesn’t want to come to Australia and make a movie, right? `Come to paradise with really cool people, really beautiful beaches!’ That was my lure and then it was just about building a good team. I think it’s like building a house and my foundation is strong, so you’ve just got to keep moving up.

Jane Storm: Have you made any decisions about the director yet?
Tom Andersen: We want Patrick Lussier.

Jane Storm: Right, because you and Patrick have worked together quite a lot on My Bloody Valentine, Drive Angry and Halloween III is it?
Mark Redford: Yeah. Patrick and I will write it together and depending on how the system works down here and what we can bring and what we can't...
Tom Andersen: -because we’re going after the 40% (producer) offset.

Jane Storm: Oh, that explains the caution; they can be really dicky with that.
Mark Redford: It will also depend on his schedule in the states because he is working on Drive Angry to the end of the year and then there’s another project we may end up working on which won’t affect me for this, but it might affect him.
Tom Andersen: A couple of things, he’s my first choice for a lot of reasons; he's an amazing editor, an amazing director and in 3D he’s very experienced. You want the best.

Jane Storm: With the general story idea, what was the appeal with…well, you haven’t gone for a standard slasher flick. Instead you’ve gone with the whole mythical and supernatural take?
Tom Andersen: Because it hasn’t been done before.

Jane Storm: It hasn’t?
Tom Andersen: It’s original. I’m very picky about movies and I’m very in tune with audiences and that’s why Paranormal Activity did well because everyone wants something different. It’s just the same stuff repetitive, sequels and presequels, and this is different. It hasn’t been done before. Then I looked at the 3D aspect of seeing Aboriginal culture in 3D and how amazing would that be? There’s a lot of people that say `oh wow, you’re from Australia, I would so love to go there’ and they’re never going to get here so now I’m brining Australia to them. In 3D. So, it will do well just for that appeal alone and then everyone loves to be scared.

Jane Storm: And it has so much potential too, the horror twist on Aboriginal legends hasn’t really been done. Well, I guess Prey but that was terrible. So, it hasn’t been done well yet.
Tom Andersen: Yeah, and we were saying Australian films have a very sort of independent feel and as far as Australian stories go, this is going to be very different. It’s going to be structured very different.

Jane Storm: Now this is more of a general question, but what is the key to writing a decent horror film?
Mark Redford: I think at the end of the day it’s about…I’m still scared of everything, which helps, and for me it’s always been about taking everyday life and throwing a twist into it. Certainly we did it with My Bloody Valentine. You take these ordinary people and you put them in a situation where the audience can relate to them and I think if you can do that…that’s another reason Paranormal Activity worked so well because you watch the movie and think `what if that was me?’ So, as long as the characters are first, as long as they’re relatable, they can be as unique on screen as they can in a person. I started in the horror genre because when I started, that’s what you did, that was how you broke into the business. So, back then it was just Miramax and New Line, those guys making horror movies and then Scream came out and that kind of blew the lid off everything and we were all a part of it. Now everybody has a genre department and what ended up happening is the same thing that I think will end up happening with 3D; a lot of people were making horror and some of them were horrible. I think as long as you put the characters first, as long as you put the story first, as long as you keep the momentum of the story, then the rest is about creating situations that scare you as a writer.

Jane Storm: Both of you seem like really big fans of the horror genre. What is it about it that you love so much?
Tom Andersen: I love the rollercoaster ride. You go to the movies and you want a thrill, you want to leave going `wow’ and that’s what I like about it. You know, I don’t like torture, gore, blood and guts, I don’t want to look at that. I want a rollercoaster ride where I’m scared and where you’re trying to solve it…like The Sixth Sense. I think that was perfect. I loved that twist and you think you have it figured out, but you can watch that movie three or four times and always see something different. There’s suspense, I love that about it. That’s what I want for this, rather than `oh look, someone’s dead and their guts is everywhere’. Obviously that will be in there, but there will be a reason, not just insanity. Mark Redford: I just like scaring people.

Jane Storm: (Laughs) Out of all your projects Todd, what would you say is a favourite of yours? Which is your baby?
Mark Redford: At this point, Drive Angry, which will come out 19th of February, we just wrapped it. The reason I like it so much is because what we wrote is what we were able to shoot. You know, Jason X changed a little, The Messengers changed a little, the others have changed, but Drive Angry didn’t. So we’re hoping for the same thing here, we write this and then we can go shoot.

Jane Storm: I saw the bloody car from Drive Angry that you posted on your blog, it looks awesome.
Mark Redford: Yeah, that was Gary (J. Tunnicliffe), the dude is just remarkable. He’s killed me more than anyone else and he’s really the only one I would want to.

Jane Storm: So what’s the rest of the schedule like for you guys? What’s the next step when you go back?
Mark Redford: I dive in and start making the magic.
*my phone starts ringing* Mark Redford: Nice ring tone.
Jane Storm: Thanks, nothing like a bit of Wu Tang Clan (Kill Bill Theme). Sorry about that. Okay, so the next question I have to ask you is, please don’t be offended, but a friend of mine wanted me to ask you what shrooms were you on when you put Jason in space? Mark Redford: The big ones, the big yellow ones with the hairs. (Laughs) Okay, it’s funny because Michael De Luca was running New Line at the time, the guy who green lit Jason X, and he read the script and loved the script. So, that’s what we went in and pitched; Alien and Aliens, a combination of the two movies so that you take those actors and the aliens and you pull those out and then you have Jason with a real crew, ghetto, raw, no slapstick in-your-face jokes. It was just a very dirty movie, dark and dirty. Then Scream came out and suddenly everyone wanted everything to be tongue-in-cheek, so things changed as a result. But it’s funny now because De Luca is producing Drive Angry and what we like about him is he was like `Jason X was a great script, what happened?’ Now a lot of people still love Jason X, a lot of people hate it, my excuse is, well, I wrote what I wanted and maybe that didn’t get made, but it bought me an Audi. But I loved Alien and I love Aliens, and I still think that someone will take another scary movie into space.

