 One of world cinema's greatest Director:Agnès Varda Writer: Agnès Varda Producer: Agnès Varda by Jon Cvack It was this past year that Agnes Varda came as close to entering the American Hollywood mainstream as at any point I can recall. Her latest film, Faces Places (which I haven’t yet seen), is the first to follow The Beaches of Agnes (2008), which is all the more impressive once I finished it. The first Varda film I had seen was The Gleaners and I (2000), viewed way too early in film school when I was hungry for the next Coen Bros, PTA, or Tarantino and couldn’t appreciate a relatively plotless documentary shot on cheap digital video about potatoes gleaners that led to something else I can’t remember (I also don’t think the teacher played the whole thing). It was moving onto both Cleo from 5-7 (1961; which Godard regarded as the first new wave film), Cinevardaphoto (2004), and finally revisited - and finished - The Gleaners and I that I understood the woman’s magic. Agnes Varda an artist first and a filmmaker second; and her films around a deep dive into a deeply imaginative and creative mind that sees the world differently than most. The Beaches of Varda is Varda’s attempt at biography, providing a jittery, though more or less linear reflection on the life she lived. We open at the beach where she’s hired a young crew to help her position mirrors on a beach. Like most of Varda’s work, it seems too simple to work; again, shot on the cheap digital camera. And yet of course she somehow creates absolutely beautiful images that embody the idea she’s expressing; that memories provide a similar feature as mirrors on a beach. When positioned just right they allow the beauty of things past to creep in and fill an otherwise bland frame of mind. We learn her fascinating history. She got into photography at an early age and developed a keen eye; working initially in the tourist photography trade (as so many start out in) before meeting a successful Parisian photographer who offer mentorship, allowing her work to achieve notoriety around the age of twenty. Still she lived a modest life, describing each event with a set piece; in this case how she’d have to pivot her car sixteen times back and forth in order to exit the alley told by having a 2D cardboard cut out of the VW bug which she operates by walking. Again, it’s simple and yet the effect is immediately relatable. By the age of 25 she says she had only seen about ten films total - never all that interested in the art form - but that didn’t stop her from making La Pointe Courte (1955) which kicked off the French New Wave alongside such films as The 400 Blows (1959) and Breathless (1960); again, arguably the first film from the French New Wave, and Varda as the only female director to pioneer the movement. The film led her to make Cleo from 5 to 7 which gained her international notoriety. She developed a lifelong marriage with New Wave director Jacques Demy whose The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) and The Young Girls of Rochefort (1967) would be leading influences when Damien Chazelle conceived La La Land. The two would soon arrive in California; specifically Venice beach where they lived the Hollywood lifestyle. While Varda found it odd at times, they were able to conceive two kids who would follow in their artistic footsteps. To describe the episodes is to diminish the effect of Varda’s style. Like any great abstract art, to try and put words to the work often sounds facile. Ebert’s favorite moment from the film was when Agnes showed two fisherman from the time of filming (2004) a clip she shot of them back in the 60s. Ebert defined it as the most poetic moment of cinema he’d ever seen. I actually forgot the scene, but that’s what makes her work so magnificent. Each fragment is so unique that I imagine every viewer - like past shared memories - would recall differing moments. One of my favorites involved a neighbor who gave Varda some old home footage of a house her and her family moved into, showing the the grand old farmhouse in grainy 16mm. It doesn’t last more than twenty seconds or so, but the fact that Varda so loved the art of film and memory that she included it out of appreciation spoke volumes to her soul. You get the impression she cares deeply for people; wanting to take all she experiences with them and the times they shared and express it to the best of her abilities; as though knowing it was a way to solidify the memory. To shift it like a mirror and catch the ocean. In the end we learn that Jacques died only years prior and that she filmed his body both moments before and then after his death from AIDS; knowing it was an important moment to capture. It’s clear that Varda felt the end of days were near. To think she just created another critically acclaimed film at the age of 90 goes to show her power of spirit. She’s the type of filmmaker that never cared for the glitz and glamour. She wants to make art to the best of her ability and will likely continue to do so until her final days; whenever they come. BELOW: Great PBS doc on Varda Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page
0 Comments
 Director: Paul Schrader Writer: Paul Schrader Cinematographer: Alexander Dynan Producer: Jack Binder, Greg Clark, Victoria Hill, Gary Hamilton, Deepak Sikka, Christine Vachon, David Hinojosa, and Frank Murray by Jon Cvack It was while listening to Ethan Hawke talk about this film on NPR’s Fresh Air that I realized how much I love his interviews. He was discussing a couple of his latest films - his directorial debut Blaze (2018) about the life of musician Ben Foley and this film. Throughout the interview, you realize how articulate, charming, and intelligent the guy is; serving as the type of actor that’s grounded and understands his privileged position; determined to make good art whenever possible, even if that means doing a few better-paid movies along the way. Days after the interview, Reddit posted a link to Colbert’s Late Show, in which the host let Hawke tell a gripping six minute story as he explained the best acting advice he received from Mark Rylance regarding playing Hamlet opposite two of Hawke’s idols. It’s getting more into podcasts that I realize how fast interviews are on television; in which some rule I once heard said to avoid letting any one person speak for more than five or seven seconds (a principle embodied by CNN and Fox News). Hawke possesses that magical ability to connect with others; making it feel as though he’s talking straight to you. Like any great artist, he creates that peculiar sense of kindred spirit. Similar in-depth and detail as Hawke’s own views on art and the world, Schrader’s film contains an extraordinary amount of nuance. While serving the simple plot of a priest at ethical odds with an environmental extremist, Schrader's universe uses the narrative as a way to explore a range of ideas on the convergence of business, politics, and religion, and the world in which that convergence exists. Reverend Ernst Toller (Ethan Hawke) oversees the First Reformed Church located in a small town in upstate New York. The opening tosses you straight into its Academy Ratio (1.37:1) which given all modern widescreen 16:9 TVs, has become a jarring look; especially in a theater where the wings of the screen contain tall black rectangles. There’s a long dolly into the church and in we go, following Toller as he entertains tourists and visitors. First Reformed has been around for nearly 250 years, serving as part of the underground railroad, now owned by the Abundant Life megachurch. Pastor Jeffers (Cedric Kyles) provides Toller a significant amount of autonomy in exchange for keeping up with the office and community politics. With the church’s 250th anniversary approaching, interest has spread statewide and he wants to ensure that everything