Jump to content

A.I.: Artificial Intelligence


Recommended Posts

Please don't tell me that someone has already done a topic about this!

If not, great. I have a quick question about the ending: Does the robot child die? Since he has been finally loved, does that mean he has the chance to die? It shows him closing his eyes for the first time in the movie.

Also, was the blue fairy purposely made to look live Virgin Mary?

Killing Time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness, yes, we've discussed this film at great length, though I have no idea within how many boards it's been. I'm sure Peter or someone will post links.

Here are mine: My review and an article that I co-wrote with an enthusiastic reader.

The latter piece discusses the Marian significance of the Blue Fairy at some length (I expect it is deliberate, especially given the juxtaposition with "2000 years").

Yes, David certainly dies in the end, "happy" in some pathetic, anti-humanist, deeply disturbing sense.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites

the hipster wrote:

: Does the robot child die? Since he has been finally loved, does that mean he has the chance to die?

HAS he been loved?

What IS love?

FWIW, I reviewed the film for BC Christian News and Christianity Today, and I wrote an article on robots and souls and whatnot for The Vancouver Sun -- looking mainly at A.I. Artificial Intelligence, but also at Pinocchio (1940), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), The Questor Tapes (1974), Star Wars (1977), Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), Prototype (1983), 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984), Short Circuit (1986), Fast, Cheap and Out of Control (1997) and Bicentennial Man (1999).

Searches for "artificial intelligence" and "+kubrick +spielberg" turn up no A.I.-specific threads on the current version of this message board.

Incidentally, tying in to my Vancouver Sun piece, I note that, in one of the bonus features that came with the four-disc Star Wars trilogy DVD set, George Lucas says that the great thing about C-3PO is that he "has no soul", so he only does what he's programmed to do but he never quite fits in.

Link to 'bizarro interpretation of the week' thread from three message boards ago.

"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 post
Share on other sites

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if he was truly "loved" or not, since his mother was a programmed image. But then again, if the robot has the chance to show tears and emotion AND finally die it is because he has finally been given the love he has wanted.

I read yourVancover Sun article. Very interesting.

Killing Time

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

If you are looking for a good play to read on the simmilar note of "Do Robots Have Souls", etc., check out R.U.R (Rossums Universal Robots) by Karel Capek (1920).

For AI, I often wonder how much of it was actually Kubrick's original vision, and how much of it was being "Spielberg-ized." There were a couple parts that I really enjoyed though - I liked the creepy-ness of the scene where all of the boxes containing Davids started moving; I also loved the flesh-fair, and how intense and surreal it was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...

A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE stands as a love-it-or-hate-it film (or at least it was that way after its original release). While some critics were enamored with this unique child of film giants Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg, others ranked it among Spielberg's worst outings. Until a few recent viewings, I found myself in the camp that considered it an interesting failure, equally compelling and frustrating.

But my opinion has shifted; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE does have some notable flaws (mostly in its uneven middle section), but even so, it's phenomenally under-appreciated. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE is Spielberg's finest cinematic venture in many years, a showcase for some of the most graceful and elegant direction of his career. It helps that Spielberg is building on what is, arguably, the most complex and intriguing narrative of his career, thanks to the work of Mr. Kubrick (who left him with a 90-page detailed story treatment from which to develop the film, as well as hundreds of production drawings).

My favorite image from the film: a blimp designed to look like a moon, rising menacingly over a dark and misty forest. But there are many such joys in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, from the cyber-Vegas of Rouge City to the flooded remains of New York City. It's a visual feast like very few sci-fi outings from recent years have managed to be.

For a satisfying in-depth analysis and appraisal of the film, I can point you no further than to Tim Kreider's analysis. It's a very insightful, and comprehensive, reading of a very misunderstood film. I particularly approve of his comments regarding the ending of the film, which is a great deal more interesting and subversive than many viewers gave it credit for:

What [the super-evolved future mechas] give David, inevitably, is a kindly lie, like the lies we tell our own children--that we'll never leave them, that we will never die

Edited by Ryan H.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahem. (Though the earlier thread is, admittedly, in one of the sub-forums currently rather than in the Film forum proper.)

"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 post
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:

: Topics merged into the Film forum.

Thanks for the merger. Would there have been a way to keep the older URL, instead of moving to the newer URL? There might be other threads that linked to this thread under the original URL, and those links would presumably be dead now.

