62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#101 Post by matrixschmatrix » Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:27 am

Jeeeeeesus Christ, this movie. I literally can't remember when I was last floored like this. There are all sorts of readings of it- the one that occurred to me while watching was a feminist one, insofar as Joan was constantly isolated, gaslighted, manipulated, told that she could not possibly have the knowledge required for self determination, and significantly told that dressing as a man (and presumably, acting as a man) was an abomination- but this thing is so overwhelming that analysis almost seems wrong. I am literally short of breath right now, this thing took it out of me. Jesus, this movie.

User avatar
dad1153
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:32 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#102 Post by dad1153 » Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:11 am

Let me guess, first time? :wink:

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#103 Post by aox » Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:44 am

I am not a silent film aficionado, but this was the first silent film that hit me like a ton of bricks when I saw it for the first time years ago. Really opened my eyes to how powerful complete silence guided by image can be. The film is not only incredible, but was a revelation to me.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#104 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:24 pm

This is such a powerful film. I got the Criterion DVD in highschool and I popped it into my laptop just to take a quick look at the transfer only to end up watching the whole thing through, it was so immediately and viscerally engulfing. It's been a top ten favourite of mine ever since. It's so uncompromising in how it shows every single bit of emotion felt by its protagonist, down to the slightest nuance. Dreyer lets you see every single tear Joan sheds.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#105 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:27 pm

A good a time as any to point out that somebody apparently upped Le merveilleuse vie de Jeanne d'arc on yt. It's a fascinating comparison to make, observing two highly skilled directors handling the same historical source in such different ways. The odds of a dvd on this are about 19,000,000,000,035 to 1, so for those without access to a copy of the old seacam material, the tube'll hafta do.

I was tooting a bit on that film on a thread created for it here.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#106 Post by Drucker » Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:34 pm

The first time I watched this was on my laptop in bed. My girlfriend insisted it's the type of film "you only need to watch once to 'get', no need to own it!" And immediately I recognized how wrong she was! Also, I'd only seen Gertrud and Ordet at this point by Dreyer, so had no idea what this would be like. My breath was taken away, and it's still one of my favorite films ever.

User avatar
Anthony
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:38 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#107 Post by Anthony » Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:06 pm

Drucker wrote:The first time I watched this was on my laptop in bed. My girlfriend insisted it's the type of film "you only need to watch once to 'get', no need to own it!" And immediately I recognized how wrong she was!
And maybe you should have told your girlfriend that "she is the type of girl you only have to sleep with once to fully experience... no need for a long term relationship." I wonder how she would have taken that remark? ](*,)

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#108 Post by matrixschmatrix » Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:47 pm

dad1153 wrote:Let me guess, first time? :wink:
yup
Mr Sausage wrote:This is such a powerful film. I got the Criterion DVD in highschool and I popped it into my laptop just to take a quick look at the transfer only to end up watching the whole thing through, it was so immediately and viscerally engulfing. It's been a top ten favourite of mine ever since. It's so uncompromising in how it shows every single bit of emotion felt by its protagonist, down to the slightest nuance. Dreyer lets you see every single tear Joan sheds.
I actually couldn't bear watching it all at once, and had to take a couple of ten minute breaks to get through it. I was having a hard time sorting out why I think this movie is unbelievable while I think something like The Passion of the Christ is basically contemptible- I mean, they're both movies fundamentally about watching someone suffer for the entire film. Obviously, one of the differences is that Dreyer is an immeasurably more skilled and subtle filmmaker, but I think part of it is the way that Joan resists, and how her strength is shown- Gibson's movie seems to be asking the audience to imagine what it would be like to endure Christ's pain (or, more cynically, to enjoy the sight of a man being tortured) while Dreyer's seems more concerned with getting at the inner core of humanity or soul or whatever you want to call it that enables Joan to endure her trial with such grace and power. Falconetti's performance is key there, simultaneously staying othered (in that we never feel we know exactly what she's thinking) and heartbreakingly human and recognizable.

