Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

Recommended Posts

SDG wrote:

: An Idea: Peter, why don't you watch It's a Wonderful Life, this year?

Great, more homework. And here I was thinking I already need to make time to watch the two-movies-in-one disc of Going My Way and Holiday Inn that I picked up for seven bucks the other day! (I have never seen either movie, but I do know that White Christmas -- which I have only half-seen -- is a remake of Holiday Inn, plus I already own The Bells of St. Mary's, which I believe is a sequel to Going My Way.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SDG wrote:

: An Idea: Peter, why don't you watch It's a Wonderful Life, this year?

Great, more homework. And here I was thinking I already need to make time to watch the two-movies-in-one disc of Going My Way and Holiday Inn that I picked up for seven bucks the other day! (I have never seen either movie, but I do know that White Christmas -- which I have only half-seen -- is a remake of Holiday Inn, plus I already own The Bells of St. Mary's, which I believe is a sequel to Going My Way.)

You should go out of your way to see Holiday Inn, but be forewarned of the blackface bit (which actually is instrumental to the plot...). White Christmas shouldn't be approached until much, much later, since it's a very loose remake, the songs are inferior, and Vera-Ellen's turtlenecks become more obvious to her eating disorder.

BTW, I have this same disc, and I still haven't seen Going My Way yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:

: It's a more biblical picture in that biblical literature is more interested in the vindication of the poor than the redemption of the wealthy.

Heh. My immediate first thought on reading this sentence was to wonder which of the two categories someone like Job would belong to. Obviously, he's wealthy at the very beginning and very ending of that story, but during the story itself...?

: Spielberg commits the same error as the Capra-corn marketers. You don't have to go to Hitler -- would the world be better or worse without Mr. Potter in it?

That example occurred to me too, but it didn't seem as obvious (and who knows, somebody might try to argue here that the presence of Potter in this town DID make it better than his absence would have done).

: The movie doesn't tell us that "every human being" matters.

But the reason the movie is so popular is because everyone watching the film thinks it COULD be about THEM, yes? In that sense, Spielberg may have the pulse of the movie's audience right, even if he gets the movie itself wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That example occurred to me too, but it didn't seem as obvious (and who knows, somebody might try to argue here that the presence of Potter in this town DID make it better than his absence would have done).

Probably only along with the influence of the Bailey family. As long as the Baileys are around to compete with him, it's harder for Potter to get away with acting like a usurious robber baron. Knowing that his rivals will treat customers fairly may force Potter to do the same, to a greater degree than he really wants to. The Bailey tide may lift even Potter's moral boat, somewhat. Remove the check-and-balance system and you get -- Potterville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, what if it was the evil presence of Potter that compelled Bailey to stay in town and be such salt and light in the first place?

There is some support in the screenplay for that idea, Peter -- but I won't tell you what it is. I bet if you watch the film you'll pick up on it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I finally realized the thing that really bothers me about the editorial subverting IAWL. It so entirely misses this central point: George Bailey has found a (if not The) pearl of great price. All his selfish romantic ideas about gaining the whole world have been put into perspective, and he has come to realize the treasure of a Good Life indeed, gaining if not salvation then a perspective on what really matters.

Yes, the editorial is basically a recycled freshman essay on libertarianism. (The classic college formula: x theorist + y film = look how awesome I can think). The soft lede is "Here’s the thing about Pottersville that struck me when I was 15." And he never makes it quite past that. His lynchpin is that "I interpret it instead as showing the true characters of these individuals, their venal internal selves stripped bare." but "Not only is Pottersville cooler and more fun than Bedford Falls, it also would have had a much, much stronger future."

I thought the current economic crash showed the "true character of these individuals" on Wall Street, uncovering their "venal selves." He claims that we need to depart from the IAWL Manhattan and let a little Potterville loose - but if Potterville = venal, then it already is. We have all suffered from Wall Street's unchecked avarice, which is every bit as venal as prostitution. There are lots of muddled thoughts in this essay, with dashes of having cake and eating it too.