"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 post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

"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 post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Following the brief discussion of this film that began in our 'Worst Endings' thread here, I did a little digging around in the OnFilm archives (that's the e-mail discussion list that several of us were involved with before we moved to the various discussion boards), and it was fun to see how some of us reacted to this film when it was brand new. (Don't worry, I won't exhume anyone else's thoughts but my own.)

E.g., this bit from June 21, 2001 (i.e. eight days before the movie came out):

I got back from the press screening for
A.I.
a couple hours ago and, uh, it's weird. I'm still processing it. Some bits work very well, others don't, and some bits are just so out-there you wonder where they came from. To my (sort of) surprise, the
Pinocchio
references were all to the book, and none of them were to the movie. Some bits feel very Kubrick, others very Spielberg. In the very, very, very first scene, to demonstrate how pliant the first generation of robots is, a man tells a female robot to "undress". That's very Kubrick. But after she's taken off only her jacket and undone a few buttons, he tells her, "That's enough." That's where Spielberg's more PG-13 sensibilities kick in. It has some interesting, if quasi-predictable, religious references, too.

I guess I shouldn't say any more, but man, I'm dying to talk about it.

It's interesting, though, seeing this movie in the light of the intro to Brian Aldiss's new short-story collection
Supertoys Last All Summer Long
, where he talks about how Kubrick bought the rights to the first short story years ago, and how Spielberg bought the rights to "one sentence" from the sequels when he wrote the screenplay. The original short story provides the backbone for the film's first act, but after that, the film goes in a completely different direction from the other short stories, and, yes, there is a scene based on that one sentence.

Ot this bit from June 30, 2001 (i.e. one day after the movie came out):

I thought it got off to a shaky start, dramatically, because I could never believe that Frances O'Connor would accept Haley Joel Osment as a substitute for her son, not so quickly, not when her real son was Not Dead Yet. In the original short story, the robot belongs to a childless couple who have not yet won the parenthood lottery, and that, I think, makes more sense than handing the robot over to a couple that already knows what a *real* child is like. Plus, Osment seemed very robotic to me in the film's early scenes, so every time O'Connor said "He's so real!" I had to wonder if she and I had really been observing the same character.

There are, indeed, very compelling moments along the way. And the scene in which O'Connor abandons Osment in the woods is, to me, one of the most heart-wrenching things I've seen in recent memory -- yes, O'Connor has imprinted herself on the robot, but it's obvious that, whatever "reality" he may or may not have, he has definitely imprinted himself on her, too. But the film is primarily about ideas, not drama, and at crucial points, the story turned on iffy plot twists (Osment steals a helicopter?). I prefer films that tell Good Stories that embody Ideas, over films which treat the story as just a framework for ideas, however good they are.

So I'm not sure I would call the work of art compelling *as a whole*. It had compelling moments, but it creaked at times, too. And yes, that entire final-reel sequence was just flat-out weird, wasn't it? It looked *superb*, at least at the outset, but it was so far removed from the rest of the film that Spielberg ended up giving his characters way, way, way too much expository dialogue, just to explain how we got there. And for what? An ending that Spielberg seems to think is a happy one, but which seems rather creepy to me. The events that transpire in that ending are almost a form of comeuppance -- just as humans once invented robots to serve *their* emotional needs, Osment does what he does to serve *his*. And it relies on a bit of directorial magic that seems to contradict everything we've seen until that point (Osment *sheds a tear*? and what possible reason could Teddy have had for keeping that, uh, item? how different is Teddy, really, from all the other robots and supertoys?).

Or this bit, from July 2, 2001 (i.e. three days after the movie came out):

A new thought just occurred to me here. Many people have compared this film's third act to
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
, the tagline for which, as you may recall, was "We Are Not Alone." And it seems to me Spielberg may be subverting his older film. The robots in the future *are* alone, and even though 2,000 years have passed, we hear no word of, say, interstellar travel; they may be as trapped on Earth as we are.

Kinda heightens the loneliness, you might say. (And doesn't Richard Dreyfuss make a reference to Pinocchio in CE3K, too?)