goes as smoothly as possible. Similar in style to Travis Bickle’s voice over, though far less profane and bleak, Toller has decided to keep a journal for a single year which he will destroy on the anniversary. Toller is a former military chaplain who after supporting his son’s decision to go to enlist during the Iraq War, received notice that he had been killed in action after only six months. His wife and him were unable to repair their relationship and divorced and he later joined First Reformed. He’s visited by one of his parishioners, the pregnant Mary (Amanda Seyfried) who wants him to visit her radical environmentalist husband Michael (Philip Ettinger) who doesn’t believe Mary should have the baby. Global warming is a difficult subject; an issue that has somehow become politicized when it is about continuing the world for all life by at least trying to fix the problem. Nevertheless, as with any contentious issue, there are the tropes around those politics and there’s been no shortage of disparaging tree huggers or the way environmentally conscious discuss the issues. So many know the basic facts of global warming that there’s a risk of sounding like parody when attempting to have a conversation between two characters who discuss the problem. Schrader masters the scene, somehow finding the balance between Michael providing empirical data without it sounding trite or obvious. We hear an articulate and strong argument for why he doesn’t want to bring a baby into the world: climate change's effects are starting to strike and there’s no evidence to support that it’s getting better. It will get worse and Americans will feel the effects firsthand and in much more significant ways. In the end, the most Hawke can say is that it’s better to allow for something to exist than to not exist; to possibly fight the problem and make it better for subsequent generations. Days later, Mary calls Toller to her house, showing him a bomb vest that Michael created. Toller tells her to keep it quiet to avoid drawing unnecessary attention. Hawke’s mastery is making this sound like an entirely reasonable and understandable request. Days later, Michael texts Toller to meet him in a nearby park; to which he shows up, discovering Michael had blown his head off with a shotgun. Returning to Mary, they discover the last will in testament; asking for his ashes to be scattered in a toxic waste dump. Toller honors the request and invites some choir singers from Abundant Life who sing a pro-environmental Neil Young song, attracting the attention of some political bloggers. This gets back to one of Abundant Life’s chief financiers Edward Balq (Michael Gaston) who, during a meeting about the anniversary, scolds Toller for making Michael’s death into a political statement. This sends Toller further down the rabbit hole of his own environmental investigation, which like Travis Bickle’s observations of humanity, begins to quite literally rot his body as he soon learns that his difficulty going to the bathroom is stomach cancer. The church anniversary approaches, and Toller pieces together how the church, business, and politics all intersect, as Balq and Jeffers join the mayor and governor to honor a historical church that helped to fight against the vicious foe of bondage. Now there’s another, worldwide existential problem, and the same individuals are doing nothing about it. Fully empathizing with Michael and foregoing all his prior advice, Toller dresses up in the bomb vest and aims to blow up the church; until he sees Mary arrives and opts for some Drano instead. She stops him before he drinks and the two embrace and it cuts to black - either the bomb went off, or perhaps the poison took effect, or it’s some grand declaration on the power of love negating all else (which I highly doubt). There’s a deep cynicism in the film which I think a lot of those who even casually follow up on climate change news can understand. The problem is getting worse. The debate should be between how bad it is or how far past the point of no return we are, how to solve it, and what we can do in the short term. In the era of Trump, the subject is no longer discussed; reserved for the occasional, otherwise Earth-shattering news that 15,000 scientists have penned a letter warning of “dire warning to humanity” about the effects of global warming. Although I wrote this over eighteen months ago, Australia has over 12 million acres of forest burning. Two million people have lost their homes and their citizens are calling it Hell on Earth. And still we keep going, taking one step forward as we’re driven dozens of steps back. Recent films like Chasing Corral (2017) and Chasing Ice (2012) demonstrate firsthand how rapidly the problem is accelerating and still there’s no consensus. There’s profound selfishness at play, in which most just hope to make the remainder of their own lives last, by buying that house and car and all the consumption that provides them short term joy. Even the most ardent upper-class liberals have their mansions and BMW’s out here in Los Angeles. Everyone is willing to sacrifice, but only up to a point. Schrader’s film embodies this idea - showing a man so torn by these revelations that, with maybe months to live, finds no other meaning than to destroy himself and take one less body from the world. I struggle with how I look at those who deny global warming; as it’s starting to have a direct impact on human lives and so many are willing to give up nothing. We cannot destroy life to preserve it and yet life will be destroyed by ignoring it. First Reformed demonstrates the struggle. In the end, if Toller sacrificed himself and Mary, Schrader allows us to wonder the impossible - was it worth it? I want to say no, but the film denies simple judgment. BELOW: "It doesn't come for free." Some profound thoughts on the great actor-artists of our time Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  One of Gerwig's best roles Director: Mike Mills Writer: Mike Mills Cinematographer: Sean Porter Producer: Anne Carey, Megan Ellison, and Youree Henley by Jon Cvac When thinking of suburban angst films, the first that come to mind are The Ice Storm (1997), American Beauty (1999), In the Bedroom (2001), and Thumbsucker; a series of films I checked out early into my cinephilia which provided that first sense of connection between the medium and my own life. All of these films were released within the same decade, seeming to roll out in rapid fashion. I can’t remember much from Thumbsucker other than the obvious and that it had an indie movie twin with The Chumscrubber (2005); the latter of which I remember nothing about, but still own on DVD. 20th Century Women is by the same director as Thumbsucker, Mike Mills, who’s Beginners (2010) went on to earn Christopher Plummer an Oscar nomination, though I forget again what it was exactly about. I’m afraid Mills might have produced a similar situation for the third time. I liked 20th Century Women, and Annette Benning gives an incredible performance; fully deserving of her Oscar nomination, but I was left wondering what the story was about exactly; other than some reflection on both a period in time and a bit of autobiography. The story follows three women and one male character: Abbie Porter (Greta Gerwig), Julie Harman (Elle Fanning), and Dorothy Fields (Annette Bening) and her teenage son Jamie (Lucas Jade Zumann). Dorothy Fields was a flapper back in the day, having Jamie when she was past forty, now divorced and running a boarding house, renting it out to both Abbie and a middle-aged carpenter-artist-hippie William (Billy Crudup) who fixes up the house in exchange for cheaper rent. Jamie is becoming hormonal, having gotten friend-zoned by the otherwise promiscuous Dorothy Fields who sleeps in his bed every night, wanting to spend as little time at home