"Fifteen years old and imagining myself an angry young man, I got all choked up." Here it is with the adolescent schtick again. What does this really mean? I already knew this at fifteen years old, which must lend it greater credibility? Doesn't this usually work the opposite way? ("When I was a child, I thought as a child...") Potterville seems like a perfectly adolescent solution to economic crisis. Cue Beastie Boys...

Edited by MLeary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That reminds me. Does anyone remember the straight to video/ cable movie that used footage from IAWL? It was a zombie film and they dub Zuzu to say something like "Every time you hear a bell, a zombie sends someone straight to hell.". In the words of Dave Barry, I swear I'm not making this up.

Yeah. It was called 976-Evil 2.

Cool. Thanks. I have no desire to see it again but that was bugging me. Ah, the joys of public domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this again last night. It's funny how this movie reinvents itself each passing year, as current events take place. At the forefront of my mind, while watching it, I was thinking of the current banking crisis, but also of lesser things, like Obama's reaching out to evangelicals by inviting Pastor Rick Warren to pray at his inauguration.

The themes between empathy and friendship clashing with cold-hard-business, took upon itself resonance more than I had ever witnessed. And, with apologies to Steven, I started seeing things in this film that I had never really grasped before.

First and foremost, how the final note from Clarence, "no man is a failure who has friends." This is a running theme throughout the film, as George constantly befriends everybody he meets, and helps them, despite himself. The opening sequence with Mr. Gauer, where the cold-hearted-economic thing to do would be to turn Mr. Gauer in to the authorities for attempted, accidental murder, George displays sympathy to him, and promises to never tell anybody. George dances with Mary at his brother's graduation as a favor to Mary's brother. In his first confrontation with Mr. Potter, Mr. Potter talks about Ernie the cab driver's qualifications for a home mortgage, and one of the only things going for him was George Bailey's vouching for Ernie's character.

This theme is reiterated when George defends his father:

You're right when you say my father was no businessman. I know that. Why he ever started this cheap, penny-ante Building and Loan, I'll never know. But neither you nor anyone else can say anything against his character, because his whole life was - why, in the twenty-five years since he and Uncle Billy started this thing, he never once thought of himself.

For Mr. Potter, appealing to one's friendship is nothing more than "sentimental hogwash." But during the course of the film, Mr. Potter admits that his approach hasn't worked as effectively as George Bailey's approach.

George, I'm an old man, and most people hate me. But I don't like them either, so that makes it all even. You know just as well as I do that I run practically everything in this town but the Bailey Building and Loan. You know, also, that for a number of years I've been trying to get control of it...or kill it. But I haven't been able to do it. You have been stopping me. In fact, you have beaten me, George, and as anyone in this county can tell you, that takes some doing.
and extends his invitation to bring George Bailey on to his team (to the detriment of the Savings and Loan). George initially considers the idea, but then rejects it outright.

I now think of this much, much differently than before. Perhaps it's because I've been tempered over the last year, but there's a part of me wondering if we would be in this crisis today if there were a few more Mr. Potters out there denying mortgages to those who could not afford it, and less George Baileys out there accepting them ("shoot some pool with somebody"). (And even though I currently have a mortgage, I don't see any shame in renting, and have rented for many years.)

Here's an alternate reality. Suppose the Potter-invitation scene was an olive branch, if you will, to George Bailey, to invite him for friendship? Suppose that Potter, who is so business-minded that he has no sympathy for anybody in the town... perhaps he witnesses the power of this sort of friendship, and wishes to learn to integrate this into his own business practices? And then George Bailey, being pompous and full of himself, refuses, seeing (rightly) that this would mean a total monopoly of Potter's economic influence on Bedford Falls.

Suppose Bailey did take the job. He could then afford to care for his family, improve renovations on his own house on an expedited rate, save for college, and take family vacations to see the world. His influence would mean that the hard-working businessmen (like Martini) would still be able to get a house, or that Bailey could improve upon the "broken-down shacks" that Potter has forced renters to reside. Bailey could also bring on Uncle Billy and other S&L employees into Potter's busines, perhaps in a job that does not require them to easily lose the money.

Would Potter have been so adamant to hide the misplaced money if George Bailey was working for him? Why would he?

