Monday, 4 June 2007

Holidays, Pirates, Jobs...

We had a fabulous holiday. Yay for holidays!

We did manage to go all the way up to the Sunshine Coast to meet my most darling-est online friend... you may know her as either jkr2 or mrsramjet3kids... we spent a couple of days with her and her hubby and 3 kids, and we all got along so beautifully and it was just awesome. My girls LOVED the kids and they all played like old buddies. Yay for friends!

We did the whole beachy thing (Noosa Beach, mingling with the Beautiful People), and the Waterslidey thing (Wet 'n' Wild, on a rainy day!), and then some plain old relaxing (at some friends' holiday house in Diamond Beach). Yay for relaxing!

~~~

Yes, I have seen Pirates 3... I saw it on the 25th, the day before we went away. I shall write more about it after I've seen it again, but my initial reaction (I shall avoid plot spoilers for now in case you haven't seen it);

I loved all of Captain Jack. I think Johnny did some really excellent acting work in this one and took Captain Jack to new places we haven't seen him before. I was surprised and a bit disappointed by the "locker" scene - I was expecting that to be alittle different and a bit deeper perhaps, but I suspect I will understand and like it more upon a 2nd viewing. Plus, the film was out of focus up until that point (until I sent Noel to tell a staffmember and it was corrected), so perhaps watching that scene properly focussed will help.

I loved Will Turner too, which I haven't much in the first two. I think Orlando did awesome work in this one. And, (fangirl moment!) he looked incredibly hot at the end in that bandana. :-)

Elizabeth kinda annoyed me. I think her acting had some great moments, but mostly, Keira's inability to use her face or body very much is frustrating and annoying to watch. She needs to losen up a bit and get more comfortable in her own skin. Her mouth, in particular, seems really tense and frozen all the time, and I really don't think that's all due to character.

Geoffery Rush was amazing. He had quite a few pretty stupid moments, but he has this amazing ability to go from deadly serious to ridiculously funny without any loss of character or believability. Bit like Johnny really. No wonder those two top my list of favourite actors. :-)

Keith Richards was fabulous. It was a bit of a geeky silly scene, but hey, it's Keef. That last little moment between Jack and Teague was beautiful. (oh and incidentally, dricing up the coast last week we crossed a bridge over Teague's Creek. That gave me a great giggle.)

The transformation of Calypso was ridiculous. Blow-up doll, anyone? Surely they could have come up with a better way of transforming such a beautiful, powerful goddess.

I was frustrated with the maelstrom scene. It felt like it was about to be the big climax but then wasn't really. The "will you marry me?" etc was completely ridiculous. It would have been funny if it had lasted maybe 2 or 3 lines... but not the whole ceremony. There were quite a few little silly bits that I thought it could do without.

And then we hear that there were some lines cut that would have made the whole Davy Jones/Calypso/Dutchman/Curse thing clearer - they had to be cut for time (and now we're left with a confusing and questionable "curse" resolution) but the really silly groanworthy moments didn't? *sigh*

Anyway, so I left the cinema feeling a big disappointed and deflated, mainly due to the anti-climactic nature of the last few scenes, but maybe that's my fault for having such high expectations. I will see it again and I bet I understadn things better and therefore like it more.

(golly, that was a big ramble for "initial thoughts", wasn't it?)

~~~

I've been offered a job teaching drama classes to developmentally disabled adults at two rehabilitation centres. I've worked at one of them before, a couple of years ago, and I didn't think I'd done all that well for them, but they must have liked me because they want me back. It'll only be two hours a week, but I can charge $65/hour so that's just fine. :-) It'll be challenging work and I'm SO glad to have been offered something that'll be meaningful. The groups range from fairly high-functioning to very low-functioning people, so it'll be harder than last time, when most students were high-functioning. So if anyone knows any info about rehabilitation/education/anything for developmentally disabled people, I'm keen to learn all I can!

I didn't get a part in that play from a couple of weeks ago. Eh. Life goes on.

I'm applying this week for work at Luna Park - character "hosting" and street theatre. That'd be a fun job if nothing else.