where her psychologist mother subjects her to a barrage of therapy sessions. The four narratives satellite around Dorothy’s story which is that she’s an aging woman who chain-smokes, and in a series of flashbacks explains that she’s going to die before the new Millenium from lung cancer; told through a strange voice over as the narrator rants off a bunch of historical events. Each character gets one of these wrap ups, allowing us to learn about what they’re going through - in this case, that Dorothy went to NYU and started dating a professor, got diagnosed and then beat cervical cancer, destroying her ovaries in the process and causing her to get dumped by the professor, where she then moved to Santa Barbara. I’m becoming a massive Gerwig fan, thinking back to seeing her in Hannah Takes the Stairs (2007) and how incredible it is to see how far she’s come; she somehow embodies a contradiction - appearing as someone that’s spacy and slow while constantly revealing an extraordinary amount of depth, intelligence, or creativity; creating strange eccentric characters without ever falling victim to archetype or trope. I’m certain that she will go on to provide some of the greatest roles of her generation. Abbie introduces Jamie to feminism and the many writers who embraced the cause; allowing Jamie to understand certain ideas about sex and social position. He learns about the clitoris and passes, ideas about selfish love, and passes them onto his friends and schoolmates who for some reason beat the shit out of him. In the film’s best scene, Jamie reads a passage to his mom about the writer’s existential experience of becoming an older woman and the sense of worthlessness it contains. It’s more permissible for men can enter into relationships with younger women, whether because of social constructs or evolutionary reasons, while older women become less attractive; creating a deep sense of loneliness in the process. Dorothy wondered if the passage is about her. Jamie says no, but the two know it is. I admire Mike Mills' attempt to integrate the stories of three strong female characters (and I mean strong as in complex/interesting characters not some comment on their mental or physical strength which I can’t believe I now have to start qualifying). Abbie, Dorothy, and Julie were all complex individuals, but they all seemed to be characters I’ve seen before; saved by Gerwig and Fanning’s performances, but still not all too coherent. At times he wanted to be some feminist warrior, and yet the women all seemed in service to Jamie and his discovering its principles. There was no thread to the story; abandoning plot to instead focus on a bunch of different philosophies and how they operated at this particular moment in history. I understand that it was attempting to explore a nascent period of women’s second-generation liberation, but I think it could have benefited from perhaps flipping Jamie and Julie’s characters; allowing Jamie to operate as a satellite; perhaps as a guy who’s a self-proclaimed feminist with only a cursory understanding versus Julie who’s struggling to explore her body and learn what it means to be a modern woman in a rapidly changing world. It all felt like a bunch of fragments, trying to cram far too much history into a narrative that didn’t need so much. I’s a noble effort from Mike Mills, but this is the type of story where I think a woman is much better equipped to tell it. BELOW: The dangers of learning about the vagina Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Director: René Clément Writer: Jean Aurenche and Pierre Bost; based upon L'Assommoir by Émile Zola Cinematographer: Robert Juillard Producer: Agnès Delahaie by Jon Cvack The first film I’d seen from Rene Clement was Forbidden Games (1952), which unfortunately is no longer distributed by Criterion. The second was Purple Noon (1960), serving as the original adaptation of what would be remade as The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999; also the better film of the two). Gervaise follows the Parisian lower classes, focused on laundrywoman Gervaise Macquart Coupeau (Maria Schell) who’s married to roofer Henri Coupeau (François Périer). When Henri experiences an accident, rendering him unable to work and mostly bedridden, he quickly turns to alcohol, developing a severe addiction. Nevertheless, Gervaise has saved up money and leases her own laundromat. Though times remain tight, it doesn’t stop Henri from using their meager profits to continue his alcoholism, increasingly erupting into violent fits of jealousy, rage, and assault. Gervaise befriends two other men who contribute to the problem; one who helped front her some money in order to keep the shop afloat, and the other strikingly similar in look to Henri. Let’s just say that the latter benefactor is a handsome and decent man, while the lookalike husband is a bit of a con artist. I’m certain that Gervaise sleeps with the latter, and does so while her husband is passed out, and I think she’s done the same with the former; though it was much more dependent upon the power of suggestion. After Henri has stolen the laundromat’s profits once again, going so far as to dig into the savings due to employees, Gervaise offers Henri an ultimatum - either quit drinking or she’d leave him. During the film’s best scene, and one of the possibly best dinner scenes of all time, Gervaise uses her remainder of savings to throw a dinner party; cooking a duck for a party of ten which could hardly feed four. Soon both men arrive, driving Henri into a jealous rage, in which we’re just waiting for him to explode. However, the added layer to the scene is watching as Gervaise exchanges glance with the benefactor, meeting him in the kitchen, a bit lit up on wine and unable to control her desire. I’ve never seen food used in such a sensual way as when they dig into the goose; the juices oozing and dripping all over their fingers as each person bites into the tender meat. Henri also provides one of the greatest alcoholics I’ve ever seen on screen; showing the many nuances of impotence. On the one hand, he's sick and requires alcohol, and it's this illness that causes the injury which/ perpetuates the problem. On the other hand, we see his beautiful wife who’s pursued by much more successful men, and in some ways empathize with his complete feeling of inadequacy, requiring him to turn even further to the bottle. It was a pleasure to see a woman as complex as Gervaise, especially from the period. Rather than painting her as the saint who sticks by her husband, we see how his actions push her away, toward flirting with and then pursuing her own desires. It’s a character that struggles for what is right and good; maintaining the honor of the love she wore versus living the life she deserves. This is a tragically underrated film. BELOW: A brilliant, moving from light slapstick comedy to horror show Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Director: Lars von Trier Writer: Lars von Trier Cinematographer: Anthony Dod Mantle Producer: Vibeke Windeløv by Jon Cvack I happened to arrive on my waning Lars Von Trier list only weeks after the reception of the director’s latest cause célèbre The House that Jack Built (2018). Again eliciting a divisive response and numerous walkouts during its premiere. This was the filmmaker’s first return to Cannes after making the infamous Nazi comment during his Melancholia premiere after discovering he was no longer of Jewish German descent, but rather just a German, causing him to express his sympathy for Hitler’s demise, trying to get off the topic, and sarcastically referring to himself as a Nazi much to the horror of his cast. Manderlay was the second in what was suppose to be Von Trier’s “American History” trilogy. It kicked off with Dogville (2003), which while starting off strong, just