Jump to content

The Book of Eli


Peter T Chattaway
 Share

Recommended Posts

Peter's spoiler section is a point well taken. In that, Carnegie has a better understanding than the ending: the book isn't meant to be hidden away. Although that isn't where my main objections lie.

I tried to keep in mind a post-ap mindset (and particularly the well done apocalyptic Christ-figure in Pale Rider), but I can't help pondering the irony of a book of heilsgeschicte that leaves so much destruction in its wake. The God of this film is perhaps Pat Robterson's God.

And then there is the question of where you find gasoline (especially enough to run an armored truck when you want to), lighter fluid, handi-wipes, and ammo 30 years later. Even given limited survivors, they should have all been used up by now.

Edited by Darrel Manson
A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have more of a glass-half-full take on the film, but hey, it's only half full. Don't take that as a hearty recommendation. I think the "twist" ending helps immensely here; until the twist, the film is just a 2-star thing (2 and a half, if I'm feeling generous), not unwatchable but not notable in any way. After the twist, I'd elevate that rating a half star.

I'm not sure I got Peter's reference to SDG's argument, but I'm a Protestant and had no great gripe the film. As for the church continuing, the film shows it clearly has (I guess this depends on one's definition of "church"), so maybe I'm not reading Peter's/SDG's objections correctly.

As for the book being

the King James Version of the Bible

, what are we to make of the book's last shot, when it's revealed to be

the NEW King James Version

? I mean, that's an

actual translation of Scripture, and it differs from the King James Version. I haven't read either translation in some time, but thought Eli was quoting the original King James Version, and not the New King James Version. Was the "new" supposed to be a joke -- that this is a "new" version of the famous Bible translation, becuase Eli's recitation made it "new"

?

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian wrote:

: As for the church continuing, the film shows it clearly has (I guess this depends on one's definition of "church") . . .

Really? I don't remember any references to church. I do remember that all the other Bibles in the world have been destroyed and forgotten because the Bible, somehow, was blamed for "the war". And I do remember that Gary Oldman wanted to use the Bible as a "weapon" to control "the weak and the desperate". In other words, any and all references to organized or institutionalized religion in this film are negative. Denzel's character has "faith", yes, but it's of a rather individual sort. This is why I don't care for the film's implication that the Bible comes first and then religion comes later (and then religion, of course, turns out to be bad); the simple fact is that RELIGION comes first and THEN the Bible comes along as an embodiment and perpetuation of that religion.

On a certain level, The Book of Eli basically perpetuates a certain kind of Protestant bibliolatry. (And I'm not saying that all Protestants are bibliolaters; that would be silly. But certainly many Protestants DO have tendencies in that direction.)

Admittedly, the film hints at a communitarian side to faith when Eli teaches whatsherface to pray over a meal. But even there, I suspect the emphasis is not so much on building up a body of believers as it is on giving another individual a taste of "faith".

: . . . so maybe I'm not reading Peter's/SDG's objections correctly.

FWIW, I don't presume to know what SDG would make of this film. Though I do share his concern about 2012.

: Was the "new" supposed to be a joke . . . ?

I had that exact same ambiguous reading of that scene, and thus that exact same question.

Darrel Manson wrote:

: I'm curious, is the identity of the book really a spoiler? I think the film treats it as such, but I think everything said about the film before release makes is pretty obvious.

To be honest, I kind of suspected this when I first heard about the film, given Denzel's personal real-life faith and given the fact that the character's name is Eli, which definitely has a certain Judeo-Christian flavour to it.

One thing I want to know is what we are supposed to make of all the violence in this film. On the one hand, it seems to fit with Eli's "mission from God" (I don't believe anyone in the film uses that term; I'm just using the expression here). But near the end of the film, Eli almost seems to regret the lengths to which he has gone to protect this book, as opposed to simply living by its principles, and one of his prayers could almost be interpreted as an apology to God for all the killing he's done. Granted, this is the sort of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too thing that we find all the time in Hollywood movies -- great action scenes accompanied by "now kids, don't try this at home" denunciations of violence. But the paradox is rarely so explicitly theological.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what to make of all the violence. I thought the early scene of Eli

dispatching a gang of thugs was distasteful, and also looked stupid, like a video game (I guess that was the intention?)