But, perhaps for the first time in the course of the film, George Bailey refuses this friendship. And I believe that was the moment George started turning into the "warped, frustrated young man" that Potter taunts him with, later in the film.

So instead of a heart-tugging film about the power of one's influence in the lives of those he touches, I am instead cognizant that IAWL is a tragedy at Bedford Falls, where business and friendship are forced to never to be reconciled, due to George Bailey's rejection of Mr. Potter's generous offer. He should have had those 24 hours to think things over.

Because face it; advancing friendship is good business. Some of the wealthiest people today are noted philanthropists, using some of their excess for good. This increases positive word-of-mouth, improves lifestyle conditions, and encourages repeat business. The partnership of George Bailey and Mr. Potter could have been a win/win situation for both--Bailey's positive enhancements for his clients could have been tempered by the solid business practices of Mr. Potter. It's a shame that the film forces the two approaches to be at odds with each other.

Edited by Nick Alexander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First and foremost, how the final note from Clarence, "no man is a failure who has friends." This is a running theme throughout the film, as George constantly befriends everybody he meets, and helps them, despite himself.
It's more than just a running theme: It's the movie's main message. Not that everyone has value, but that "failure" is something that we see too easily in ourselves.
The reason why I stop short from saying it's the movie's main message, is because my alternate interpretation of Bailey's turning down Mr. Potter's generous offer--Bailey's denying friendship to Mr. Potter--shows that the movie itself stops short from actually endorsing friendship to everybody. In fairness to Capra and the filmmakers: George Bailey has a lifetime of evidence to be skeptical over Mr. Potter's change-of-heart. I still have a hard time thinking that Bailey could not have been a positive influence on Mr. Potter from within.

Now, there have been times where I've felt pretty close to "friendless" in this world, and the movie's message has made me despair! That's a sucky place to be, especially during the holidays.
Yeah, but I would say that Bailey thought he was friendless during his moments of despair, thinking that his community of friends would run him out of town. I would say the movie argues, persuasively-to-me, that your influence as a friend can come about in fleeting moments, ones that you may not be intricately aware of. I assure you, the past successes of George Bailey (saving Harry, Mr. Gauer, etc) were the furthest things from George Bailey's mind when he was on that bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's more than just a running theme: It's the movie's main message. Not that everyone has value, but that "failure" is something that we see too easily in ourselves.

Now, there have been times where I've felt pretty close to "friendless" in this world, and the movie's message has made me despair! That's a sucky place to be, especially during the holidays.

I think the movie's central theme runs a lot deeper than friendship. The central value is goodness.

The first lines of the film, from the prayer voiceovers, are not "I really care about George Bailey, I'm worried about my friend," but "I owe everything to George Bailey ... He never thinks about himself, God; that's why he's in trouble ... George is a good guy, give him a break, God."

Likewise, the overwhelming point of the alternate-reality saga is not that if not for George people would have been lonely (other than Mary winding up an old maid), but that Martini and others would never have gotten out of the slum, Mr. Gower would have been a convict and a drunken stumblebum, Ernie would have been divorced, Harry and everyone on that transport would have died, etc.

Clarence's central message to George is not "See how many friends you had," but "See what a hole in the world there is without you." To be fair to Spielberg, Clarence does come close to affirming how much every person matters: "Each man’s life touches so many other lives. When he isn't around, it leaves an awful hole." Still, the whole story is structured to show how it is George's heroic goodness and selflessness that causes this particular life to leave such a particularly grievous hole.

I now think of this much, much differently than before. Perhaps it's because I've been tempered over the last year, but there's a part of me wondering if we would be in this crisis today if there were a few more Mr. Potters out there denying mortgages to those who could not afford it, and less George Baileys out there accepting them ("shoot some pool with somebody"). (And even though I currently have a mortgage, I don't see any shame in renting, and have rented for many years.)

While I admit the same line of thought fleetingly occurred to me this year watching the film, simultaneous with this thought was the recognition that it is a complete distortion of the reality of the film.