I know there's a lot of feminist theory about how problematic it is to posit a hero who does nothing but suffer, and I don't disagree with that theory, but it feels very much like it doesn't apply here. I'm not sure that I'm not just applying a kneejerk defense to separate something that I immediately loved from things I don't care for, though.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#109 Post by domino harvey » Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:56 pm

One of the first "older" films to hit me hard, it's one of the few inarguable classics that truly is as good as everyone says

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#110 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:21 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:I actually couldn't bear watching it all at once, and had to take a couple of ten minute breaks to get through it. I was having a hard time sorting out why I think this movie is unbelievable while I think something like The Passion of the Christ is basically contemptible- I mean, they're both movies fundamentally about watching someone suffer for the entire film.
Here's how I see it:

The Passion of the Christ, very literally, is torture worship. You are meant to find the suffering and brutality a holy experience, indeed the holiest and the greatest thing to have ever happened and that will ever happened in the history of creation. You are meant to appreciate why Christ's suffering was, in fact, a good thing in itself, and through that become closer to the lord. You are to worship that torture. That is why it is a reprehensible movie: it wishes you to find the good (the ultimate good!) in torture, murder, and human sacrifice. Such a thing is psyche warping at a basic level.

The Passion of Joan of Arc is not trying to convince you that Joan's torture and murder is ultimately a good thing. You are meant to appreciate her personal victory in spite of what she suffers, not because she suffers.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#111 Post by matrixschmatrix » Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:33 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:The Passion of the Christ, very literally, is torture worship. You are meant to find the suffering and brutality a holy experience, indeed the holiest and the greatest thing to have ever happened and that will ever happened in the history of creation. You are meant to appreciate why Christ's suffering was, in fact, a good thing in itself, and through that become closer to the lord. That is why it is a reprehensible movie: it wishes you to find the good (the ultimate good!) in torture, murder, and human sacrifice. Such a thing is psyche warping at a basic level.
It's fascinating to me when someone adopts this viewpoint but refuses to reach the conclusion which is obviously implied, viz, that the Roman torturers, Pharisees, Pilate, Judas, and I suppose Satan himself are all obviously doing God's work and ought therefore be congratulated rather than condemned for their part in the Passion.

I think one of the fascinating things about Dreyer's movie is the presentation of the judges- unlike the jailers or soldiers, who are pretty straightforward brutes and sadists, the judges are genuinely unhappy at the prospect of burning Joan at the end of the film- implicitly, they genuinely believe that what they are doing is just and righteous (prefiguring Absalon in Day of Wrath in that respect.) It certainly doesn't make me dislike them any less- they're obviously still monstrous, self righteous bullies- but I think in giving them an understandable psychology, Dreyer also avoids putting himself in the position of a sadistic God torturing his characters for our edification, as I think often happens in movies about suffering. There's an argument dramatized by the trial, not just a simple dichotomy of Good and Evil.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#112 Post by aox » Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:41 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:The Passion of the Christ, very literally, is torture worship. You are meant to find the suffering and brutality a holy experience, indeed the holiest and the greatest thing to have ever happened and that will ever happened in the history of creation. You are meant to appreciate why Christ's suffering was, in fact, a good thing in itself, and through that become closer to the lord. You are to worship that torture. That is why it is a reprehensible movie: it wishes you to find the good (the ultimate good!) in torture, murder, and human sacrifice. Such a thing is psyche warping at a basic level.

The Passion of Joan of Arc is not trying to convince you that Joan's torture and murder is ultimately a good thing. You are meant to appreciate her personal victory in spite of what she suffers, not because she suffers.
Fantastic nutshell! Thanks

User avatar
jwd5275
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:26 pm
Location: SF, CA

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#113 Post by jwd5275 » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:41 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:The Passion of Joan of Arc is not trying to convince you that Joan's torture and murder is ultimately a good thing. You are meant to appreciate her personal victory in spite of what she suffers, not because she suffers.
Knowing a vast many Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, I know that this is exactly what they would say about the Passion...
Last edited by jwd5275 on Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#114 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:51 pm

