Oscar Wilde describes his thoughts on critics and critiques through his argument as Gilbert. Wilde states most importantly that, “Criticism is itself an art (904).” Wilde also discusses the importance of realizing that “there is no fine are without self-consciousness (899),” and that everyone must come into their individuality to provide criticism.
Wilde chooses this method of presenting his argument because it allows him a creative way to discuss the critic as artist. Also, this method makes it easier for him to address the issues that others find with his theory. Ernest is the voice of all those that seem to oppose Gilbert/Wilde’s way of thinking.
As an art student part of me does agree with Wilde, in that to be a critic one must also be able to understand the work and passion that goes into a piece of art. Another part of me realizes that it is difficult to critique others, but those that choose to critique usually take it upon themselves to understand the background information and form a well-rounded opinion.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
“Where Lines Become a Language” and The Figure is the Bottom Line
After writing for the New York Times for over 25 years, Holland Cotter is a well established arts reviewer. In this particular piece Cotter immediately asserts his authority as a know-it-all. He tells us that this article is a total crowd pleaser and the reader gets the idea that this is going to be a negative interview. It is, in fact, a glowing review of the exhibit Raphael to Renoir: Drawings from the College of Jean Bonna.
The review flows, just as the exhibit does, from piece to piece. Cotter discusses some of his favorites and gives history behind the subjects or the artists. Overall, Cotter is positive throughout and he is also interjects brief moments of humor so that the overall effect is nothing like satire but the review isn’t mundane either. Cotter appreciates the exhibit so much that he does not actually have a ‘but’ anywhere in his review. In the beginning Cotter says that Banno has “assembled an outstanding inventory,” and he ends his review by talking about the “something else” in drawings that gives us the feeling of a “nourishing meal” even if we only ate a “dessert”.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/arts/23raph.php
The review flows, just as the exhibit does, from piece to piece. Cotter discusses some of his favorites and gives history behind the subjects or the artists. Overall, Cotter is positive throughout and he is also interjects brief moments of humor so that the overall effect is nothing like satire but the review isn’t mundane either. Cotter appreciates the exhibit so much that he does not actually have a ‘but’ anywhere in his review. In the beginning Cotter says that Banno has “assembled an outstanding inventory,” and he ends his review by talking about the “something else” in drawings that gives us the feeling of a “nourishing meal” even if we only ate a “dessert”.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/arts/23raph.php
Elements of Style
I have used this book to help me write papers in the past. This time, though, I actually sat down and read the entire thing and thought that some sections were better than others. Particularly the section on commonly misused words and expressions. On page 54, Strunk and White, say not to use a noun as a verb.
Wrong- The candidate hosted a dinner for fifty of her workers.
Right- The candidate gave a dinner for fifty of her workers.
Wrong- The meeting was chaired by Mr. Oglethorp.
Right- Mr. Oglethorp was chair of the metting.
I definitely want to work on correcting this in my own writing because I am aware that I do this on occasion. I also want to fix my use of that/which. After reading the example that Strunk and White use I already understand it better but still worry that I could mess it up in my writing.
Wrong- The candidate hosted a dinner for fifty of her workers.
Right- The candidate gave a dinner for fifty of her workers.
Wrong- The meeting was chaired by Mr. Oglethorp.
Right- Mr. Oglethorp was chair of the metting.
I definitely want to work on correcting this in my own writing because I am aware that I do this on occasion. I also want to fix my use of that/which. After reading the example that Strunk and White use I already understand it better but still worry that I could mess it up in my writing.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Taxi from the Dark Side; Dark, Dreary, Depressing
“We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals…those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake,” said President Obama in his inaugural address. Shortly thereafter he signed executive orders to suspend trials of terror suspects held at Guantánamo. The 2008 Oscar Winner for Best Documentary, “Taxi to the Dark Side” follows the case of Dilawar, a taxi driver, taken to Bagram prison and reported dead after five days. Cause of death: Homicide. The film then describes the different methods of interrogation used at Bagram Air Base, Abu Ghraib prison and Guantánamo Bay prison.