FWIW, today I watched the making-of documentaries on my
Dr. Strangelove
DVD, and the point is made there that Kubrick wanted to begin that film with aliens observing the planet after we had all blown each other to bits. I *think* that may have been back when
Dr. Strangelove
was still supposed to be a serious film, and not a comedy. And I think
2001
was originally supposed to end with the "Star Child" putting an end to a nuclear war on Earth -- that is how Arthur C. Clarke's novel ends -- but for whatever reason, the film ended up not going that route. So Kubrick always had an interest in stories in which exotic outsiders -- aliens, robots, whatever -- observe humans and their knack for self-destruction.

Or, finally, this bit from March 7, 2002 (i.e. after the DVD had come out):

It's a mess of a film, but oh what an interesting mess it is.
A.I.
came out on DVD this week, so of course I snapped it up. It comes with about an hour and a half of behind-the-scenes featurettes, most of which are on the second disc, and some of the technology they used is pretty amazing. I had no idea it was possible to shoot scenes against a blue screen and watch them on video with computer-generated virtual backgrounds *as you're filming the scenes*. Of course, the CGI backgrounds are very sketchy -- you see the outlines of buildings and not much else -- but I'm sure this helps immensely, both in production and in post-production. Quite frankly, I'm embarrassed to say it never occurred to me to wonder how much of the Rouge City set was CGI, because it all looked pretty convincing.

There's no audio commentary on the film -- this is my only Spielberg DVD, so I have no idea whether he has *ever* done a commentary -- but the second disc concludes with a 2.5-minute interview clip, apparently shot on one of the sets, entitled 'Closing: Steven Spielberg: Our Responsibility to Artificial Intelligence'. I figured I'd transcribe it for y'all.

[ what we see: spielberg, on the set, during a break in shooting ]

SPIELBERG: None of us love our electric toothbrushes, but if you carved a face into it, it every morning talked to you and knew you well enough to sense your mood, and depending on your mood in the morning would make you feel better, would make you -- just set you off on the right foot, would whisper in your ear, would sing you a song, and suddenly that electric toothbrush -- if the dog chewed it up, would not be a happy evening when you came home from work or from school and found your electric toothbrush, that used to challenge you and counsel you in the morning, chewed up by the dog. So it's what we project INTO mechanisms, in the machines, that's important. It's not so much that the machine can love us, it's how much love do we invest back into it, in return, and that determines, you know, whether, how far WE should go in creating things that remind us of ourselves.

I think that we have to be very careful about how we as a species use our genius, because we are an amazing species, the human race, and every year, we create things that, two years before, would have appeared like magic to most people, and suddenly it's a reality, and a few years later, it's commonplace in our homes -- like the internet. And I just think that we all have to be careful. A, I have to be careful not to preach about this, number one, but number two, that we all have to be careful as we continue to, you know, to quantumly leap ahead into the future that we create for ourselves, you know, to take responsibility for the things that we put on this planet, and also take responsibility for the things that we take OFF the planet.

[ what we see: a film clip -- the cybertronics board room ]

WOMAN: It's a moral question, isn't it?

PROFESSOR HOBBY (WILLIAM HURT): The oldest one of all. But in the beginning, didn't God create Adam to love HIM?

[ what we see: a film clip -- monica activates david's love ]

SPIELBERG (V.O.): In a sense, you know, we need to have limiters on how far we allow ourselves to go -- ethical, moral, and, um, you know, limiters --

[ what we see: a film clip -- monica abandons david in the woods ]

SPIELBERG (V.O.): -- that will say, "Hey, you know, this isn't for us to mess with."

[ what we see: spielberg, on the set, during a break in shooting ]

SPIELBERG: I had a bit of that theme, was touched upon as you know in Jurassic Park, and a lot more of it was touched upon by Stanley Kubrick through A.I.

Now, I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out what Spielberg means by all this. On the one hand, he says the real issue is not whether machines can love but, rather, how much love we *project* into the machines -- but how does that square with the fact that almost the entire story is told from the point of view of the machines? Would he tell a story from the point of view of the sensitive electric toothbrush?

Moreover, how does this square with the conclusion of the film, where David essentially re-creates Monica to love him, just as he was created to love her -- isn't *David* projecting something onto Monica? And if so, then what are *his* responsibilities to *her*? (Curiously, the only comment I can remember anyone making about the conclusion of this film is when John Williams describes how he and Spielberg selected the theme for the closing scenes; Williams says that love is what sets humans apart, and it is through this that David becomes human, and thus it is through this that David achieves mortality like all other humans; but what *is* this thing called "love", and how *is* it expressed in that final scene?)