Gibson's own comment about the movie is that we are meant to appreciate that Christ could go through all that and still love humanity- which, to me at least, implies that Gibson wasn't concerned about examining Christ's strength in undergoing the ordeal (and really, he is a far more passive character than Joan in Gibson's telling) and more about highlighting the cruelty of the people putting him through it, and about the physical act of torture. We don't really appreciate Christ winning a victory (except in the sense that he has successfully fulfilled God's plan, as Sausage indicated) because there's not really a choice being made during the events Gibson chooses to depict- I think there's a vague thing in there implying that Satan is trying to tempt him into escaping the whole thing, but it's certainly not the central question of the movie (as in Last Temptation) nor is Caviezel's Jesus in any way a humanized character with whose temptations we empathize, such that a victory over them would mean something to us.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#115 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:38 pm

jwd5275 wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:The Passion of Joan of Arc is not trying to convince you that Joan's torture and murder is ultimately a good thing. You are meant to appreciate her personal victory in spite of what she suffers, not because she suffers.
Knowing a vast many Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, I know that this is exactly what they would say about the Passion...
If so, they would be very wrong. Christ is achieving his full eminence directly on account of his torture and murder. That is the very thing out of which apparently the salvation of humanity is assured. We are meant to be happy that it happened and love god/Jesus further for having thought it up and brought it about. This is a movie that wants us to know in graphic detail how truly awful Jesus' suffering was so that we can then feel how truly wonderful it is for having taken place. The more awful it is, the more gruesome the suffering, the more holy Jesus becomes, according to this movie. Each lash makes Jesus more amazing. That is torture worship.

With Joan, it is not her torture and murder that effects anything, or at least that is meant to. We are meant to be impressed by her without feeling that she ought to have suffered, or that somehow her suffering is the only way that our lives can be properly enriched.

User avatar
jwd5275
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:26 pm
Location: SF, CA

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#116 Post by jwd5275 » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:55 pm

Mr Sausage wrote: If so, they would be very wrong. Christ is achieving his full eminence directly on account of his torture and murder. That is the very thing out of which apparently the salvation of humanity is assured. We are meant to be happy that it happened and love god/Jesus further for having thought it up and brought it about. This is a movie that wants us to know in graphic detail how truly awful Jesus' suffering was so that we can then feel how truly wonderful it is for having taken place. The more awful it is, the more gruesome the suffering, the more holy Jesus becomes, according to this movie. Each lash makes Jesus more amazing. That is torture worship.

With Joan, it is not her torture and murder that effects anything, or at least that is meant to. We are meant to be impressed by her without feeling that she ought to have suffered, or that somehow her suffering is the only way that our lives can be properly enriched.
So you are saying that you know what they believe better than they do? Are you even aware that there are more soteriological views than the ransom theory of grace in christianity?

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#117 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:13 pm

jwd5275 wrote:So you are saying that you know what they believe better than they do? Are you even aware that there are more soteriological views than the ransom theory of grace in christianity?
Well it ought to be clear that what we're discussing is how the Passion is being presented to us in Gibson's movie. As well, the ransom theory of atonement involves Jesus being ransomed to Satan as a kind of ruse, so whether or not I am aware that this is not the only theory doesn't matter since it's irrelevant to my claims. We're talking about a movie that deliberately reproduces Christ's suffering in the most explicit possible detail in order to make us love him better and love his ordeal all the more more for having happened as it did. Again, the worse it gets the more blessed the experience is meant to feel.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#118 Post by HerrSchreck » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:38 pm

Its funny this came up as I was writing a post about it in the interim.

I similarly loathe the film, and think it's a failure because it explicitly fails in its mission. I wrote (in response to your initial post, mr s):

It’s the fact that people come away from the film with readings like this that imho renders it such an utter failure for the average “thinking” person (whatever that is, agreed). I really don’t think that it was Gibson’s intention to hoist up the violence and torture in this film so that it could be lovingly worshipped and celebrated as the greatest thing in the history of mankind… though that IS the end result for most—and justifiably if not understandably so.

Gibson stated (I’m not kidding)-- “This is a film about love, hope faith and forgiveness. Jesus died for all mankind, suffered for all of us. It’s time to get back to that basic message.”

We may be coming at the same point from different sides of the coin here, and are probably mostly in agreement w each other, Mr. S. My contention is that his film is a miserable failure because I believe he wanted us to pivot from this violence to construe the greatness of the man, specifically in enduring it. . . whereas if I understand you correct, ie that he wanted us to appreciate the violence as a beautiful thing in and of itself, then his film was a total success.