Repairing to the real world, in the last couple of months I've heard a number of stories on NPR and elsewhere about banks that AREN'T failing: little banks in small towns where everyone knows everyone else and a face and a handshake are as good as collateral for getting a loan.

As that suggests, the current mortgage crisis wasn't caused by soft-hearted George Baileys generously lending money to personal friends who couldn't afford it. It was caused by heart-hearted Mr. Potters looking to line their own pockets with predatory lending practices, a different strategy than that of the Depression/WW2-era Potter, but the same modus operandi.

There is no evidence that George ever made a loan to anyone who truly couldn't afford it (though at least once we see him make a gift that he euphemistically calls a "loan"). He worked on a case by case basis, deciding on the merits, and did what he could to help people within their means.

Here's an alternate reality. Suppose the Potter-invitation scene was an olive branch, if you will, to George Bailey, to invite him for friendship? Suppose that Potter, who is so business-minded that he has no sympathy for anybody in the town... perhaps he witnesses the power of this sort of friendship, and wishes to learn to integrate this into his own business practices? And then George Bailey, being pompous and full of himself, refuses, seeing (rightly) that this would mean a total monopoly of Potter's economic influence on Bedford Falls.

That would indeed be an alternate reality. The invitation scene was a pretext for taking over the Building & Loan, nothing more. Potter offered George a three-year contract. At the end of that three years, the Building & Loan would be gone, and Potter would be under no particular obligation to renew the contract. And even if he did, George would be no more than a hired gun, able to do only whatever Potter authorized him to do. Potter would be calling the shots, and would run the business his own way.

Suppose Bailey did take the job. He could then afford to care for his family, improve renovations on his own house on an expedited rate, save for college, and take family vacations to see the world. His influence would mean that the hard-working businessmen (like Martini) would still be able to get a house, or that Bailey could improve upon the "broken-down shacks" that Potter has forced renters to reside. Bailey could also bring on Uncle Billy and other S&L employees into Potter's busines, perhaps in a job that does not require them to easily lose the money.

What in the film justifies this optimistic assessment of what Potter would have allowed George to do in his employ?

Note the one moment in the invitation scene where Potter shows his characteristic irascibility: when George asks about the B&L. "Oh, confound it, man, are you afraid of success?" It's pure misdirection. If Potter had really wanted to incorporate Baileyesque principles into his own empire, he could have said, "Don't you understand, George? We won't need the B&L any more -- it's what you do at the B&L that I want to hire you for."

Instead, Potter reacts in a way that clearly indicates that destroying the B&L and transforming George Bailey from an obstacle into a manageable asset is the real goal.

Would Potter have been so adamant to hide the misplaced money if George Bailey was working for him? Why would he?

Since in that case it would have been his own money, who cares? One way or another, it would be a step toward another sort of Pottersville.

But, perhaps for the first time in the course of the film, George Bailey refuses this friendship.

Why do you assume friendship was legitimately on offer? It wasn't, and George doesn't refuse friendship. He refuses to be bought and paid for -- at great personal cost. The invitation scene is just one more heroic sacrifice of his personal dreams that George Bailey makes in order to be there for the people of Bedford Falls who need them, to be a buffer between them and Potter.

So instead of a heart-tugging film about the power of one's influence in the lives of those he touches, I am instead cognizant that IAWL is a tragedy at Bedford Falls, where business and friendship are forced to never to be reconciled, due to George Bailey's rejection of Mr. Potter's generous offer. He should have had those 24 hours to think things over.

Because face it; advancing friendship is good business. Some of the wealthiest people today are noted philanthropists, using some of their excess for good. This increases positive word-of-mouth, improves lifestyle conditions, and encourages repeat business. The partnership of George Bailey and Mr. Potter could have been a win/win situation for both--Bailey's positive enhancements for his clients could have been tempered by the solid business practices of Mr. Potter. It's a shame that the film forces the two approaches to be at odds with each other.

You surely can't mean to say that this is the intended message of the film, that this represents the film's actual moral universe. Your comments are as revisionist as Jamieson's, set in a different moral universe with similar events. You might prefer a different sort of story, set in a universe in which Potter would be amenable to humanizing his business practices, but nothing in the movie indicates that this is the actual world George Bailey lives in.