I do think the film wants it both ways, to some extent. It'll be interesting to see how Christian reviewers handle a violent film like this one, with no sex (there's an assault, although I wasn't sure how far it progressed), versus a film with explicitly Christian themes that has no violence but does have sex (I'm trying to think of a specific example. The Last Temptation of Christ comes to mind, but that's a sex scene with Jesus, IIRC, and that opens a can of worms. I'm trying to think of a "Christian" film, designated as such by marketers at the studio that backed the film, that has a sex scene. Maybe there is no such thing because no one among Christian "opinion leaders" who makes such broad designations would be comfortable doing so with a movie that included that content?)

On another note, I thought Eli's

recovery from the bullet wound wasn't spelled out well. I thought maybe he was a divine being, but the movie makes it clear, I thought, that he's just a man on a divine mission, who has been promised protection. But how was he able to survive and recover? It's divine, but what exactly were the means? Was the bullet removed? Did the wound miraculously heal? I saw blood stains on Eli's shirt during the boat scene later with Solara and thought maybe the wound had opened back up, but that didnt' seem to be the case. Eli was still weak from the original wound, I guess. He was still healing, right?

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a certain level, The Book of Eli basically perpetuates a certain kind of Protestant bibliolatry. (And I'm not saying that all Protestants are bibliolaters; that would be silly. But certainly many Protestants DO have tendencies in that direction.)

I worried about this going in and it wasn't near as bad as I'd feared it would be. Certainly it will feed the bibliolatry in those who practice it, but it doesn't exactly promote it.

Admittedly, the film hints at a communitarian side to faith when Eli teaches whatsherface to pray over a meal. But even there, I suspect the emphasis is not so much on building up a body of believers as it is on giving another individual a taste of "faith".

Hint is probably a good word for it. I suspect that in its way, that scene is meant to be the exposition of faith in a single act in much the same way as the Eucharist can be seen as the Gospel in a single act.

The violence: It's pretty much in line with, say, Joshua and Judges, with God bringing destruction upon enemies. So I'm not totally upset by it. OTOH, Eli has possession of the whole scripture. Both testament speak of God as merciful, and yet the most merciful thing Eli does is a coup de grace for someone he's already maimed. Is there grace in the film? A bit, I suppose. Is there Gospel in the film? That I think would be a stretch to affirm.

As to Peter's objection about

the book ending up on a shelf with other classics, it should be noted that the printing press was making several copies of the book. I'd have to assume that Solara is setting out at the end with a copy in her pack. (Did they teach her to read it while she was on Alcatraz?)

That, of course creates another issue about interpreting. Who will be able to say that Carnegie's interpretations aren't correct? Is it enough just to have a Bible out wandering around the country? Here, I think is where the bibliolatry issue raises its head.

A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

: The violence: It's pretty much in line with, say, Joshua and Judges

No I think it's somewhat less than that. The trailer seemed to focus in on it, but in the film as a whole there are only 4 moments of violence, and in every one Eli is acting in self-defence. In Joshua the Israelites are very much the initiators.

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darrel Manson wrote:

: I'd have to assume that . . . is setting out at the end with . . .

Actually, my friend and I discussed this, and we weren't really clear WHAT was going on there. The kick-ass violence seems guaranteed to continue, but the message... well, maybe, maybe not, who knows?

: That, of course creates another issue about interpreting. Who will be able to say that Carnegie's interpretations aren't correct? Is it enough just to have a Bible out wandering around the country? Here, I think is where the bibliolatry issue raises its head.

Very good point.

: And another thing: when he gives the message of the book in a nutshell (Do more for others than yourself) I think he comes up a bit short.

Yeah, that was a weird one.

MattPage wrote:

: The trailer seemed to focus in on it, but in the film as a whole there are only 4 moments of violence, and in every one Eli is acting in self-defence. In Joshua the Israelites are very much the initiators.

Good point. But he still isn't, y'know, "turning the other cheek" and all that.

Meanwhile, given how the film got a bit of a push towards the Christian market in the last few weeks, I find the following interview bits (with Denzel but also with the film's directors) interesting:

Drew McWeeny @ Hitfix:

Drew: Wow. So what was it that you responded to so strongly in the material that made you feel like you had to make this one?