I think you were probably being a little sardonic in your statement about the worship of the violence for its own sake. I do think he wanted us to abhor the violence; I think his goal was something along the lines of neutralizing the effect of all the repetition that the crucifixion is subject to over the course of a person’s life, beginning in childhood. This regardless whether historical (nonchristians) or religious (for Christians), it’s impossible to avoid encounters with the crucifixion either cinematically, in literature or scripture, in statues and necklaces, or in works of art hanging in museums and household walls the globe over.

Sort of like the way the repeating of the same word over and over again sucks the meaning right out of the word (HUMANITY AND PAPER BALLOONS anyone? “Kingyo, kingyo… kingyo hah hah hahhh. . . .”) I think Gibson thought that people had lost sight of the reality of what it was that Jesus experienced and set it as his mission to deliver that in the form of an actual, visual, sensory experience. Not, I’d imagine, setting as his mission the worship of the violence in and of itself as a thing of glory, but to, by amping up the violence in the passion narrative to match the awful historical reality, amp up our awe for the person of Jesus in withstanding this horrible set of tribulations and enduring with quiet dignity the awful lot he confronted. In other words the thing to at last finally see and worship is not the violence, but the man who endured the violence to the end. To, I guess, “see the reality of what was actually suffered and abided for the salvation of humanity.”

Of course in the end all Gibson manages to accomplish for most in the critical community (this despite the film’s huge box office, which I’d imagine is a result of many many people simply wanting to stay current amid all the water cooler talk about the latest spectacle which set so many minds a-twirl at the time; I myself went to see what all the hubbub was about) is to fail utterly in the attempt. It’s tough to allow transcendent thoughts to gather amidst the splatter of a grinding of a butcher shop. Jesus himself, if the gospels are to be believed, lost it on the cross for a moment after enduring the bulk of his lot (“My god, my god, why hast thou…”). Add to this the utterly artless (subjective of course, but its my view) method of the film’s construction, and one merely walks out thinking that Gibson is One Peculiar Dude, more concerned with bone saws than sacramental chalices.

This of course contrasted to Dreyer’s film, which similarly seeks to increase our understanding of the awfulness of the reality of the execution of a martyr, and the martyr’s power to endure the path they know leads to their own physically agonizing, slow obliteration. Despite the dazzling style and innovation of Dreyer’s film, his film is filled with depth and gentle contemplation.. it’s filled with open routes to an abundance of meanings and levels of nuanced human understanding, many that are almost impossible to articulate in words. This is alien territory in Gibson’s film. By the time of Dreyer’s film’s final act I’ve gained a closeness to the character of what I, for that moment, feel is the real historical Joan that when she is executed I’m well nigh traumatized by it (and is there any more eerie an image than that of the—I guess wax—figure of Joan burning and collapsing in the flames?).

User avatar
jwd5275
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:26 pm
Location: SF, CA

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#119 Post by jwd5275 » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:49 pm

However, just as I said before, most evangelicals, fundamentalist, as well as Gibson himself would suggest that what is portrayed is victory despite suffering, as opposed to victory because of suffering. Realise I am not defending the violence of the film which I find repulsive, just a misrepresentation of the perfectly valid Christian soteriology presented in it as well as in Dreyer's film.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#120 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:23 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:whereas if I understand you correct, ie that he wanted us to appreciate the violence as a beautiful thing in and of itself, then his film was a total success.
Not quite. I think the violence is indeed meant to impress you as awful and horrific. But in that awfulness and horridness, you are to find the ultimate good and to approve, finally, that it took place, instead of deploring it. Think of it, if we love Jesus, should we not then hate what he had to endure? But if this movie wants us to love Jesus all the more for having endured torture, then it is implied that the torture was worth the going through, and therefore contributed an ultimate good to the world, and therefore should be worshiped for accomplishing that ultimate good. I think the crucial point is that we're shown so much suffering not so that we'll stop thinking there was any good in it, but so that we'll be impressed by its goodness all the more. When Gibson says we are to "get back to the message" that Jesus suffered for us, what he means is that it's time for us to get back to worshiping the Judeo-Christian god for his suffering, as opposed to, say, lamenting that it happened. Ask yourself, how many people walked out of the movie saying "what a terrible thing that that happened." I wager no one. Nor is anyone meant to.