couldn’t maintain its momentum for the three-hour run time; descending into some brutal and needless rape scenes while exploring a storyline in which each character possesses some degree of evil. Like Manderlay, it was shot on a soundstage with a minimalist set and cheap digital cameras, which while effective for a little while, also couldn’t keep up with the running time. Ultimately, my eyes and mind got bored filling in all the blanks. The second in the series follows Grace Mulligan (Bryce Dallas Howard) and her father Mr. Mulligan (Willem Dafoe) after they had burned down Dogville after both James Caan and Nicole Kidman opted out of the production. They arrive outside the gates of a town called Manderlay, discovering a woman trying to escape, yelling about a man who’s being whipped for stealing a bottle of wine. They enter the town to discover that, although the Civil War is 70 years past, slavery continues. Grace meets the master of the house, Mam (Lauren Bacall), and is so disgusted by the situation that she decides to stay to try and provide liberty. Shortly after, Mam dies and the Uncle Tom-like character Wilhelm (Danny Glover) takes over. Mam has left behind a book regarded as “Mam’s Law” which you can check on the Wikipedia page, but essentially describes every type of black person (not using this word) Mam had to deal with. Each of these groups contains a leader who form a type of city council, which somehow Grace starts to lead; attempting to teach the former slaves about freedom and democracy. I had to watch this movie in about four scattered chunks, as a mixture of boredom and offense played so heavily that I can’t provide much in the way of details. Grace grows frustrated while the black people remain completely helpless - they’re illiterate, struggle to learn, or even carry out the most basic democratic task. I don’t doubt that any individual kept in bondage could have severe mental damage or disabilities, but I just don’t understand what the purpose of this story was; made all the worst by von Trier’s Nazi comment. The 90s were fraught with Southern White Savior films in the 90s - A Time to Kill (1996), Mississippi Burning (1988), The Ghost of Mississippi (1996), and others all explored the idea of relatively helpless black males finally saved when a team of white lawyers came around. This isn’t to discount the work that these individuals did in assisting with Civil Rights, but it seems we’re long past due for films that focus on the black heroes from the period. Manderlay embodies this icky device as a privileged white woman comes into town, so overwhelmed by guilt that she tries to teach the helpless black people about the basic tenets of government who struggle to grasp the tiniest concept until she understands how they learn and saves the community. While she goes on to experience some cheap moral dilemma when one of her “students” (for lack of a better word) breaks the very law she created, it led to an even more offensive scene as the woman whips one of the black men; at first remorseful and then developing a strange and unsettling sense of sadistic pleasure And again, we’re forced to discover another disgusting Uncle Tom character in Wilhelm who we learn has been the one preserving Mam’s Law out of fear of what freedom would bring about. There were interesting moments which explored the perils of government and the challenges of community organization, but ultimately, it felt far too condescending. Part of me thinks that my reaction was the exact point; as in the end, we see a montage of the last 50 years of race relations, realizing that we have a long way to go. Perhaps Grace’s character reflected most of us; believing we're helping but failing to offer the revolutionary change required. Nevertheless, it's a subpar allegory more effectively explored in Get Out in which white people want to think they’re helping when really they’re perpetuating the problem. It’s films like this, and when I think of other white-oriented racial movies, that I realize that ultimately, the wrong people have been telling these stories; or at least, not enough black people have had the chance to lend their perspective. It’s why a movie like 12 Years a Slave (2013) is so effective; told from a position that understands that racism is far more complex than simply a byproduct of slavery or ignorance. It pervades our country like a virus, and unfortunately, I do not believe that white people either fully comprehend the problem the way implicit bias can have overt and systemic ramifications. BELOW: A BTS doc I didn't watch but I bet is better than the movie Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Another gross age difference from mid-century cinema Director: René Clair Writer: Robert Pirosh and Marc Connelly; Dalton Trumbo (uncredited) Cinematographer: Producer: René Clair and Preston Sturges by Jon Cvack Aside from Rene Claire’s amazing adaptation of Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None (1945), this is the only other American film I can find of his. I don’t remember much from his other films, other than Under the Roofs of Paris (1930) had a cool opening shot, and that I allegedly saw A Nous la Liberta (1931) about four years ago, but can’t remember anything about it. I Married a Witch was Claire’s entrance into the rom-com, opening up during the Salem Witch trials where both Jennifer (Veronica Lake) and her father Daniel (Cecil Kellaway) are hanged from a tree. Centuries pass, taking us throughout the next 250 years of American History where - in a fusillade of narratives - we discover successful men marrying terrible women near the tree where Jennifer and Daniel died. Lightning then strikes the tree, releasing both of their spirits, where they discover Wallace Wooley (Fredric March) who’s running for governor just a day away from marrying his benefactor’s daughter Estelle Masterson (Susan Hayward). Daniel and Jennifer initially take the form of white smoke before Jennifer convinces her dad to give her a body; taking the form of Ms Veronica Lake. For those who can’t picture the woman, in this film she’s an exceptionally petite 21-year old, who looks like she could still be in high school, pursuing Wallace Wooley who was 45 years old at the time of making this. Given my recent thoughts on The Major and the Minor (1942), I’m genuinely curious if this was a more culturally acceptable position to have seventy years ago. Daniel is fully aware of the power she has over him, often wearing oversized clothes that further diminish her figure and make her look all the younger. She decides she wants to try to sabotage Wallace’s relationship to Estelle Masterson; who’s an insufferable spoiled rich kid who often scolds Wallace into doing what she wants. Her method involves both attempting to seduce Wallace and subsequently sabotaging his political career. First meeting Jennifer, Wallace is overwhelmed by her beauty; desiring her and trying his best to contain it. Jennifer’s first attempt involves sorcery where she sets a hotel on fire. The building was evacuated, but Jennifer stays inside, calling out to Wallace for help. He heads in and saves her, hailed by the city as a hero. Jennifer ends up back at Wallace’s and in his bedroom, and with the wedding only days away, Jennifer attempts every trick in the book to try and win him over. Soon Estelle catches them in an innocuous embrace and she calls the wedding off. Word gets back to the father, who pulls his money from Wallace’s candidacy and starts running attack ads about his infidelities, turning the public against him. Nevertheless, Jennifer returns to her magical ways, and on the day of the election, brainwashes everyone into voting for him. All the while, Daniel has found a body of his own - after using a whiskey bottle to mask his smoke spirit - returning as a blotto Cecil