Using Dilawar to propel the story, Gibney utilizes news footage and photographs to further his investigation into U.S. policy on suspected terrorists. Gibney’s revealing documentary sheds light on the treatment of these suspects when no written rules are in effect and soldiers can do as they please.
Gibney combines interviews from numerous soldiers/interrogators, attorneys, one released detainee, and archival footage and photographs to create an engaging and horrifying documentary. On the surface, Gibney brings up political issues and questions of humanity. On a deeper level his documentary provokes the audience to wonder about the human ability to treat another with such disregard for life.
The political aspects of the film focus on the Bush administration’s response to the then increasing number of suspects brought into these facilities. The footage goes on to show Donald Rumsfeld’s role in the changing policies and the split from the Geneva Convention.
The prison guards, who received no word on proper conduct, used numerous torture tactics that didn’t follow the criteria set forth by the Geneva Convention. The soldiers used sexual assault, sleep deprivation, stress positions, dogs, and waterboarding as a means of getting the suspects to talk.
The editing of the documentary was done well and showed considerable amounts of footage from Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and Guantánamo, the three prisons whose tactics were questioned. Gibney used photographs that show the American soldiers as villains and the prisoners as victims. Interestingly the War on Terror began when America was victimized through the 9/11 attacks.
Though Gibney was effective in his editing, the film seemed to drag and the same phrases were heard over and over and over again. “Sleep deprivation, stress positions, sensory deprivation, and waterboarding,” were all so overused that the words lost their original oomph. Furthermore, the film lacked any dimension. Gibney adds footage with support from both sides, but the lacking diversity in interview material weaken the film.
“Taxi to the Dark Side” is not a film to be missed; it is an eye opening look at what truly went on in Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. Though the film is repetitive, it does get the point across that American Citizens, whether blissfully unaware of the facts or not, need to take notice of the past tragedies and turn their heads towards the hope that this new administration is giving the country.
Using Dilawar to propel the story, Gibney utilizes news footage and photographs to further his investigation into U.S. policy on suspected terrorists. Gibney’s revealing documentary sheds light on the treatment of these suspects when no written rules are in effect and soldiers can do as they please.
Gibney combines interviews from numerous soldiers/interrogators, attorneys, one released detainee, and archival footage and photographs to create an engaging and horrifying documentary. On the surface, Gibney brings up political issues and questions of humanity. On a deeper level his documentary provokes the audience to wonder about the human ability to treat another with such disregard for life.
The political aspects of the film focus on the Bush administration’s response to the then increasing number of suspects brought into these facilities. The footage goes on to show Donald Rumsfeld’s role in the changing policies and the split from the Geneva Convention.
The prison guards, who received no word on proper conduct, used numerous torture tactics that didn’t follow the criteria set forth by the Geneva Convention. The soldiers used sexual assault, sleep deprivation, stress positions, dogs, and waterboarding as a means of getting the suspects to talk.
The editing of the documentary was done well and showed considerable amounts of footage from Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and Guantánamo, the three prisons whose tactics were questioned. Gibney used photographs that show the American soldiers as villains and the prisoners as victims. Interestingly the War on Terror began when America was victimized through the 9/11 attacks.
Though Gibney was effective in his editing, the film seemed to drag and the same phrases were heard over and over and over again. “Sleep deprivation, stress positions, sensory deprivation, and waterboarding,” were all so overused that the words lost their original oomph. Furthermore, the film lacked any dimension. Gibney adds footage with support from both sides, but the lacking diversity in interview material weaken the film.
“Taxi to the Dark Side” is not a film to be missed; it is an eye opening look at what truly went on in Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. Though the film is repetitive, it does get the point across that American Citizens, whether blissfully unaware of the facts or not, need to take notice of the past tragedies and turn their heads towards the hope that this new administration is giving the country.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
So, so well said- NYT
January 21, 2009
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Exit the Boy King
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
It was the Instant the Earth Stood Still.
Not since Klaatu landed in a flying saucer on the Ellipse has Washington been so mesmerized by an object whirring through the sky.
But this one was departing, not arriving.
As W. ceased to be president, he flew off over the Capitol and across the Mall en route to Andrews Air Force Base, and then back to Texas .