Oh and that retail job I was doing? Boy oh boy. I only ended up getting 5 days work (out of the 14 I was offered), the manager just stopped contacting me and when I finally got a hold of someone it turned out the sale had gone caput. It took them 3 weeks to pay me despite endless promises of being paid "in a few days". I called the company's office in Melbourne and found out that it was that manager's first sale, and it kinda sounded like she was already in trouble - before they started getting all the phone calls from all of us annoyed casuals. Sheesh. THAT was an ordeal. Never again. But, it did pay this term's preschool fees. So that's something. :-)

~~~

Ok, it's very late. I shall try to catch up a bit with my "online life" in the next few days, but I am avoiding spending too much time here, in favoiur of getting my "real life" a bit more organised.

Toodles!

8 comments:

Connor said...

Hey! Don't completely agree with you about POTC3... I thought the locker scene was really cool and gutsy, very surreal for a summer blockbuster. But we're both spinning off first impressions to visit again in more detail, so. :)

Congratulations on your new job, and on the whole getting-paid-by-irrespondible-former-employers thing.

Sumara said...

Hey dearie,

You know, the more I think about the locker scene, the more I like it. I think my problem was that I had heard a little about it beforehand and had such a clear idea in my head of what I expected it to be... and then it was very different. So it's taking me a bit to let go of my own expectations.

The other annoying bit about that scene is that for a few seconds there is a back shot of one of the "Jack"s, and the double has such a completely different physique to Johnny (the one that got stabbed). I thought that was pretty careless of them.. but, ahem, I probably shouldn't focus too much on Johnny's physique...

;-)

Thanks!

merlin said...

Sumara,
I figured you had seen it (I saw it as well on the 25th and then saw it again last Friday) but had not had time to jump over here and see what you thought ... it has been a very hectic and busy beginning of the summer here in the Bronx, including an 8 hr each way trip back to pennsylvania for a surprise 40th b-day party my sister and a good friend threw for Pauli last weekend.

Anyway, much to discuss on this one. But first I'll comment on the locker scene, as it is the subject of the comments here, and then on to the rest. The first thing about it was that I was thinking going in "when I saw movie 2 the question was how do you beat the Jack intro of movie 1 ... well, you don't, but how do you live up to it even half way? And then they did a pretty good job with the blasting his way out of a coffin ... a little predictable I guess, but still good ... but how are they going to live up to those 2 intros? how are they going to find a third intro to match them? You have to run out of really clever intros at some point" and then they did it. They did it by going in a completely different direction, a very surrealist post-modern direction that relied heavily on "inter-textual echoes" - which is my second point about it. From the moment I saw it I thought "ahhh ...clever little screen writers and film makers ... bringing in echoes of other very post-modern film makers, as well as a nice literary great echo." (the latter is Coleridge's Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, but that gets developed more fully in the crew on the deck of the Pearl trying to escape the doldrums, glad they didn't have an albatros come in and Jack kill it ... that would have been, indeed, over-kill). The first main echo is the arid blindingly white set of a place where a person is trapped in a sort of limbo ... the train station from the 3rd Matrix movie. The second big echoe is the multiple Jacks, which is a Depp specific echoe ... from "Secret Window" with Maria Bello. In the DVD extras of that one they show how they did the multiple Johnny's with paper plate sized faces that the central Johnny walked around and talked to as referent points for the extra Depps that pop in in conversation with him (Depp himself started that trend of echoing his own movies in movie one in the extras ad lib scene on the French, when he lifted the line about raisins being humiliated grapes, which was a line of Mary Stuart Masterson's in "Benny and June" with Depp in the 80s). Of course, the Matrix echoes had begun even before the locker scene, with Elizabeth's arsenal under her clothes ... the pull back of the outer cloak to reveal the harness full of various guns is a direct lift form the scene in the first Matrix when Neo goes through the metal detector and sets it off and the guard stops short in the middle of "please remove any metal or metalic items ..." when Neo opens his cloak and the guard goes "holy ... !" I even think there is an echoe to Princess Bride in the locker scene in the fact that is is a peanut (Facinni says "no more rhymes, and I mean it" and Andre the Giant says "anybody want a peanut?") ... I even think there is a reference to Peewee's Big Adventure (Paul Ruebens as Peewee Herman in the 80s) at the 4th council of the Brethren when Barbosa says to free Calypso and somebody says to shoot him and somebody else says to hang him and somebody else says to cut out his tongue and Jack says "I say we shoot him and hang him and then cut out his tongue and shoot and hang his tongue!" (at one point PeeWee is held captive by some bikers who one says stab him, one says hang him, one says shoot him, on says kill him, and with each addition the next is added by "I say we stab him, then we shoot him, then we hang him" and PeeWee says in a high fake voice "I say we let him go")

Now, on to the other comments on the movie. Although I must admit that I am weighing my words here because I have a new practice of trying to be careful of what content I put online because I am gearing more now towards paper publishing in peer-reveiwed academic journals and one of the essays I am writing will be on the Pirates trilogy and tenets of post-modern thought, particularly from Martin Heidegger.