Kellaway, who’s so appalled by Jennifer’s feelings, takes away her power, causing her to get killed in a car accident, returning her to a spirit who manipulates her father to return to Veronica’s body and reunite with Wallace once and for all. It’s not a bad movie, and at only 77 minutes it’s worth checking out. The main issue is that I ultimately never understand Jennifer’s intentions until the final scene. Veronica Lake seems hellbent on seducing Wallace despite the consequences, and while it’s arguably noble in regards to Wallace having a terrible fiance and dishonorable career ambitions, the complete lack of any type of meaningful connection beyond Wallace’s lascivious attraction to Jennifer diminishes the possibility of seeing her intent as anything beyond nefarious. Added is the limpid logic of the witches. I initially thought that they were the ones who cursed the successful men throughout history with a series of cruel wives, but then Jennifer escapes the tree and wants to prevent the tradition from continuing. I assume the relationships were Daniel’s doing, and that Jennifer wanted to fix things. Even so, I don’t understand why Jennifer has to seduce Wallace by wearing oversized pajamas, rather than just attempting to establish a normal connection. Imagine if the part was played by someone less youthful, such as Joan Crawford, who’s so gleeful that she’s free and able to love that she begins courting a politician, showing him the potential mistakes he’s about to make in both love and career, and establishing love from there. Like most films from this era, I understand that love is all too often immediate, but this felt much more superficial and cheap; taking Claire’s fascinating style in a cheap direction. BELOW: Joe Dante (Gremlins, The Burbs, etc.) on the flick Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Director: Shohei Imamura
Writer: Ibuse Masuji (story); Toshiro Ishido Cinematographer: Takashi Kawamata Producer: Hisa Iino by Jon Cvack I experienced a strange coincidence in finishing David M. Kennedy’s "Freedom From Fear" (1999), part of The Oxford History of the United States (a series I heavily recommend) which provides a gripping account of the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. A little known fact is that while those two events killed over 50,000 people, American forces would kill over ten times that many by numerous bombing runs that would create firestorms, burning so hot they suck the oxygen out of the air and suffocates people to death (see the bombing of Dresden). Not to be confused with Ridley Scott’s Michael Douglas neo-noir action film Black Rain which came out the same year, Black Rain is about the first year and change following the bombing of Hiroshima. It opens up moments after, shot in black and white, as the city is now on fire and countless numbers of charred bodies surround the streets. Ozu’s influence is immediately discernible, utilizing locked down wides; the camera positioned low to the ground, allowing the action to play out while our eye wanders. Unfortunately, eyes also pose the biggest problem for the opening scenes, as aside from the cheap charred corpse props, the designer also decided to use what look like plastic eyeballs you could buy at the dollar store during Halloween. Somehow it avoids becoming a distraction due to how powerful the rest of the images are - of bodies floating down a river, flesh peeling off the skin, and a brilliant moment when a husband and wife meet a man deep in the forest, far outside the city, who admits his child and wife burned to death, and the father has no idea what to say in response. Aside from a few other flashback, the horror doesn’t last long and we move into the meat of the story, which follows a father Shigematsu Shizuma (Kazuo Kitamura) and his wife Shigeko (Etsuko Ichihara); survivors of the bombing who care for their niece Kasuko (Yoshiko Tanaka). Shigematsu and Shigeko have now abandoned the city, now living in the countryside where they hope to start a successful rice farm. One of the most striking resemblances to Ozu is the diverse range of supplemental characters; including a neighbor Yuichi (Keisuke Ishida) who struggles with severe PTSD, in which any time he hears a motor he puts on his straw hat and grabs his broom, acting like an armed soldier, demanding drivers abandon their automobiles. The greater comparison is the story of a family trying to find Kasuko a suitor. Unfortunately, many members of the family and community are starting to experience the effects or radiation poisoning; including Kasuko, who struggles to hide the truth from her potential husbands. After an older man dies from what appears to be stomach cancer, the others accept their plight. For as much as they wanted to return to a normal and regular life, the event has stuck with them; none are sure who’ll suffer next, though they’re all aware of its inevitability. Watching Kasuko attempt to find a partner who knows that she perhaps can’t have children, and at worst, might die soon is as heartbreaking as any Ozu film. There’s no one film about the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki that captures the terror and tragedy of what occurred (I’m talking per the likes of what Saving Private Ryan (1998) did for WWII or 12 Years a Slave (2013) did for its subject). Having seen only the tip of the iceberg of post-war Japanese cinema, I’m left wondering how others expressed the environment. To imagine a city in which 50,000 people were slaughtered instantly by one of man’s worst inventions is difficult to reconcile. So many films appear to be about trying to maintain normalcy; with just the slightest elements of tradition, culture, or family off center, attempting to be corrected. To think of an entire generation that suffered such a tragedy, in which the vast majority of deaths were innocent civilians, all sacrificed as a warning - arguably even an experiment in modern warfare - seems like something which could take centuries to recover from. It’s a testament to the country that they had the strength to move forward; to overcome the pains for generations after as the consequence spread through its country’s blood. It’s a filmmaker like Imamura who allows us to both remember and understand. *Which coincidentally isn’t even rated high enough on Netflix for me to usually check out BELOW: All the videos I'm finding are from the Michael Douglas film so you'll just have to rent it Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Somehow incorporating The Shining without destruction Director: Steven Spielberg Writer: Zak Penn and Ernest Cline; Ready Player One by Ernest Cline Cinematographer: Janusz Kamiński Producer: Donald De Line, Kristie Macosko Krieger, Steven Spielberg, and Dan Farah by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1... The story takes place in 2045. Due to some political events unknown, America has sunk into a dystopia. There seems to be some form of a universal basic income as most citizens, while living in trailers stacked as tall as skyscrapers, spend the vast majority of their lives in the virtual reality MMO called OASIS; designed by your prototypical socially awkward, though benevolent computer programmer Anorak (Tye Sheridan). Anorak had created the game as a dedication to all of the great media from popular culture - films (including a sizeable chunk of Spielberg’s own work), comic books, video games, music, cartoons, you name it. Anorak has hidden an Easter egg in the game, in which through solving a series of three puzzles, the winner could win control of OASIS. Anorak’s former partner Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn; who’s becoming one of my new favorite actors) owns Innovative Online Industries and seeks to win the contest and win control over the program where he’ll run ads, institute paywalls, and