I’ve seen many presidents come and go, but I’ve never watched a tableau like the one Tuesday, when four million eyes turned heavenward, following the helicopter’s path out of town. Everyone, it seemed, was waving goodbye, with one or two hands, a wave that moved westward down the Mall toward the Lincoln Memorial, and keeping their eyes fixed unwaveringly on that green bird.
They wanted to make absolutely, positively certain that W. was gone. It was like a physical burden being lifted, like a sigh went up of “Thank God. Has Cheney’s wheelchair left the building, too?”
The crowd was exuberant that George Bush was now an ex-president, and 43 himself was jovial “the way he always is,” according to his last press secretary, Dana Perino.
It was like a catharsis in Greek drama, with the antagonist plucked out of the scene into the sky, and the protagonist dropping into the scene to magically fix all the problems. Except Barack Obama’s somber mien and restrained oratory conveyed that he’s no divinity and there will be no easy resolution to this plot.
It was a morning of such enormous emotion and portent — jaw-dropping, Dow-dropping and barrier-dropping — that even the cool new president had to feel daunted to see his blocks-long motorcade and two million hope-besotted faces beaming up at him, dreaming that he can save their shirts.
The optimism was tempered by pessimism, a vibe of “Maybe this once-in-a-lifetime guy can do it, but boy, there are a lot of never-in-our-lifetime problems here.”
Unlike W., Obama is a realist. He knows there is the potential of letting all these blissed-out people down.
The day had its jittery moments: Teddy Kennedy’s collapse and Robert Byrd’s distraught reaction. There was also that match of the titan smarty-pants — the new Democratic president face to face with the conservative chief justice he voted against.
First John Roberts had to say, Easy, cowboy, after Mr. Obama jumped the gun on “I” at the start of the oath of office. Then the president, who had obviously been looking over his lines, graciously offered the chief justice a chance to correct his negligent syntax, when he put the “faithfully” and other words out of place.
Under the platform, near where I sat, Denzel Washington, Beyoncé, Jay-Z and P. Diddy looked on proudly as the new commander in chief showed he was in command of the script and the country.
After thanking President Bush “for his service to our nation,” Mr. Obama executed a high-level version of Stephen Colbert’s share-the-stage smackdown of W. at the White House correspondents’ dinner in 2006.
With W. looking on, and probably gradually realizing with irritation, as he did with Colbert, who Mr. Obama’s target was — (Is he talking about me? Is 44 saying I messed everything up?) — the newly minted president let him have it:
“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” he said to wild applause (and to Bartlett ’s), adding: “Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.” He said America is choosing hope over fear, unity over discord, setting aside “false promises” and “childish things.”
Letting a little air out of the highest hopes about what one man, even “The One,” can do, he emphasized the word “our.” He stressed that rebuilding after the wreckage of W. and Cheney will be a shared burden and that “giving our all to a difficult task” isn’t as bad as it sounds.
I grew up here, and it was the first time I’ve ever seen the city wholly, happily integrated, with a mood redolent of New York in the weeks after 9/11. The Obamas have made an unprecedented pledge to get involved in the real city that lies beyond the political Oz, and have already started doing so in many ways, including starting the night out at the D.C. Neighborhood Inaugural Ball.
Downtown was a euphoric pedestrian mall of commerce and communal kindness. The patience that America is extending to Mr. Obama, according to a Times poll, was reflected across the capital, as the cram of people sparked warmth rather than antsiness.
Strollers laughed as a peddler in a Rasta hat hawked his “Barack Obama incense.” And revelers stepped up to a spot where you could pick out a colored magic marker and complete posters that began, “Mr. President, I hope for ...”
Entries ranged from “burning less oil” to “healthcare for all” to “a cure for cancer” to this lofty and entirely understandable sentiment: “a sick inauguration party.”
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Exit the Boy King
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
It was the Instant the Earth Stood Still.
Not since Klaatu landed in a flying saucer on the Ellipse has Washington been so mesmerized by an object whirring through the sky.
But this one was departing, not arriving.
As W. ceased to be president, he flew off over the Capitol and across the Mall en route to Andrews Air Force Base, and then back to Texas .