But, having said that, I thought I would clarify that I think we are talking about 3 elements here in film making and this film: 1 is the acting, 2 is the physical/visual texture of images and scenes and how well they are or are not done/shot, and 3 is the mental content of images used and plot elements and their flow and inter-relation. A lot of what I have to say positive on the movie is on the level of the last (#3) and some in connection with #2. I see it as entirely possible for strong critiques to be made of the acting (such as yours of Elizabeth - which is honestly not my forte at all :) ) alongside positive comments of my own on the other elements. I will however class your one criticism of the transformation of Calypso under #2 and your criticism of the wedding scene as under # 3, and try to provide my own positive understanding of those elements along those lines (don't worry, I won't be bringing Heidegger in, that is a whole other kettle of fish itself ... well, I just re-read and have to admit I fibbed a little about not bringing Heidegger in, but it is just a wee little bit :) ). Although I don't think I have everything nailed down by a long shot and there will be plenty of room to criticize my reading justly :)

So, the first one is the Calypso "blow up doll" ... which I hadn't htought of before but it is a pretty insightful comment (when Elizabeth agrees to go with Sao Feng to resolve things it seems to me like a strong tone of accepted prostitution role, which makes, for me, Sao Fengs belief that she, E, is Calypso actually true on a certain level, both are bound, both accepted being bound when having it forced on them by males). Although I couldn't necessarily say that they intended the specific gritty image context of a specific "blow up doll" (trying to remain onscure enough not to shock young ears but clear enough to communicate what I am aiming at to adult ears here :) ), I think it is possible they meant that (given some of what I will say in a moment about other images in the films) but can't say for sure. The place where I would disagree with criticism is that I think they did intend something close to it on a broader level (although, as far as doing the physical/visual image texture of the image well or not is, again, another question and that could probably be very justly criticized ... verdict is still out for me), and that it is at least possible for it to work in theory or on the level of the mental content.

So, now I must forth-rightly answer, as best I can, the immediate question that surely arises - "WHAT in God's green earth ARE you talking about, Merlin ?!?!?!" I would not call the thing itself of blowing Tia Dalma up so much as silly(although, like I said, one might justifiably criticize the way it was done visually in its tone and texture and all), as I do think it is intentionally grotesque. Calypso is a god forced into human form. This is very akin to pagan mythology. I did a paper in fall semester on medieval "proofs" for the existence of God in which I argued that where people have taken such theology since then has some very mistaken readings of the whole theism vs atheism thing. In a book on that subject (The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World) Alister McGrath talks about how the Greek etc mythology had the gods as immortals with human libidos writ large, and I argued that much current thinking on theism puts forth a "God" with human socio-political agendas writ large.

In short, in the first movie and in the third Barbosa is pagan religion. In movie one he is the priest with the knife at the high altar of human sacrifice (that positioning and staging of the stone chest of Cortez is too pronounced to be accidental, I think) ... with his liturgical incantation of "begotten by blood, by blood undone" and in this movie he is the pagan with the magic to release Calypso, although even for that he needs the help of the poet-lover Ragetti to speak the words properly (as Pagan priest Barbosa is as impotent here as Will was in movie 1, noted by the screen writers). And therein is a key connection for Barbosa as pagan - his specific piece of the 9 pieces of 8 ... they eye of the poet - IE both the pagan poet (recalling Ragetti's references to the Homeric epics - "this is what the Greeks did, only they was in a horse instead of dresses" - and literary elements - "thats what you call irony") and the pagan oracle, the eye.

But what Barbosa yields in movie 3 is still the grotesque of the human form of Calypso "writ large" ... Barbosa himself sees it as a failure when she returns to her truest form in the crabs that return into the water of the sea.