stand to profit hundreds of billions of dollars. The problem is that the announcement has been made for years and still no one’s solved even the first riddle. Gunter’s avatar in the game is called Parzival, who looks like a three-dimensional anime character. He’s friends with a character named Aech (Lena Waithe) which looks like Street Fighter’s Zangief was a robot. She owns a massive garage where, amongst other vehicles and machines, and is building a lifesize model of the Iron Giant. In a time of more inclusion, Spielberg shows how it’s done; demonstrating that our actual selves are meaningless within the world; disguising Aech’s voice with just a bit more bass to mask it’s actual creator. It left me wondering if virtual reality could be one of the greatest tools in the fight against bigotry. One of Anorak’s first puzzles involves beating a complex car and dangerous race which nobody has ever won, including an army of indentured players owned by Nolan Innovative Online Industries. Parzival drives an old Delorean (there are many Back to the Future references in this, which again, given the logic that it’s not Spielberg’s choice so much as Anorak’s makes it all work without distraction), and while many have gotten hundreds of feet away from the finish line King Kong always ends up destroying the potential victors. Anorak had allegedly left the answer to the unbeatable in his archive library which, though perused by thousands, has never been cracked. Unfortunately this was the weakest part of the story, as Parzival decides to check back just one more time and finally, by watching a video of a conversation between Anorak and Nolan which he’s seen it dozens of times before, he finally gets the answer. It’s as simple as Anorak mentioning something about driving in reverse that leads Parzival to try the race one more time, slamming into reverse and driving under the course that had claimed so many machines and avatars. One of the story’s greatest pieces of logic is that if you die in the game you lose all of the devices, tools, powers, etc. that you’ve managed to achieve; more or less preventing players from fighting with one another, given the risk. Thus, players are disincentivized from pursuing the race with reckless disregard; that is, by making some “million” dollar move which could overcome the King Kong. What makes the story work well is that it abandons any attempt to up the stakes via the norm of worldwide existential crisis; retreating back to the very narrative styles that Anorak was most passionate about; namely 80s action movies. Nolan recruits the help of a nefarious avatar named i-R0k (T.J. Miller) who is essentially a type of in game bounty hunter that works closely with Innovative Online Industries (think of it like the WoW farmers who created leveled-out characters to sell at a profit). After Parzival beats the first challenge, all the other players follow. Parzival’s success makes him an immediate success. Art3mis and Aech warn him against maintaining his current image or revealing his actual name to others. Soon it slips and Nolan tracks down the real life Wade Watts; offering him to make him rich in return for solving the riddle of IOI. Wade refuses and so begins a great cat and mouse game, all while they try to solve the remaining challenges before Nolan succeeds. One of the most brilliant scenes takes place at The Outlook Hotel; not offering some computer generated enhanced version (for the most part), but what looks like the actual hotel. It all adds up into a universe that abides by the principle that popular culture and all of the art it includes are as much a part of our day to day lives as art, the media, religion, politics, sports any other passion you can think of. The world’s seemingly endless visual possibilities create the foundation of logic that defends the creation of the most surreal and jam packed CGI I’ve ever seen; in which even the smallest detail seems to be a reference to something else. Counter to your typical summer blockbuster which wants creates a surrealistic world that somehow functions within reality, Spielberg understood that the best place for these types of devices to operate was in nascent world of virtual reality. All in all, I saw the film and what it accomplished visually as the sunset of popular cinema. There will always be summer blockbusters, but I was left wondering how long it could last if and when this type of virtual reality arrives. It seems more likely that people would watch films within the world than go to an actual cinema; and that given all the other things you could be doing - actually interacting within a narrative rather than passively watching one - that films would remain a fringe cultural event; similar to literature or theater (as I’ve said before). Ready Player One is very much a harbinger of things to come. I think we’ll look back at this film as eerily prescient; the way 2001 and its thoughts on artificial intelligence are all the more impressive over fifty years later. This is the type of film that makes you excited for when the technology rolls around; allowing you to understand how and why people would remain forever connected. Compared to the real world it offers endless possibilities; in which the user is only limited by their imagination. Ready Player One is the fusion between classic Spielberg and his striving CGI adaptation that we were all waiting for. BELOW: Wonder what Stephen King thought? Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  The future: living in a trailer while living in a video game. Probably right Director: Steven Spielberg Writer: Zak Penn and Ernest Cline; Ready Player One by Ernest Cline Cinematographer: Janusz Kamiński Producer: Donald De Line, Kristie Macosko Krieger, Steven Spielberg, and Dan Farah by Jon Cvack I’ve mentioned before that Steven Spielberg has struggled to evolve with CGI; best reflected in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) where he seemed to ignore Dr. Malcolm’s advice from Jurassic Park. He was too busy wondering if he could make anything happen, he never thought if he should make anything happen. Almost every computer generated scene felt needlessly large; down the warehouse in the opening scene, throwing back to Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) which threw back to Citizen Kane (1941), though while both pull off a practical facade of vast boxes filling a gigantic warehouse, The Crystal Skull just paints ten times the number in with a massive vista; in some ways operating antithetical to cinema in failing to use the frame for anything beyond spectacle. War of the Worlds (2005) was pretty fun to watch, but again - having seen it before I understood the craft - I realized it’s because it too relies on Spectacle rather than cinematic technique; I like Minority Report (2002) and A.I. (2001), though they’re far from my favorite Spielberg. While some want to argue that Spielberg’s lost his touch, I’d easily put Bridge of Spies and The Post somewhere in my Top 100 of the new millennium; coincidentally when Spielberg abandoned the CGI and returned the purest form of craft. Knowing little about the book, when I saw Spielberg was doing "Ready Player One" (2011) - as I much as I wanted to hope it’d be awesome - I had little faith left. I figured it’d be another overwrought CGI love fest, in which Spielberg abandoned his magic touch once again. I had heard about the book both from a friend who explained the basic premise, and Ezra Klein when he had Jaron Lanier on his podcast to discuss the future of virtual reality (an episode which I highly recommend and definitely kickstarted me into a fascination with artificial intelligence; specifically the book "Superintelligence" (2014) which, while a tough read, is one of the most alarming books I’ve ever read). The story explores the idea