So I think you're right that Gibson wanted shock us out of our collective inurement to the story of Christ's sacrifice, but the only accomplishment of this is to refocus the religion back on its most barbaric and disgusting element, its use of a human sacrifice to achieve divine favour. There are a ton of things that Jesus can be legitimately appreciated for; why should his torture and murder be the central one if not because Gibson believes it was in the end great and good?

jwd5275 wrote:However, just as I said before, most evangelicals, fundamentalist, as well as Gibson himself would suggest that what is portrayed is victory despite suffering, as opposed to victory because of suffering. Realise I am not defending the violence of the film which I find repulsive, just a misrepresentation of the perfectly valid Christian soteriology presented in it as well as in Dreyer's film.
And I say they are wrong for the simple reason that Christ's victory is through his suffering in Gibson's version. It is the suffering and the sacrifice in itself which completes the divine act. It is not ancillary to that act. How can anyone say his victory is in spite of his suffering when it is for that very suffering that we are meant to love him and from which we get salvation (in Gibson's version at least)?

EDIT: just to hammer this home slightly more: for a goodness to come "in spite of" something means it is an accidental or unintended consequence/byproduct. You can see how what came from Christ's murder was not accidental or unintended, not since it was engineered by an omnipotent and omniscient deity.

User avatar
jwd5275
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:26 pm
Location: SF, CA

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#121 Post by jwd5275 » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:07 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:And I say they are wrong for the simple reason that Christ's victory is through his suffering in Gibson's version. It is the suffering and the sacrifice in itself which completes the divine act. It is not ancillary to that act. How can anyone say his victory is in spite of his suffering when it is for that very suffering that we are meant to love him and from which we get salvation (in Gibson's version at least)?

EDIT: just to hammer this home slightly more: for a goodness to come "in spite of" something means it is an accidental or unintended consequence/byproduct. You can see how what came from Christ's murder was not accidental or unintended, not since it was engineered by an omnipotent and omniscient deity.
And that is were you are wrong. Just because you interpret the victory to be through/because of the suffering, that does not mean it is how the millions who agree with Gibson's stated intention with the making of the film, an intention i believed failed, worship torture and death as you assert.

Also if you have a problem with an omniscient and omnipotent god being involved in Christ's death, this is a theodicy problem you have with all christianity, not just Gibson and should apply to any 'christian martyr' film including Dreyer's.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#122 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:25 pm

jwd5275 wrote:And that is were you are wrong. Just because you interpret the victory to be through/because of the suffering, that does not mean it is how the millions who agree with Gibson's stated intention with the making of the film, an intention i believed failed, worship torture and death as you assert.
Look, if you have an argument that refutes me, fine. But the above is not an argument. Like I said: for a goodness to come "in spite of" something means it is an accidental or unintended consequence/byproduct. Show me how in Gibson's film the salvation of mankind was an unintended or accidental consequence of the sacrifice. As far as I can remember, god died "for" our sins, and Gibson's movie holds that to be true.
jwd5275 wrote:Also if you have a problem with an omniscient and omnipotent god being involved in Christ's death, this is a theodicy problem you have with all christianity, not just Gibson and should apply to any 'christian martyr' film including Dreyer's.
I invoked god's omniscience and omnipotence to refute the idea that humankind's redemption was an accidental or unintended consequence of Christ's torture and murder. It's clear to me that you have no interest in engaging with my actual arguments as this is the second time you have woefully misunderstood them on a basic level in favour of making a personal comment about whatever my beliefs may be. So, let's end this here, yes?

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#123 Post by HerrSchreck » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:31 pm

Mr S i was going to post a reply to your last reply to me but I'll let the two of you wnd up first rather than keep jumping in the middle.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#124 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:54 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:Mr S i was going to post a reply to your last reply to me but I'll let the two of you wnd up first rather than keep jumping in the middle.
I'm done with that exchange. Post away, sir.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

Re: 62 The Passion of Joan of Arc

#125 Post by HerrSchreck » Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:04 pm

I just started spinning THE MI RACLE OF MORGAN CREEK for the (laugh at me now) very first time and am hooked.

I'm laughing too hard to drill back down into our subject at hand. I promise to jump back into it tomorrow.

Post Reply