And then she comes back in her most properly true form of both woman and sea ... charybdis, the wirlpool or maelstrom. Here it is that she is able to be simply the sea without choosing sides (Will ensured that with his question and her demand that he name her oppressor so that she remembers that when she is in here sea form, and merely provides the true place for Jones to fight the pirate lords, represented by Barbosa and the Pearl, rather than exacting vengeance only on the latter, as she had said earlier she would do)

Now, here I get into sensitive waters where I MUST explain myself properly. Charybdis is, by nature, a mouth. This connects up with other imagery in the films of specific female anatomy ... the same connection by which certain parts of female anatomy are called by the same latinate ("latin-based, of course") name as certain types of letters that derive their class name from being formed by a particular part of the mouth, the labial letters such as "m." Like I said, a little bit dicey subject matter here and tricky waters to sail, but I think it is in there.

So, let me clarify two things I do not mean. I do not mean, first, that the feminine is threatening or bad by nature. The second is that I do not mean that the screen writers have "issues" that are surfacing here. Those two concerns coincide in that I think the screen writers are using particular female anatomy imagery to carry a point about what is really going on in the story. One writer on Tolkien cited a couple if interpretations of Shelob's tunnel layer and Frodo cutting through the webs with his sword in the Lord of the Rings as the same type of imagery but these theorists painted it that Tolkien had obvious issues with women because Shelob is intrinsically bad (I disagree with those commentators on Tolkien, but that is beside the point) ... this is not what is going on here, I think the imagery is fully conscious and aimed at a specific element.

The whirpool image connects with a lot outside of the pirates movies. It is Jones who identifies it correctyly: In the scene I consider to be Jones' one true glimpse of his former glory as a real and courageous man, while Mercer is vacillating between soilng his drawers and puking up his socks, Jones for once stands at the helm as a true captain again, even if only briefly, and measures up to real gusto in yelling "into the abyss!" In Heidegger it is the "nothing" that human existence (Dasein in German, THE key term for Heidegger) is continually held out into, and it is the same for him as the "ab-grund" the "without ground" - the "abyss." In Genesis 1 it is the "Tehome" - the "deep" over whose face the Spirit of God hovers (this is a REALLY intersting instance here. One theory, the one I hold to, is that the language is echoing elements of the Babylonian Enuma Elish Elish creation epic ... but as a polemic against the Babylonian religion by some key reversals. In the EE the sea serpent mother godess is the feminine Tiamat, which name derives from shared linguistic roots with the Hebrew "Tehome" ... only the Hebrew word is Masculine. conversely the "Ruach Elohim" or "Spirit of God" is of feminine gender in the Hebrew language. However the storm wind Imhulu that Marduke hurls into the mouth of Tiamat in the EE, similar to how the ruach Elohim hovers over the face of the Tehome in Gen 1, is not feminine ... Imhulu in the EE is masculine. The poles are reversed. One scholar I read talked about the image of the storm wind as a standard image of insemination, and indeed the effect of Imhulu on Tiamat is that her belly swells and Marduke is able to hurl his javeline into her mouth as it is held open by Imhulu. Basically the EE served as a religious validation of oppressive male dominated society in which impregnation was viewed as a means of control [this is admittedly a very post-structuralist reading]. In Genesis the gender poles are reversed, I think as a way of saying to the Babylonian religion "our God creates something so much greater than your petty and perverted gender war and gender oppression you have in your creation epic that praise Marduke as creator")

So, here is the one I have been skirting around ... charybdis as mouth connects with the Kraken in movie 2, and especially the Kraken's mouth. The visual texture there, in the suction cups but especially in the Kraken mouth when Jack faces it, seems to me to be VERY styled on feminine anatomy. BUT I am not saying that I think the writers have issues with feminine identity in which they are painting the feminine as bad or even intrinsically dangerous in an unhealthy way. We find out in movie 3 that Jones created the Kraken just as Marduke created Imhulu the storm wind. The Kraken as feminine is threatening to Jack precisely because it came from Jones' issues with the feminine and because Will has impotency and woman issues. I would even say that, while Jones created the Kraken, it has a life of its own once created and really represents femininity held in bondage and controlled wrongly by a skewed masculine will taken to psychotic levels (which is why WILL Turner has to replace Jones with a right masculine will), and that when Becket has Jones kill the Kraken it is nothing short of an act of murder.