that if jobs became increasingly automated, a universal basic income was introduced, and virtual reality creates a vivid enough environment, why would anyone want to live outside of it? Ezra Klein had mentioned another book on his podcast quite a few times called “Finite and Infinite Games” (1986); a pretty popular book in Silicon Valley. I picked up along with "Superintelligence", figuring they’d be similar enough. It compares a philosophy of life to both finite and infinite games (a finite game being defined as one which has a beginning and end, such as checkers or Call of Duty, while an infinite game never ends, such as World of Warcraft or other MMOs). Author James P. Carse’s says that it’s better to approach life as an infinite game and compares the two possibilities with everything from health and well being to politics and the economy. For instance, Hitler and other authoritarian leaders all had long finite games in mind; wanting to destroy their opponents in order to expand their control versus an infinite game which is to try and secure and maintain alliances that minimize conflict and help everyone. I was expecting more from the book, as it seemed to read like a mixture of self-help and some cryptic pseudo philosophic treatise that could provide answers to life’s grand question. I assume following it after an in-depth and analytic philosophical investigation about artificial intelligence wasn’t the best idea. However, when I consider how it applies to Ready Player One and why Ezra Klein made the comparison, it does provide at least an introductory explanation of what the world could be like. For my sociology minor in college, I was able to take a class called the Sociology of Play; in which the teacher who had at least a mild addiction to World of Warcraft, walked us through the cultural, structural, gender, and political aspects of video game play. The other three quarters of the time was spent playing this game. I had long considered World of Warcraft a bird’s eye view game - per the likes of Command and Conquer - rather than the third person massive multiplayer online game (MMO) that it is. I recall starting the game in the middle of a field, beyond confused of what to do, trying the first few missions, leveling up, and discovering how vast the world was. For those who haven’t played, the game involves going on missions to destroy every type of villain you could imagine, along with some non-aggressive quests which help you power up, which allows you to have better equipment, which allows you to fight increasingly harder villains, which gets you more points to level up further. Each level then requires even more points to level up and so the game goes on for what feels like forever. I’ve forgotten the exact number, but I think after playing for four months or so in the class, I leveled up to the mid-teens (which my teacher found unimpressive compared to the diehard WoW students who weren’t even sociology major/minors, but rather took the class that they loved WoW so much). At a maximum of 90 level points (at the time, that is; each expansion pack raises the number), I hardly made a dent, as again, each level takes far more time than the previous. My college professor had two characters fully leveled out, which means that he must have literally spent thousands of hours playing the game; as he was on every night, and the only reason I was even able to level up to my abysmal number was because he helped me out on quests no matter what time I logged in (as a level-90 he was able to kill the villains I faced with a single click). Somewhere deep within one of the worlds is a marketplace where people trade the weapons and items they find, everything from shoes to armor to wands, powers and potions. Similar to Magic the Gathering, you could imagine in the days of Venmo (which didn’t exist when I was in college) that there would be a decent dollar amount of some of these things; as acquiring them could expedite your leveling up at exponential rates rather than having to expend all the time. We later learned about paid player farms, where users would earn slave wages to level up and sell characters, allowing the purchaser to play the game without the frustration of dying so often. It was the first time I grasped where video games and virtual reality was going. The world was so vivid and seemingly endless, with thousands upon thousands of quests and things to discover that I grasped the addiction. To this day, aside from when I finish up a long project and need a mindless break, I never play video games. Video games have gotten so good and have taken most of the lessons from World of Warcraft and created an experience that could grab any individual. Similar to World of Warcraft, most games now operate on a reward based program; in which you earn points and “flare” for accomplishing missions or goals which allows you to buy better ingame hardware. Many governments are now trying to regulate the game designers in order to prevent them from offering too many ingame hardware purchases knowing that the game itself is addicting enough to convince young minds to spend ridiculous sums of money on seemingly worthless purchases. In the Sociology of Play class we watched the documentary Second Skin (2008) which follows a bunch of WoW and other MMO game players who had become fully addicted to the platforms. Some live in their parent’s basement, consuming junk food, and developing an entirely digital community of friends.Others have met their spouse and some find it hard to fit sleep within a full time work schedule and the need to keep on playing. An article in the Chicago Tribune explores this exact issue, highlighting how some insurance companies are starting to cover treatments for video game addictions; which, according to a clinic in Illinois, is treated the same as drugs and alcohol. As one researcher says, the difference between slot machines and video games is that the former provides hope for a big reward, while video games provide a steady and never ending stream of rewards; making me wonder if, in the long term, video games could be more damaging, as often a big win in gambling will pull someone off machine (it always has for me and my family), while a never ending (i.e., infinite) series of small wins in a video game offers no definitive conclusion. These are the ideas I wanted to be explored or at least touched upon in the film; mildly confident the film would ignore them. I was completely wrong. This movie in some way explores each and everyone of these ideas; operating with all of the philosophy and potential that the convergence between virtual reality, artificial intelligence, social media, and game play stand to provide moving forward. Continue to Part 2... BELOW: Not too bad for an exposition overload Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Apples, berries - it's all the same Director: Mia Hansen-Løve Writer: Mia Hansen-Løve Cinematographer: Stéphane Fontaine Producer: Phillipe Martin and David Thion by Jon Cvack After publishing my thoughts on Claire's Knee (1971) - taking issue with Jerome’s attraction to a 16 and 17 year old girl - it’s pure coincidence that this was next film on my list. I’ve been in numerous debates about Call Me By Your Name (which I thought was one of the top three films of the year) and whether or not Oliver was a “predator”; varying from people seeing the guy as comparable to a child molester, to their relationship based upon an honest love and affection. Before proceeding, it should be noted that writer/director Mia Hansen-Løve is a woman, which at least somewhat relieves the discomfort. Most of these debates fall within two categories: 1) the age of consent and what it should be, and 2) whether an individual can be of a mature enough mind at the time. My opinion is that there’s a range of maturity