I’ve seen many presidents come and go, but I’ve never watched a tableau like the one Tuesday, when four million eyes turned heavenward, following the helicopter’s path out of town. Everyone, it seemed, was waving goodbye, with one or two hands, a wave that moved westward down the Mall toward the Lincoln Memorial, and keeping their eyes fixed unwaveringly on that green bird.
They wanted to make absolutely, positively certain that W. was gone. It was like a physical burden being lifted, like a sigh went up of “Thank God. Has Cheney’s wheelchair left the building, too?”
The crowd was exuberant that George Bush was now an ex-president, and 43 himself was jovial “the way he always is,” according to his last press secretary, Dana Perino.
It was like a catharsis in Greek drama, with the antagonist plucked out of the scene into the sky, and the protagonist dropping into the scene to magically fix all the problems. Except Barack Obama’s somber mien and restrained oratory conveyed that he’s no divinity and there will be no easy resolution to this plot.
It was a morning of such enormous emotion and portent — jaw-dropping, Dow-dropping and barrier-dropping — that even the cool new president had to feel daunted to see his blocks-long motorcade and two million hope-besotted faces beaming up at him, dreaming that he can save their shirts.
The optimism was tempered by pessimism, a vibe of “Maybe this once-in-a-lifetime guy can do it, but boy, there are a lot of never-in-our-lifetime problems here.”
Unlike W., Obama is a realist. He knows there is the potential of letting all these blissed-out people down.
The day had its jittery moments: Teddy Kennedy’s collapse and Robert Byrd’s distraught reaction. There was also that match of the titan smarty-pants — the new Democratic president face to face with the conservative chief justice he voted against.
First John Roberts had to say, Easy, cowboy, after Mr. Obama jumped the gun on “I” at the start of the oath of office. Then the president, who had obviously been looking over his lines, graciously offered the chief justice a chance to correct his negligent syntax, when he put the “faithfully” and other words out of place.
Under the platform, near where I sat, Denzel Washington, Beyoncé, Jay-Z and P. Diddy looked on proudly as the new commander in chief showed he was in command of the script and the country.
After thanking President Bush “for his service to our nation,” Mr. Obama executed a high-level version of Stephen Colbert’s share-the-stage smackdown of W. at the White House correspondents’ dinner in 2006.
With W. looking on, and probably gradually realizing with irritation, as he did with Colbert, who Mr. Obama’s target was — (Is he talking about me? Is 44 saying I messed everything up?) — the newly minted president let him have it:
“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” he said to wild applause (and to Bartlett ’s), adding: “Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.” He said America is choosing hope over fear, unity over discord, setting aside “false promises” and “childish things.”
Letting a little air out of the highest hopes about what one man, even “The One,” can do, he emphasized the word “our.” He stressed that rebuilding after the wreckage of W. and Cheney will be a shared burden and that “giving our all to a difficult task” isn’t as bad as it sounds.
I grew up here, and it was the first time I’ve ever seen the city wholly, happily integrated, with a mood redolent of New York in the weeks after 9/11. The Obamas have made an unprecedented pledge to get involved in the real city that lies beyond the political Oz, and have already started doing so in many ways, including starting the night out at the D.C. Neighborhood Inaugural Ball.
Downtown was a euphoric pedestrian mall of commerce and communal kindness. The patience that America is extending to Mr. Obama, according to a Times poll, was reflected across the capital, as the cram of people sparked warmth rather than antsiness.
Strollers laughed as a peddler in a Rasta hat hawked his “Barack Obama incense.” And revelers stepped up to a spot where you could pick out a colored magic marker and complete posters that began, “Mr. President, I hope for ...”
Entries ranged from “burning less oil” to “healthcare for all” to “a cure for cancer” to this lofty and entirely understandable sentiment: “a sick inauguration party.”
Monday, January 19, 2009
Reporting, "Live from Baghdad"
“It all died, rotted, turned into oil, and now...we're here,” says Richard Roth, played by Hamish Linklater, a reporter for CNN during the Gulf War, as he and the rest of the CNN crew drive along a road that can only be described as ‘dire’ in the desert near Kuwait. “Live from Baghdad” effectively recreates the experiences of the CNN crew covering the Gulf War in Baghdad while also describing the growth of the network from the underdog to top dog. The story flows smoothly; staying interesting, fresh and supported by great acting.