Now, on to the wedding, because I think it is essential to the movie that the wedding take place in Charybdis, just as human life issues from the feminine anatomy on the biological level and humanity is created in Genesis 1 from the "deeps" ... so a wedding, and indeed all of married life, takes place in the "chaos" of the "deep" - "De Profundus Clamo ad Te, Domine" ("from the depths I cry to you o Lord," Ps 130) is not merely a cry to be completely removed from the deeps, but rather a cry to come to grips with our continued existence in the deeps of human existence(recall Heidegger's "abyss")

Here is where I think it is important that the whole ceremony, complete with vows, and with Barbosa officiating as a pagan captain, is important (as well as the nice image that they cross blades before crossing lips ... there is no argument or fight quite like that of a man and a woman who are involved romantically with each other at an advanced stage of a relationship). In Catholic sacramental theology, IE where I am coming from, marriage is the only sacrament that was not instituted COMPLETELY sui generis ("of its own origin") but elevated by Christ to the level of a Christian sacrament from an already existing religious institution. Thus, the pagan Barbosa officiates the wedding in Charybdis, but then, for the romantic story arc to be complete as written in at least a post-Christian aesthetic tradition (meaning distinct from pre-Christian or totally non-Christian era ... even for those not accepting the Christian faith, the post-Christian era is still defined by coming out of the Christian Tradition), the new marriage has to take a further step, the step of sacrifice (here is it Will and Ellizabeth sacrificing being able to live their love in a daily way together because they sacrifice themselves in the service of the dead who need to be ferried to the afterlife ... in the movie it is those who die at sea, but if, as I have been saying, the sea symbolizes our fragile and chaotic plight as humanity in general, then "those who die at sea" are really all humanity who die... this is getting into the stuff I will write in what I try to get published, an element in Hediegger's thought called "being towards death" as an essential part of human existence ... and this is really where the movie blew my head off - I went in expecting to like it a lot, I came out speechless ... well, obvioulsly I regained my voice after a bit lol :) )

As for the deleted 23 minutes with helpful explanations I have mixed feelings. I want to see how they explain the stuff and will doubtless find it helpful, but the one I am wary of is what I have heard about definitive statements that Will and Elizabeths separation will only be for 1 ten-year period. I am not saying I absolutely don't think it can work, but I do think it has problems that need at least to be clarified. The first is what happens to his heart in the chest. I can see it working if the heart remains in the chest and the chest in Elizabeth's care even when they are reunited on a daily basis ( I think this would actually, now that I think about it, be best of all, because it would show that you cannot simply "get back to normal life" - there must always be an element "being towards death" and towards the dead if life is not to be perverse ... to quote Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday in Tombstone, "there's no such thing as 'normal life', Wyatt, there's just life" - or to quote Bob Dylan as I quoted him in a piece Jo really liked over on MM, "It's all right ma, it's life and life only" ... In truth my gut desire is for them to be together on a daily basis, sharing all the mixed experience of daily married life and family, working through things together on a daily basis ... In truth I would LOVE to see young Will have not only his parents together in regular life, but also get to know his grandfather in regular life ... but regular life must always be flavored with at least the role of the Dutchman, her crew and her captain, to quote Deb Winger as Joy in the movie on CS Lewis, Shadowlands, "the pain when that time comes is part of the happiness now" only converse, that if normal life after Will leaves the Dutchman is to be a good life, the pain of the separation then must be part of the joy of life now). But, as the movie states, the Dutchman must have a captain, the ship must continue to sail and ferry the dead safely to the other side. So the question is whether or not each new captain (nice ... like the succession of dread pirates robert in the Princess Bride) must have his heart cut out and put in a chest. Tia Dalma states in Movie 2 that Jones cut out his own heart, so I would think that that was not part of the original deal of the Dutchman's captain, only the Dutchman under Jones' command (and thus carries for Will as part of his defeating Jones before getting to insitute his own rules as the new captain) ... but this is something that would need to be clarified well in the concrete text of the movie.