AH: Well, at first I didn’t respond strongly at all. I mean, Allen read it first, then he called me up and goes, "You’ve got to read this." And I said, "Okay." So I read it, and I called him back and I said, "I don’t know, man." He goes, "What do you mean, you don’t know?" I said, "I don’t know about the spiritual or religious element in this. I’m not comfortable with that right now." He said, "Well, just sleep on it." I said, "Okay." So I went to sleep and I had a dream about the movie, but what made me find my way to the movie was this song called "Zero-Sum" from the Year Zero CD by Nine Inch Nails. Allen had been playing this song in his car for like a week for me. Just playing it, you know? So I went to sleep and I had like a 7 or 8 hour dream about the movie, but the song is what got me into the movie. Then I woke up and I called him and I said, "I get it, I get it. Let me go to Prague and do this thing," and then I just got into this manic state where I just saw the world and I saw the characters and I found my way in, you know? There are ways people can find their way into the movie or out of the movie and I always knew that even when the movie was finished and was in its complete form, that liberals would have some trouble with it, you know? And conservatives wouldn’t for the most part, but it’s all depending on where you’re coming from in life. If your politics are one way or the other, you can read the movie in several different kind of ways. So we went in with that kind of knowledge and basically saying, like, let’s pull back. Eli’s spouting like bible stuff, you know, and coming off preachy, but it’s not about that. It’s more of saying this mission, this guy, is doing one thing, but he’s not trying to be... looking down or casting blame or passing judgment on people based on it. So that was more of the thing I tried to rid the script of in a way. You know, keep it more about a character and not about religion, you know?

Steven Zeitchik @ Los Angeles Times:

That the actor is a self-professed Christian gives the role a life-imitating-art feel. While the movie's religious message is ambiguous -- is the use of the Bible as a key plot object meant to show its sanctity or simply that it can be exploited? -- "Eli" represents a rare chance for Washington. It's one of the actor's first parts in which he gets the frequent opportunity to quote and even improvise lines from the Bible, like the one from Corinthians that "we walk by faith, not by sight," which he added because a pastor he likes uses it.

In fact, the movie could have felt more religious if not for a little studio intervention, according to Washington and Allen Hughes. Even as Warner Bros. has publicized the movie to faith-based media and played off religious themes in its campaign, the studio was sufficiently concerned that they asked the filmmakers to tone down the Bible references in Gary Whitta's script.

"I'll just be straight about it. I think the studio was nervous about that," Washington says. "It sometimes got ridiculous in how you were trying to hide it," he adds. "Sometimes by trying to clean something up so much it becomes about nothing." (Alcon Entertainment, the company behind the family-values hit "The Blind Side," produced the movie and did not interfere, Washington says.)

Family values of a different sort played into "Eli." The film wouldn't have even starred Denzel Washington if not for the prodding of one J.D. Washington, Denzel's 25-year-old, pro football-playing son, who pushed his father to take the part when the actor was on the fence, in part because as Denzel says, "he's a spiritual kid." (Denzel was so impressed with J.D.'s skills, he brought him on as a producer on "Eli" and now takes him to some of his meetings.)

Washington's presence, in turn, helped get the Hugheses -- who return with their first feature in nine years -- over the religion hump. "Denzel was the only guy who could solve the problem," says Allen Hughes. "There are a lot of Bible quotations, and there's a certain nobility that comes with him that mitigates that."

There's also an interesting on-the-set profile of the directors here.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this poster in the theatre yesterday, and, well, I certainly feel better about saying that this film is essentially anti-religion, even if it is vaguely pro-"faith". Looking for this image online, I also came across posters of Denzel Washington ("dELIver us") and Mila Kunis ("bELIeve in hope").

tumblr_kuk14sh1VE1qzdglao1_500.jpg

Incidentally, this film did pretty well at the box office this weekend; its haul of $31 million or so is second only to American Gangster among Denzel's opening weekends (and in that other film's case, he shared top billing with Russell Crowe).

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this poster in the theatre yesterday, and, well, I certainly feel better about saying that this film is essentially anti-religion, even if it is vaguely pro-"faith". Looking for this image online, I also came across posters of Denzel Washington ("dELIver us") and Mila Kunis ("bELIeve in hope").

Not surprisingly, they are using the "bELIeve" ads at Hollywood Jesus. I expect that they (and Grace Hill) would like more positive reviews than we have there so far.

A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure that the film is to be seen as anti-religion. Yeah there's that poster. But usually those are made after the event, and there's no need to give any more attention to it than we do to those trailers for foreign language films which make them look like they are meant to be a hilarious comedy/action film, when they are nothing of the sort. Not to mention the fact that this is not the film's main poster (it doesn't occur on Google images until page 2), and even then it's clear that it's a part of a series of posters profiling the main characters and summarising their viewpoints using an Eli based pun.