The reference to Jurassic Park is a curious one, too. In the original film, one got the impression that the dinosaurs were an aberration, and that they should simply have never existed -- is Spielberg saying that is the case for David and the other robots, too? Well, perhaps not -- in the *second* Jurassic Park film, Spielberg had his characters learn that they need to back off from "nature" and let it have its way, even though the "nature" in question was something created by humans (and, arguably, there is no reason why that which is the product of human tampering may not be tampered with some more -- at least, I assume that's why Spielberg has felt free to tinker with Close Encounters and E.T., even though many moviegoers have projected their love onto earlier versions of those films, and feel a strong attachment to those films in those forms).

I haven't watched the film *itself* yet, except for a few favorite scenes like the one where the female robot's face opens up, and another where robots from the future dig through the ice to get to New York City. (Question -- if New York City was submerged by water when the ice caps melted, and if the world got chilly again, then wouldn't the water have pulled back to the poles as the ice caps re-froze? Just wondering.) I think I'll put it with all my other Stanley Kubrick DVDs, which I *will* get to eventually, once I'm all caught up with the Woody Allen discs.

But one thing that does occur to me, which I remember noticing before, is how human all the *other* robots seem to be, even though David is supposed to represent some quantum leap forward. The kids who touch David act like they've never seen a robot that felt so organic before, but how on earth do robots like Gigolo Joe get to do what they do if they don't feel so natural to the touch? And how is it that, when David calls Monica "Mommy" and insists that he is not a robot but a real boy, it indicates that he has feelings which no other robot has ever had before, when his very own Teddy bear *also* calls Monica "Mommy" and insists "I am *not* a toy"?

Ah well. (And hey, how exactly does David's death make him human, when we've seen so many other robots destroyed in earlier scenes?)

For whatever that's all worth.

"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 post
Share on other sites

I'm purchasing the book A.I. Artificial Intelligence: From Stanley Kubrick to Steven Spielberg: The Vision Behind the Film, which was published last November. It's curious that the film would receive such a thorough "Making of ______" book so many years after the film's release, but ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE certainly merits the treatment. I should be ordering the book relatively soon, and when I get it, I'll be happy to share any intriguing insights it provides into the film's development.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm purchasing the book A.I. Artificial Intelligence: From Stanley Kubrick to Steven Spielberg: The Vision Behind the Film, which was published last November. It's curious that the film would receive such a thorough "Making of ______" book so many years after the film's release, but ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE certainly merits the treatment. I should be ordering the book relatively soon, and when I get it, I'll be happy to share any intriguing insights it provides into the film's development.

Okay, I've got it, so for those interested, here are some of the most striking things I've found in reading it:

  • Spielberg adhered quite closely to Kubrick's vision, more than I'd ever expected. The visuals of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, as well as the bulk of the story material (even dialogue) were laid in stone before Spielberg ever came on board. Spielberg's contribution is felt more in the on-set direction than in the shaping of the narrative; there are slight editing choices he may have made (such as cutting graphic sex scenes with Gigolo Joe, or slightly shifting the placement of Rouge City and the Flesh Fair), but really, much of it wasn't his. Kubrick's death had left him with more or less the material for the finished film, and I imagine if another creator had come on board with the same honorable intentions as Spielberg, we would have ended up with something fairly close to the finished product.
  • Speaking of that material, we tend to talk about Kubrick and Spielberg as the main creative parties involved in A.I. This seems somewhat unfair to Chris Baker, who defined the visual landscape of the film in incredible detail. His contribution to the film cannot be underestimated; it's his creativity that ultimately gave us many of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE's most striking moments.
  • Kubrick quote: "Naturalism finally does not elicit the more mysterious echoes contained in myths and fables; these resonances are far better suited to film than any other art form. People in the twentieth century are increasingly occupied with magic, mystical experience, transcendental urges, hallucinogenic drugs, the belief in extraterrestrial intelligence, et cetera, so that, in this sense, fantasy, the supernatural, the magical documentary, call it what you will, is closer to the sense of the times than naturalism."
  • In Kubrick's copy of PINOCCHIO, he had written a note that in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, he wanted to "reverse all Pinocchio's bad traits and thoughts." While Pinocchio's moral sensibilities improve over the course of his story, David would start pure and become increasingly selfish, bitter, and jealous.
  • Kubrick wrote a note on Ian Watson's treatment during the section where David is frozen in the ice: "In his meditation, time disappeared. Since his thoughts were all the same, he experienced them as an identidical continuum--as the same span of moments again and again."
  • The book notes that in the final moment of the film, "the camera pulls back to reveal the simulation of the apartment. Outside of this perfect simulated moment, David is motherless, in a frozen world, two thousand years in the future." I hadn't quite thought of the final image that way, but it certainly carries an echo of the final frames of Tarkovsky's SOLARIS, with its revelation of the island in the sea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I love those comments about Pinocchio and Solaris in particular.