Now, that is my whole official spiel for here, without getting any further into the content of the essay I am going to try to publish in a journal, but I'll close with what I am going to open that article with, which is a disclaimer for those who say the movie is too hectic and jumbled and tries to pack too much in ... and my answer is that they are exactly 100 percent right on the nose. But this is post-modern chaotic life the movie is addressing ... it is as chaotic as the abyss of Genesis 1 itself and if one is going to address those matters properly, the text in which they are going to be addressed is going to be chaotic and over-packed. If you are going to go where these guys go in this movie, it is going to be those chaotic waters of the maelstrom (to quote Barbosa, though, when he takes the Pearl into Charybdis "ahhh, now this is a day worth living for!") ... to quote Nietzche on "being human" in Ecce Homo ... "I am no man .... I am dynamite!" - explosive and chaotic to the core.

Anyway, really good talking about it all on your site again, Sumara. I hope the rest of everything else you have going on goes well and smoothly too. Tell Jo I am tonight working on a random piece on Muggle Matters from recent listening to Harry Potter book 4 ... it's a bit technical, but good practice at trying to get the contents of my trade down into understandable and readable English writing.

Merlin in the Chaos of the Bronx

Sumara said...

Wow, what a comment! :-) Thanks Merlin. I really look forward to reading your planned article when it gets published (because to be published you might be forced to use fewer parentheses-within-parentheses and it will hurt my brain less to keep up with you! lol)

I love everything you've said about the mythical qualities and the issue of male/feminine power or control. I think one of the overarching themes of the trilogy is corporation versus independent, masculine versus feminine, rules versus guidelines...

Really, the only issue I had with the Tia Dalma blow-up was that it just didn't LOOK good. To me she didn't look like a goddess, she looked simply like a really odd giant human. A goddess should be beautiful and spectacular (but also fearsome) rather than just overblown. But then, she was very angry, so I can kind of understand it... anyway.

With the locker scene - I totally agree about the Depp- throwback to not only Secret Window because of the multiple Jacks, but also other Depp films - there a re a few "Jack"s that rather resemble characters from old Depp films like Rochester from the Libertine, a man from The Brave (with the goat), Axel from (I think) Arizona Dream, Sam from Beny and Joon... people have mentioned a couple of others. I think Johnny is generally pretty fond of recalling aspects of old characters or stories in his new ones.

However, I don't *think* the locker scene was done in the same way as the scene in Secret Window, because there were bodies there that just weren't Johnny's. Meaning, they filmed actual Johnny while the camera was on his front, and used body doubles for rear views of Jack. Only the body doubles weren't all very accurate.

Anyway, all of this I will keep an eye out for, because I'm going to see it again today (yippee!) while hubby takes the girls to see Shrek.

Oh and about Will's 10-year service etc.... I think some of the confusion is due to their being that "green flash" when Will returns in the very last scene, because that symbolises a soul "returning from the dead" - but whether it means he's returning for good or just for one day isn't necessarily defined. The theory behind the 10-years-then-finished idea is that if the captain has a true love faithfully waiting for him he can return to normal life.. and it was only because Davy jones' true love *wasn't* waiting for him that he had to continue as Captain, and therefore got bitter and stuffed up the whole thing.

I guess that we need to assume, for that theory to be true, that the captain of the Dutchman was previously chosen some other, less dramatic way, before Jones initiated the heart-in-chest deal, so Will would only have to do whatever the old method of recruiting a new Captain was...

but this is a lot of assumptions, and even if some of it was in the script or even filmed, it didn't make it into the final cut of the story, so how much does it really count?

Anyway, I shall be listening and watching carefully today, and I will be waiting anxiously for an extended Director's Cut. :-)

Great top hear from you Merlin. I will let Jo know that you're about again. :-)

Nic,Beren & Freya said...

Hi Summara ! Glad to hear you had a good holiday :-)

jkr2 said...

hellooooo... "waves"

love you and miss you muchly dearie.

i finally found my login details for blogger again, since nathan (the lutheran) was asking me about it.

glad to see that potc3 brought merlin out in fine form! "waves to merlin".

i'm a bit bummed out because i don't think i can get to see 'driving lessons' at the cinema and that is really just a tragic thing.

anyway - hello to everyone here and you and the little ones.

((((hugs)))

cheers,
jo

Sumara said...

Hi Nic! Thanks. Hope you guys are doing well. :-)

Hey jo my love. I sent you a chat message. Oh you simply must go and see Driving Lessons. *pout* Who do I have to beat up to make them let you go?

jkr2 said...

it looks like i might be able to go after all... just alone.

feel like another drive? you could come up and see it with me!!!

cheers my squishy

jo