I could maybe buy an argument that George could have taken a more conciliatory approach to turning Potter down. There are a lot of things George could have done better than he did. The point is not that he always does the best he could have, but that he always chooses to do what is best for others rather than what is best for himself.

Edited by SDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
George Bailey ... He never thinks about himself

I don't think that is TRUE. Indeed, the action of the story absolutely depends on it not being true. George Bailey is a man who thinks about himself ALL THE TIME; what he doesn't do is act on it. George is a man who knows he has ability and is filled with ambition, and believes that in fulfilling that ambition he will find happiness. However, he sees his life as a battle between his ambition and his moral responsibilities. And, being a moral man, he find that again and again his ambition suffers because of his moral responsbilities — and because he identifies his ambition with his happiness, again and again HE suffers. His selfless actions make him more and more bitter and more and more angry, until finally when the money is lost, he just snaps. He is completely played out — he thinks — and with his ambitions and hopes of happiness finally and irrevocably smashed to kindling, he has nothing left to live for.

The Pottersville revelation serves to resolve the conflict that has dominated his life, and does so in three ways.

First, he experiences the shock of seeing all the people around him suffering because he didn't act on their behalf. Now, of course he had always known that they would suffer if he hadn't done what he did, but his feelings about them were caught up in his ambition: he saw them as obstacles to his ambition, and so resented and even hated them for what they were making him do. However, the shock of seeing them suffer makes him forget about his ambition and in doing so he feels the love that had always been blocked.

Second, he realizes that far from blocking his ambition, his moral responsibilities had in fact led to the fulfillment of his ambition; it had been happening all the time but he just never saw it. He created decent lives for thousands of people. His talents had not been wasted, his ambitions had not come to nothing. In fact, he had nothing to resent: if he could do everything over, he would do it all again but this time would do it happily, knowing that he was acting not only on their behalf, but his own as well.

He is already happy when he is returned by Clarence to his home, but he there receives the third and final resolution: people had loved him and he had never known it or felt its real importance. Everything comes together and his life is more complete and more fulfilling in every way than the life that he thought he wanted.

As a postscript, the film is an example of what is known as ethical optimism: the belief that there are no real ethical conflicts: that ethical conflicts are really illusory and stem from mis-perceptions of our own wants and needs. When we think of happiness as coming from the satisfaction of material needs, ethical optimism seems impossible and absurd. This contrary view, that ethical conflicts are deep-rooted and irreconcilable, is called ethical pessimism. A nice feature of the movie is that it includes a rather extreme example of an ethical pessimist in the form of Mr. Potter. Mr. Potter believes that happiness comes solely from having things, and so his happiness is increased to the extent that he is able to take things from others. From the position of an ethical optimist (which is the position of the film), Mr. Potter is wrong, the things he think will make him happy are in fact insufficient and even contrary to his happiness, and while pursuing what he thinks will be his happiness he has only made himself a bitter, angry, and unhappy man. Interestingly, bitterness and anger are characteristic of both Mr. Potter and pre-Clarence George. Both see themselves as blocked by others from achieving happiness: Mr. Potter directly through George's interference, and George indirectly through others' needs.

I admit I haven't seen the film in many years, and this analysis is entirely retrospective. It is this discussion that has led me to think about a movie that had been left little regarded on a mental shelf. Given that I read the discussion with rather more sympathy for the movie's detractors than its defenders, I find it surprising to find myself at this point. I at least have found it a profitable discussion to follow!

Edited by bowen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thoughts, bowen. I agree with you on practically all points.

A small caveat:

George Bailey ... He never thinks about himself
I don't think that is TRUE. Indeed, the action of the story absolutely depends on it not being true. George Bailey is a man who thinks about himself ALL THE TIME; what he doesn't do is act on it.

Absolutely correct as regards the distinction you're drawing, though Bert the cop's prayer is still truthful in that it is an assessment of George as a moral agent, as regards his actions, not an assessment of his inner psychological life.