"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 post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

The Directors Guild sponsored a tribute to Spielberg, in which he is joined onstage by James Cameron, J.J. Abrams and Michael Apted, and somewhere around the 1:18 mark in this video, Spielberg says that if he were shooting A.I. Artificial Intelligence today, he would use motion-capture for the main character. (Kubrick had explored using an animatronic boy, so the fact that Spielberg cast a real live human was by no means a given.)

"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 post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Oh man.

I haven't seen this film in years, probably since before I had kids, and just now I happened to catch a minute or two at the end of this video essay. The minute or two in question concern the scene in which Monica abandons David in the forest... and while I have always found the scene emotionally devastating, I think I found it even moreso now, because I have kids now and I have seen my kids look at me With Those Eyes and plead with me With That Voice whenever I am about to go out the door or something and they don't want me to leave. Well, okay, maybe not QUITE Those Eyes or That Voice, but certainly something comparable; I have skipped screenings at the last minute because one of my kids didn't want me to go out the door. And the way David pleads, pleads, pleads and begs, begs, begs his mommy not to go... Suddenly I'm imagining how my own kids would react in a situation like that. And the scene is suddenly even more chilling to me than it was before.

"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 post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Jonathan Rosenbaum, who counts this film among his favorites of the '00s, wrote another essay on it in 2011:

David has always been a simulacra, and in the film’s final scene the resurrected Monica is one as well; both are as reproducible as the separate prints of a film. Viewers who criticize their final scene together — also an improved simulacrum, in this case of much earlier scenes between them — as sentimental usually overlook that it is occurring long after humanity has died out. This means that the death Naremore refers to has to be the death of an emotion or idea — even if, as the film’s offscreen narration implies, it is also the birth of a dream, a robot’s dream. Perhaps it could be regarded as an artificial and manufactured footnote to the human race, a sort of ghostly echo. Something, in short, that is very much like a film.

Like Naremore, I weep during the final scene of A.I. and I don’t know who or what I’m weeping for — even though, like him, I can recall the line cited in the film by Yeats (a poet who also once wrote, “In dreams begin responsibilities”): “The world’s more full of weeping/than you can understand.” Like him, I suspect that my tears must have something to do with both the loss of my own mother and my experience of cinema — what it means to be born and then to be abandoned, and also what it means to bask in the familial warmth and shelter of a film and a film theater before being ejected from both. . . .

In the pessimistic cosmology shared by Kubrick and Spielberg, cinema and death appear to be the only enduring realities, each one dominated by fixation on a maternal figure. The Blue Fairy, a deity from Pinocchio, is described by Hobby as “part of the great human flaw — to wish for things that don’t exist”; David seeks her out to make him a “real” boy and thus gain Monica’s love. And the Monica who loves David and appears only in the film’s final scene is a deity derived from life, but no less a fiction. For Hobby, a version of both Mephistopheles and Frankenstein, human flaws, including his own, can be “great” and therefore cherished, but for David, condemned to love someone who won’t love him back, they can only be lamented. Both characters, in effect, are incurable cinephiles. And the film brings us closer to David than to Hobby, so that we ultimately love a film that refuses to love us back.

A.I. is a film about having been programmed emotionally — something that the cinema does to us all, and a subject that my first book, Mouvements [Moving Places: A Life at the Movies], attempted to explore. (1) This is one reason why, as a profound meditation on the difference between the human and the mechanical, A.I. Artificial Intelligence constitutes one of the best allegories about cinema that I know. And to recount this allegory in terms of a mother’s love makes it even more devastating. . . .

"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 post
Share on other sites

Incredible.  And somewhat akin to what we discussed last year when Ryan posted Paul Thomas Anderson's quote about how films betray us.

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...