that befalls most age ranges. Some are far more intelligent, aware, or psychologically more mature their than peers. In saying that, seeing that the age of Goodbye, First Love’s main character Camille (Lola Créton) is 15 I was again creeped out until I checked the laws of France which accommodate the relationship. The film opens up with a fully nude and post coital Camille, joined by her 19 year old boyfriend Sullivan (Sebastian Urzendowsky) as they cuddle in each other’s arms. Sullivan is days away from leaving for his 10-month backpacking trip through South America, refusing to take Camille with him and devastating her in the process. Their relationship was regressed to what seems like nothing beyond sex and fighting. Camille’s mother is concerned she’s too young for Sullivan, hoping that the trip breaks them up for good. The pair spend some time in at Camille’s mountain home, where Sullivan and her have a lovely day together until, on the way to the grocery store, Sullivan stops to swim at the pond, coming back to Camille who’s enraged, hoping it he could just stay forever. Most people have either been in or have had a friend in a relationship like this; in which the only time the couple is not fighting is when they’re not speaking; leading to hackneyed jokes such as that sex must be fantastic which are only cheap because they’re often, at least, partially true; whether on both sides, or one. In this case, Chamille possesses a strong care - possibly love - for Sullivan; willing to submit to his advances time after time, no matter how mad she is. Sullivan, on the other hand, is far more interested in the sex. Still he has a certain attraction. Similar to how Camille's love might be disguised desire for someone to care for her (I believe there was a missing or negligent father mentioned), Sullivan’s love was based upon an intimate relationship with another prson; possibly even his first love (that is, first good sex). The letters continue for a few months while Camille waits at home; checking the mailbox obsessively until she finally gets the call from Sullivan who tries to explain that he’s breaking up with her; unsure if he’ll ever return from South America. The news is devastating and Camille’s heart shatters. For anyone that’s had their heart broken, it’s always difficult for a movie to demonstrate the ever important relief which is time. I was even surprised to see that this film advances four years into the future, with Camille now in architectural college, falling in love with her professor Lorenz (Magne Håvard-Brekke); who must be five years past twice her age and leaning more in the father role. Another four years later, she’s about to move in with the professor, having graduated college, and become a project manager at his firm. Leaving work one day, she sees Sullivan’s mom on the bus, wondering when he returned. The mom gives Camille the number and the two meet up. Immediately Camille’s old feelings return and they start hanging out on a regular basis. Although lying to Lorenz, she still moves in with him, fleecing to him about trips and late night dinners with her friends, all in an effort to meet up and make love to Sullivan. The deceit culminates in Camille having a miscarriage, begging Lorenz to promise they’ll one day have a child. Still the relationship continues, and Camille invites Sullivan back her and Lorenz’s place in order where Camille gives Sullivan a painting of a couple and their child. Days later, Sullivan leaves once again; offering nothing more than a note to Camille, telling her that he loves so much that it causes him pain; for as much as he wants to provide Camille the family she wants, he can’t. Camille’s heart shatters once again and she returns once more to Lorenz. I’m not sure what it is about first loves that kick the obsession into overdrive. Every friend I know who’s gotten that first girlfriend fell victim to dropping off the face of the earth and spending every waking moment with that person. It seems a mixture of both sex, maturity (in the sense of the incredibly real feelings, previously unknown), and connecting with another person for the first time. Looking back on my first love, I think I felt alienated for being a weird personin school; finding a similarly weird and attractive person that provided both sex and connecting. I recall being with my father on vacation; having forever been embarrassed to talk to my parents about relationships, even into high school. There’s no doubt that, similar to the film, my parents saw what was coming. The details of the situation would require pages to explain, as each individual story fails to capture what the entirety explains. She was dealing with some significant personal issues and pushed people away, and I thought - like others - that I could help her. Then again, I wonder if it was me and that my obsessive mind smothered the situation; as Camille’s did toward Sullivan. I recall a distinct feeling both times it ended. When I broke up with her in high school for refusing to end things with her ex-boyfriend, I had excitement and pride in abandoning a bad situation; and being able to return to my own life. When round two resumed in college, I recall feeling even more alone, alienated, and even doubtful about my future (my first year of college was one of the most miserable social experiences I recall as a teenager;). This might have contributed to our reunion. Like Camille happened to see Sullivan’s mother, I received a message one night from the girl. We had gone two years without either seeing or talking to each other, though again the connection resume. Similar to the film (and first time I saw her), there was an immediate desire to reconnect, and so began one of the most emotionally intense and volatile nine month periods of life, as I rekindled an old romance which seemed like it could finally work, while I was four months away from leaving for Boston to start film school. Similarities to this film are striking. The relationship crashed and burned as suspicions began on both our ends - hers against me for having once broken up with her and now leaving again; and mine as she, again, just couldn’t seem to sever ties with her various relationships; not so much cheating as keeping them in her life, giving them the impression that I would soon get; that things would ultimately work out. Like them, as I became more focused on the relationship, I had little life beyond it; abandoning friends, family, and all logic. There was a fight almost every day, extending for days before a brief respite and the next one would start. I’m not sure what was said to be the last time we saw each other so much as that it was a spring day; possibly cloudy. I’ve never talked to her since. I always wonder what it’d feel like to see her again. Now being in love and engaged to an incredible woman in which we share a beautiful and healthy relationship in which fights are seldom, affection is strong, conversation goes for hours and hours, and honesty serves as one of the pillars - I wonder if there’d be anything beyond indifference. I have a doubt I’d see her as just a person rather than someone who played such a significant role in my life. There isn’t hate on my end, as for all the misery, it was an experience that has enriched my life, providing an experience that only I - and me alone - can ever possibly reflect upon and fully comprehend. A movie like this makes you remember those moments; as the memory begins to sunset, taking up less and less space as better and healthier memories enter the mind. BELOW: We all been there Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page |
Categories
All
© Jonathan Cvack and Yellow Barrel, 2015 - 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jon Cvack and Yellow Barrel with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
|
RSS Feed