Jane Storm: When you say take another scary movie into space, do you mean the slasher genre?
Mark Redford: Yes, I don’t understand why a slasher can’t…I mean, I know slashers have gone into space and I know one can, why couldn’t it? It’s all about production value and it’s all about story, and so far those two have not made it into space from some sort of slashers point of view. It’s just a matter of time. If Kevin (Williamson) had written Scream in space it would have worked, that was fantastic. They better do a good job on Scream 4, I see him tweet about it all the time. You following him?
Jane Storm: Yeah, I was so pissed off last fortnight when he was doing a give away of signed posters and our work computers are so slow that even though I had the right answers, I would miss out because it wouldn’t update before all the crazy Americans who answered a second after. Mark Redford: I saw it way too late, otherwise I would have tried to.

Jane Storm: (Laughs) Oh come on, you would be able to get a poster from him, surely?
Mark Redford: No, he wouldn’t give me a free poster. He’s honestly a really nice guy though.

Jane Storm: Finally, this is a more general question, but what are some of your favourite films? Whether that’s horror or whatever?
Tom Andersen: The classic ones like Jaws, Alien, The Sixth Sense and all of the different elements in those. I like the hunt, the twists, you think you know what’s going on but you don’t. What I like is that people could know what’s going on, and they’re given the signs, but they see what they want to see.
Mark Redford: Oddly enough some of the same movies; Alien and Aliens, Jaws was the first movie that scared the crap out of me, The Exorcist I saw next and both of those movies influenced me, and Star Wars on a how to tell a story level, especially The Empire Strikes Back, those were, granted, big fantasy movies but as far as the mythology and linear story structure, those were pretty incredible. It was Quentin Tarantino that taught me to actually break the rules a little bit and go outside the Hollywood system, write outside the Hollywood system, and create characters that were interesting and didn’t fall into the norm. I don’t have a favourite movie, I get asked all the time, but it’s literally a lot of great movies.

Jane Storm: What else do you have to do before you can get back here and film?
Tom Andersen: We’ve learnt a lot on this trip. Now we’ve got to get the script down and tight, we want to make sure it’s good and not rush that because you only get one shot. Then just hit it.

Jane Storm: Fantastic, well that’s pretty much everything I have to ask you guys. If you don’t mind we’ll head out and get the pic taken soon?
Tom Andersen: Yeah sure.
Mark Redford: I sent you a really creepy tweet when you arrived.

Jane Storm: (Laughs) Oh really? Awesome.
Mark Redford: I wrote `I’m looking at you right now’.

Jane Storm: (Laughs) I love it!
Mark Redford: That’s creepy, it was when you were walking in right then.

Jane Storm: I love how you are so interactive with your fans online and getting content out there.
Mark Redford: Well, it has got me into trouble. Hollywood doesn’t want you to tell the things that I sometimes tell. They certainly didn’t want me telling the Halloween 3D story. It didn’t get me into trouble, they just didn’t like it. But there’s nothing they can do about it.

Jane Storm: It probably got you a lot of respect from people as well.
Mark Redford: I think from the fan base perhaps.

Jane Storm: The Bloody Disgusting guys were on to it.
Mark Redford: Yeah, but they always shoot it straight anyway and that’s why I like them. That’s why I like Brad and those guys. I don’t like rude behaviour, even from a studio.

Jane Storm: Yeah, I’m a big fan of Bloody Disgusting because they cover everything. They don’t just look at the big, commercial horror films, but they give time to the independent, small-budget and foreign language stuff that you wouldn’t know about otherwise.
Mark Redford: I trust those guys because if I know they like something I know that it’s worth my time. Everybody’s opinion is different, but I trust their judgment.

VIA Tom Andersen talks about horror, 3D & pissing Hollywood off

Even though Jane's instructions were amazingly clear it took my little beginner brain actually seeing the movement - after that it was so easy and I'm a Bias convert! Sorry for the picture below, I know how eerie (and boring) faceless pictures are but I'm not up to posting my silly facials on the Internet yet... give me time!

So what do I like about it?

Well it's really pretty, and Tasia's instructions were invaluable for a beginner. Also it seems like one of those patterns that you could make loads of little adjustments to make each blouse unique. Look at me! Talking like I know about sewing. I say it because I've seen a few alterations like Jane's below and they're really cute - I'm even going to attempt my own!

What don't I like about it?

My complaints are currently limited to my own talent. I found it a bit difficult to work with such slippery fabric, especially when it came to cutting. The only other thing was fitting - My abilities of tissue fitting are horrible but I take zero blame for that - I'm currently under the impression you need to have as many arms as Shiva, a gazillion-jointed-spine, and eyes in the back of your head (or a dress form worth AU$450) to be able to fit on your own body. So I've caved and just ordered 'Fit for Real People' hopefully those divas on the front cover will show me how to wear shoulder pads with pride!

What about doing French seams?

Eep! After doing French seams on the shoulders I got totally distracted by my bias-tape dilemma and forgot to do them! From my limited experience they were super easy, and they look much nicer than my other seams as I kick it old-school and don't have a Serger... that's just how I roll.

Would I make it again?

Heck yeah Grizzly Bear! I've already got my fabric and I'm going to make a few adjustments to the pattern so it fits better, not to mention do it a little 'neater' this time. I might even be adventurous and make a few minor changes with the detail? I'm thinking buttons, because who doesn't like buttons? If you want to see more you can check out the Flickr Group, but I just had to point out the one below because I think she's hot stuff.

VIA Fit for Real People