I didn't catch the reference to the Bible causing the war, only that it was burned afterwards, but I certainly don't think that Oldman's desire to use the Bible to further his own aims is anti-religion, more that it sets the film up to make a statement that God will continue to protect his word, and that those that try to use it for their own purposes will ultimately fail. In fact Eli's apparent failure to share the message with anyone (except perhaps the fleeting things he does with Solara) suggest that whilst he knows it's importance, he doesn't feel he is able to interpret it /teach it but perhaps recognises that this is the job for others.

That said I'm not sure the film is particularly consistent in any case, but certainly it never occured to me that the film was anti-religious

On another note, I thought Eli's

recovery from the bullet wound wasn't spelled out well. I thought maybe he was a divine being, but the movie makes it clear, I thought, that he's just a man on a divine mission, who has been promised protection. But how was he able to survive and recover? It's divine, but what exactly were the means? Was the bullet removed? Did the wound miraculously heal? I saw blood stains on Eli's shirt during the boat scene later with Solara and thought maybe the wound had opened back up, but that didn't' seem to be the case. Eli was still weak from the original wound, I guess. He was still healing, right?

The more I think about this movie, the more it seems like it's so not meant to be more of a fable than a realistic story of how this world might end up. So Denzel's miraculous recovery, and his supernatural fighting skills even though he's blind, not to mention his memory, the fact it has taken him 31 years to walk from anywhere west before he got to the coast etc., all give the film this unreality that make it read like a fable about the Bible's importance and durability. I'm trying to think of a parallel example, but haven't come up with one yet, but I think the visuals and the over the top-ness of much of the film all contribute to this.

Oh an in terms of the detail of how he survives we see him gaffa taping up the wound once Solara picks him up.

Matt

Edited by MattPage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh an in terms of the detail of how he survives we see him gaffa taping up the wound once Solara picks him up.

gaffa taping? I don't know what that is, but how does it help one recover from a bullet wound? I can see how it might help stop the bleeding, but what about internal damage? Did the bullet ricochet off Eli, or something?

Just because the film promotes how religion can be abused doesn't make it anti-religion. I could see how it might be interpreted as anti-Catholic, but not anti-religion, per se.

The importance of getting the Word to the people so it can't be abused by those who have the only copies is central to the story.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian wrote:

: Just because the film promotes how religion can be abused doesn't make it anti-religion. I could see how it might be interpreted as anti-Catholic, but not anti-religion, per se.

It's anti-religion in the sense that it tries to separate the Bible from the religious culture that produced it (which, incidentally, pre-dates the division of Christianity into its various churches and denominations), and whenever it refers to any organized or institutionalized form of Bible use, it does so in a negative manner.

The fact that the film has a Protestant sensibility on some level does not necessarily make it pro-religious. Just think of all those books and songs like "How to Be a Christian without Being Religious" (first published in 1967) and "I'm Not Religious, I Just Love the Lord" (first released in 1977), or of evangelical mantras like "Religion is man trying to reach God, but Christianity is God trying to reach man". To be a true Christian, at least in the circles within which I was raised, was in some sense to be anti-religious. Of course, virtually none of the people who say these things really mean it; like it or not, they are all part of religious communities with religious traditions and religious (as opposed to merely literary) interpretations of the Bible. But this film shows virtually no interest in the survival of religious communities or religious traditions or religious (as opposed to merely literary) interpretations of the Bible, so in that sense it arguably goes even further than the Protestants who say this sort of thing.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got back from seeing this. Assume spoilers.

I'll echo what's been said about this being a very "Protestant" movie. I would even go so far as to say that it caters to a very specific slice of evangelical American Protestantism--the emphasis on Eli hearing God's voice "just as clearly as I hear yours," Eli's own peculiarly muscular approach to protecting his charge, the emphasis on the Bible itself, without reference to any sort of tradition--it almost views like a fantasy of what could happen "if we could get beyond all this religious stuff"--if we were reduced to a level below even that of the early Church, when all that can be trusted is a man and his God (frontier religion more frontier than the actual frontier)--etc. etc. etc. The problem is, there's never any real sense of wonder re: the Bible--people talk and talk about how it's Something Important either because it's an avenue to power, or else because God said it is--but nothing ever raises it above the level of MacGuffin. It might as well be any other book, or any other fragment of writing. "The Declaration of Independence," the works of Shakespeare, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. A shopping list. (Incidentally, there's no reason the Oldman character couldn't accomplish his purposes with any of the handful of volumes brought to him. Here's a villain with a serious failure of imagination.)