I admit I haven't seen the film in many years, and this analysis is entirely retrospective. It is this discussion that has led me to think about a movie that had been left little regarded on a mental shelf. Given that I read the discussion with rather more sympathy for the movie's detractors than its defenders, I find it surprising to find myself at this point. I at least have found it a profitable discussion to follow!

For someone who hasn't seen the movie in years, your analysis is remarkably thorough and on point. Thanks for contributing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Alexander wrote:

: It's funny how this movie reinvents itself each passing year, as current events take place. At the forefront of my mind, while watching it, I was thinking of the current banking crisis . . .

Funny you should mention that. I logged in here partly to post this:

- - -

George Bailey, Subprime Lender

But knowing what we know now, about the dangers of subprime mortgages and the virtues of disciplined bankers, perhaps it's time to reconsider the financial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose Bailey did take the job. He could then afford to care for his family, improve renovations on his own house on an expedited rate, save for college, and take family vacations to see the world. His influence would mean that the hard-working businessmen (like Martini) would still be able to get a house, or that Bailey could improve upon the "broken-down shacks" that Potter has forced renters to reside. Bailey could also bring on Uncle Billy and other S&L employees into Potter's busines, perhaps in a job that does not require them to easily lose the money.

What in the film justifies this optimistic assessment of what Potter would have allowed George to do in his employ?

Note the one moment in the invitation scene where Potter shows his characteristic irascibility: when George asks about the B&L. "Oh, confound it, man, are you afraid of success?" It's pure misdirection. If Potter had really wanted to incorporate Baileyesque principles into his own empire, he could have said, "Don't you understand, George? We won't need the B&L any more -- it's what you do at the B&L that I want to hire you for."

Instead, Potter reacts in a way that clearly indicates that destroying the B&L and transforming George Bailey from an obstacle into a manageable asset is the real goal.

Capra tips his hand that this is the case. IIRC one at least one occasion there is a small skull on Potter's desk. Also Potter obviously does not see George as an equal to be welcomed. He has George sit in a chair so low to the floor that George can barely see over the desk at him. Add to that the fact that Potter tries to tempt George by offering to fulfill his dreams of travel and riches. George shakes Potter's hand but then looks at his hand with disgust and acts like it's covered in slime. He realizes he just shook hands with the devil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead, Potter reacts in a way that clearly indicates that destroying the B&L and transforming George Bailey from an obstacle into a manageable asset is the real goal.

The last thing Potter says before he picks up the phone to call George is that the B&L has been "a boil on my neck long enough." One doesn't approach a boil on one's neck with the intention of letting that boil take over one's whole body, and neither does Mr. Potter intend to allow George to influence his business practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead, Potter reacts in a way that clearly indicates that destroying the B&L and transforming George Bailey from an obstacle into a manageable asset is the real goal.
Capra tips his hand that this is the case. IIRC one at least one occasion there is a small skull on Potter's desk. Also Potter obviously does not see George as an equal to be welcomed. He has George sit in a chair so low to the floor that George can barely see over the desk at him. Add to that the fact that Potter tries to tempt George by offering to fulfill his dreams of travel and riches. George shakes Potter's hand but then looks at his hand with disgust and acts like it's covered in slime. He realizes he just shook hands with the devil.
The last thing Potter says before he picks up the phone to call George is that the B&L has been "a boil on my neck long enough." One doesn't approach a boil on one's neck with the intention of letting that boil take over one's whole body, and neither does Mr. Potter intend to allow George to influence his business practices.

Well said, both. Mando, good call.

Edited by SDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's more than just a running theme: It's the movie's main message. Not that everyone has value, but that "failure" is something that we see too easily in ourselves.

Now, there have been times where I've felt pretty close to "friendless" in this world, and the movie's message has made me despair! That's a sucky place to be, especially during the holidays.

I think the movie's central theme runs a lot deeper than friendship. The central value is goodness.

I can buy that. Either way, Spielberg's comment is off-point. The movie leaves us with the message about friendship, not about goodness, but goodness underlies the whole of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching the film right now ...

In the Pottersville sequence, George runs down the main street past signs advertising every conceivable vice ...

and one sign that says "Keep Off the Grass."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...