Directed by Mick Jackson and starring Michael Keaton as Robert Wiener and Helena Bonham Carter as Ingrid Foreman, “Live from Baghdad” utilizes its cast and creates a great representation of the CNN crew. The release of the movie in December of 2002 seemed a little risky considering the international events occurring at the time, the recent September 11th attacks and the War on Terror, but the movie was not nearly controversial enough to warrant any negative feedback or reactions. Instead it was candid and straightforward, simply presenting the facts from the point of view of Robert Wiener while stationed in Baghdad.
The film chronicles CNN’s rise from “the little news agency that could” to the next news supergiant. CNN’s executive producers Robert Wiener and Ingrid Foreman take a crew and reporter to Baghdad and try to report the stories that really matter. Instead of reporting on whatever they can, the crew spends time building relationships with the Ministry of Information.
Ingrid and Robert’s relationship propels the film by following their growing respect for one another while the rest of the crew provides some comic relief. Judy, the technology crewmember, played by Lili Taylor, and Mark, their cameraman, played by Joshua Leonard, have a perfect witty banter for this comic relief. Bruce McGill, as Peter Arnett, is simply magical in his small part as the outspoken veteran of war journalism. Furthermore Linklater plays Richard Roth, CNN correspondent, spot-on and has many key lines.
Despite all the great aspects of this film, it did fall flat in some places. The cinematography seemed to be lacking and the shots were too close and tight on the actors and didn’t focus on the surrounding activities or scenery. It would have been very easy to focus on the privacy violations and conditions in which the residents of Baghdad were living daily. Unfortunately, the film only covered it in relation to the crew living in the hotel and having their stories monitored before they could be transmitted back to the United States.
Overall “Live from Baghdad” utilizes a strong cast to convey the varying emotions of covering this story while also giving adequate history of the Gulf War and the rise of CNN as a news powerhouse. The film is compelling, interesting and worth every minute.
Blogging the "But"
My review did feature a "but" in the first paragraph when I (a little awkwardly) stated that " The buzz surounding Gran Torino is well-grounded with Clint Eastwood directing and starring and the National Board giving Nick Schenk an award for the Best Original Screenplay but even with all engines revving, Gran Torino couldn't win the race. Simply meaning that Gran Tourino didn't perform as well as it could have.
Other things I would consider changing would be cutting out a portion of my overview of the story so that I could add a lot more analysis on the characters, actors, cinematography and soundtrack. Overall, for my first review, I don't think that it was awful but it definitely was not the best review I've ever read. Also throughout there are some small grammar errors which I will make sure to correct things like that in future reviews.
Other things I would consider changing would be cutting out a portion of my overview of the story so that I could add a lot more analysis on the characters, actors, cinematography and soundtrack. Overall, for my first review, I don't think that it was awful but it definitely was not the best review I've ever read. Also throughout there are some small grammar errors which I will make sure to correct things like that in future reviews.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205489/
When researching for this review I used the Internet Movie Database. I've always found this to be an extremely helpful source whenever I need information on movies. Not only does it list the full cast, and often times the crew, but it also is full of trivia, memorable quotes, soundtrack information as well as numerous reviews and updates on earnings.
Monday, January 12, 2009
With All Engines Revving, Gran Torino Still Fails to Impress
“Oh, I've got one. A Mexican, a Jew, and a colored guy go into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, ‘Get the fuck out of here.’” This makes Clint Eastwood the Best Actor of the Year ? I disagree, Gran Torino could have been a masterpiece, and instead Clint Eastwood carries the entire film while the rest of the cast lets it become another trite racial conflict movie. The buzz surrounding Gran Torino is well grounded with Clint Eastwood directing and starring and the National Board giving Nick Schenk an award for the Best Original Screenplay but even with all engines revving, Gran Torino couldn’t win the race.
Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood), a retired Ford automaker and Korean War Veteran, is introduced at his wife’s funeral. After his loss Kowalski spends all his time drinking, smoking and being bitter about his Hmong neighbors instead of dealing with his wife’s death. Later, most of his time is spent dealing with his neighbors, Sue (Ahney Her), Thao (Bee Vang), their mother and grumpy grandmother (who seems to hate Walt just as much as he hates her). The Hmong community has been growing over the years and driving most Americans out of the suburb. As Walt sees his neighborhood ‘crumble’ and neighbors that let their homes fall into disrepair, he maintains his home, lawn and cars, specifically his 1972 Gran Torino in perfect shape. As Thao is increasingly harassed by his cousin to join the Hmong gang, he soon gives in to his initiation task: stealing the Gran Torino. After Kowalski catches Thao in the act, he inadvertently becomes a mentor for Thao and suppor for his family while also making himself a target for gang violence.
The subtleties of Kowalski’s change from a racially prejudiced veteran to a disinclined friend and hero are the highlight of the film. Instead of allowing Kowalski to become a complete cliché and trite character Eastwood maintains Kowalski’s prejudices throughout the film and he simply becomes more inclined to help Thao and Sue through their struggles of resisting gangs and the consequences of that path. His relationship with Thao and Sue grows stronger as Walt realizes how the bonds with his family have completely failed him. Saying that he has, “more in common with these stupid gooks than my own family.” Walt stays true to his time tested prejudices but also, as Sue points out, “becomes a good man.”
Sue’s character has potential but her timing throughout the entire movie is off and her lines feel forced and fake. Thao (Bee Vang) is slightly better and has some laugh out loud moments. Father Janovich (Christopher Carley), the priest that Walt’s wife visited in her last months, lacked any real dimension as a character and Carley did little to change that. Apart from the poor acting, Eastwood does a beautiful job of directing. Each scene is clean, simple and has a purpose. Eastwood does not force much and uses certain subtleties to carry the movie. Ultimately, Torino isn’t a film one will be disappointed with but it isn’t a life changing film nor is it a film that is worthy of many accolades. Clint Eastwood may be the only part of the film that truly earned his award.
Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood), a retired Ford automaker and Korean War Veteran, is introduced at his wife’s funeral. After his loss Kowalski spends all his time drinking, smoking and being bitter about his Hmong neighbors instead of dealing with his wife’s death. Later, most of his time is spent dealing with his neighbors, Sue (Ahney Her), Thao (Bee Vang), their mother and grumpy grandmother (who seems to hate Walt just as much as he hates her). The Hmong community has been growing over the years and driving most Americans out of the suburb. As Walt sees his neighborhood ‘crumble’ and neighbors that let their homes fall into disrepair, he maintains his home, lawn and cars, specifically his 1972 Gran Torino in perfect shape. As Thao is increasingly harassed by his cousin to join the Hmong gang, he soon gives in to his initiation task: stealing the Gran Torino. After Kowalski catches Thao in the act, he inadvertently becomes a mentor for Thao and suppor for his family while also making himself a target for gang violence.
The subtleties of Kowalski’s change from a racially prejudiced veteran to a disinclined friend and hero are the highlight of the film. Instead of allowing Kowalski to become a complete cliché and trite character Eastwood maintains Kowalski’s prejudices throughout the film and he simply becomes more inclined to help Thao and Sue through their struggles of resisting gangs and the consequences of that path. His relationship with Thao and Sue grows stronger as Walt realizes how the bonds with his family have completely failed him. Saying that he has, “more in common with these stupid gooks than my own family.” Walt stays true to his time tested prejudices but also, as Sue points out, “becomes a good man.”
Sue’s character has potential but her timing throughout the entire movie is off and her lines feel forced and fake. Thao (Bee Vang) is slightly better and has some laugh out loud moments. Father Janovich (Christopher Carley), the priest that Walt’s wife visited in her last months, lacked any real dimension as a character and Carley did little to change that. Apart from the poor acting, Eastwood does a beautiful job of directing. Each scene is clean, simple and has a purpose. Eastwood does not force much and uses certain subtleties to carry the movie. Ultimately, Torino isn’t a film one will be disappointed with but it isn’t a life changing film nor is it a film that is worthy of many accolades. Clint Eastwood may be the only part of the film that truly earned his award.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