The fact that Eli is an absolute cipher doesn't help. I never got a good handle on what kind of person he was supposed to be--the ultimate Warrior Monk? Except that his encounter with the text didn't seem to factor at all into his battles. Misguided? Perhaps, although we don't get much sense in what way he's misguided (the line of dialogue that would point there isn't really helpful in puzzling it out, either).

Then there's niggling things like how the girl can drive when she's basically been a slave all her life and apparently has no idea how dangerous the "real world" is, or where all the gas guzzled in the movie's last half-hour comes from, or how in the world Eli's kept a charge on his iPod for 30 years.

I'm trying to think of something I liked about the movie. I kind of have a thing for deserted cityscapes and roadways (my favorite image from The Road is the bridge they camp out on) but Eli even scrimps there. Gary Oldman is good--he reminded me, improbably, of Burgess Meredith. Perhaps it's the obsession with books.

Incidentally, here's a funny piece comparing Eli with Zardoz. Spoilers for both.

[On the whole, the movie seems kind of uncertain what it is--a religious movie about faith or an action movie. The tension kinda undermines both aspects--most tellingly in the final scene

where the girl is getting geared up to go--I dunno, liberate her town or something--while the Eli v/o quotes Paul--"I have fought the good fight...." You can practically watch the movie's distinct self-images coming apart on-screen]

[One more thing....

he not only memorized the entire Bible--he also memorized the verse numbers? And named them every one to Malcolm McDowell?! They do realize it used to take years to transcribe a copy of the Bible, right? Even without verse numbers?]

Edited by NBooth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ***

What I want to know is if he memorized the footnotes noting the textual variants as well, to say nothing of the Bishop Ussher dates that many Bibles put in their margins.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ***

What I want to know is if he memorized the footnotes noting the textual variants as well, to say nothing of the Bishop Ussher dates that many Bibles put in their margins.

I didn't think most AV Bibles would note variants. Especially not in the form Eli's was in.
A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Honestly, I thought this was going to be the worst film ever. January release date, strike against. Parents liked it, strike against. Denzel as Mad Max with a Bible, strike against. Apocalyptic, typically strike against.

But all of those strikes against may have helped. This isn't a film that's going to change the way we watch film and it won't be hailed as any masterpiece. But I didn't find it half bad. ESPECIALLY for a January Denzel-as-a-thug-ass release.

I'm curious, is the identity of the book really a spoiler? I think the film treats it as such, but I think everything said about the film before release makes is pretty obvious.

It doesn't matter. I knew it before going in; it isn't any "M. Night" kind of shocker. It's a part of the story they let mysteriously and slowly creep in, but knowing it ahead of time doesn't take away from any viewing experience.

: Was the "new" supposed to be a joke . . . ?

I had that exact same ambiguous reading of that scene, and thus that exact same question.

I actually thought I had the first three verses of the Bible memorized in the KJV, and as Denzel read I thought for sure he wasn't getting it word for word. But I'd have to go back and look at it. If it isn't word for word, and Denzel is getting the bulk of the message but not every letter, that would make it the "new" KJV.

The more I think about this movie, the more it seems like it's so not meant to be more of a fable than a realistic story of how this world might end up.

I agree. When Eli is asked about how the world was before, he says something like, "People had too much and didn't know the value of what they had. They threw away things that we would steal and die for today."

But I think it would be hilarious if the book turned out to be TWILIGHT.

LOL, best line of the thread. :)

Two questions:

1. Didn't he have on a gas mask in the opening hunting scene? If so, why? He never wore one the rest of the film. So, it must have only been to make a cool looking opening shot for a movie?

2. OK so the thing was in

Braille

. I think I'm missing something here, there is no way Eli was

blind, was he? If so I am super lame for not catching that, and I don't care to watch it again just for that, but I could swear he saw everything and looked in people's eyes. The "Eli was blind" was mentioned by Matt earlier in the thread, but I'm thinking it must've been a typo.

Edited by Persona

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the last bit of your post Stef, that was my reading, and what I think the film is suggesting. I've not been back to check whether the twist works, and there's not really the same appeal to do so as there was with Sixth Sense.

Remember that first silhouetted fight scene though.

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't believe I could miss a film by that much. Either that or you are a nutball. There's a chance of either, though.

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to comment
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...