Jump to content
CrimsonLine

God's Not Dead (2014)

Recommended Posts

mrmando   

Well, not every Muslim country/culture denies education to women. Iran comes to mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SDG said:

I was thinking the father was a pretty enlightened, Westernized, liberal guy, for having a daughter attending university. 

 

 

 

Well, not every Muslim country/culture denies education to women. Iran comes to mind. 

 

I was going to offer a broader (than the movie deserves) comment about differences between iranian education (see Reading Lolita in Tehran) and Western education as a means of perhaps plugging this plot hole: perhaps the father thinks based on his own upbringing that the education she is receiving is different from what it is. 

 

That's still a possibility, though it points to something we've been going over and over, which is that the absence of any nuance or supporting detail to differentiate any of these characters evidences the film's/story's status as allegory rather than mimetic novel. Is the father/family Iranian? Syrian? Lebanese? Egyptian? Pakastani? American? (if so, immigrant or descendant of how long?) Is he Sunni or Shiite or some sort of cultural Muslim who doesn't necessarily have a highly developed theological position? 

 

The same holds true of the other characters. Just as all Atheists are the same, with little distinction to be made between any of the list of Atheists that Radisson puts on the board (it's been over a year so I forget which he lists other than Stephen Hawking), so too all Christians are essentially the same, with little distinction to be made between those who believe in Intelligent Design vs those perhaps have no problem with Evolution because they read Genesis as a mythological rendering of what happened rather than an exact account of it. 

 

By parsing the central conflict as Atheism vs. Christianity rather than as Radission vs. Wheaton, the writers signal that they need the conflict to be resolved definitively on one side, which will ultimately be to the dissatisfaction of most everyone, because no matter who loses, there will be those who say (like Joel), that person is supposed to represent me but doesn't. 

 

Perhaps I am being way too cynical, but part of what I find curious (and distasteful) about GND is its seeming disinterest in the subject of the debate that frames and propels its plots. It's only interested in the debate to the extent that it becomes a vehicle to illustrate prejudice and persecution and overcoming the same, but it doesn't seem particularly interested in exploring the actual questions themselves. (Or maybe it does and is just incapable of doing so substantively?). Just as the Muslim is a generic Muslim with no real authenticating detail to help position him on a spectrum that the authors don't appear to want to acknowledge exists, just as Radisson is a generic Atheist with no real authenticating detail to help position him on a spectrum of beliefs that the authors don't really want to acknowledge exists, just as Josh is a generic Evangelical Protestant with little authenticating detail to help position him on a spectrum of beliefs that the authors don't appear to want to carefully explore, so too, in the final analysis does the victory of Theism over Atheism become a generic one, without much in the way of authenticating detail or plausibility to make the film useful as a valid expression of belief. 

 

The odd thing about that generalizing to the point of abstraction (besides jsut that it is received so well in some circles), is that it pushes the meaning of the story (imo) towards the sort of postmodern celebration of faith/belief in and of themselves that many Christians would find worrisome or distasteful. Josh doesn't have--or argue for--an entirely content-less set of beliefs. He doesn't just have faith in faith. But is he (and the film) drifting in that direction? What is the substance of his belief? That God exists and made the world? Beyond that? That's not really all that different from the Deism of Ben Franklin or Thomas Paine ("I believe in one God and no more."")

 

Maybe the authors and fans of the film would claim that Deism isn't the sum total of Josh's beliefs, just the final, cultural line in the sand. (We give an inch by allowing plurality of interpretation, they take a mile by denying all interpretations.) But if so, then I wonder if the intellectual war has already been lost even if the flag has not yet fallen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deathbed conversions are one thing when people happen to be dying; going out of your way to kill someone *just so you can get a conversion*, as the filmmakers do, is something else.

 

There is an entire subplot in Do You Believe? that feels like an intentional response to this very criticism.

 

The two films create a dialectic that I'm still trying to understand. The latter almost completely eliminates the nauseatingly trendy cultural references that prevailed in the former. No inspired-by-true-events narrative, no popular bands, no TV star cameos. It strives for a more "timeless" appeal, if you will. But the politics are still there: the lack of faith in broad social institutions (such as the health care system and the judiciary). The only way to affect change, the movie seems to say, is to convert individual hearts. Solely through the action and good will of Christians (mobilized by the mysterious movements of the Spirit) can society be transformed. So much for secular humanism! 

 

Once again, the air brushed, shrink wrapped presentation and tendency toward vehicular homicide erode credibility. It does have the benefit of a couple of nicely scaled, warmly humane performances, though.

Edited by Nathaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew   

I'm racking my brain and coming up empty, as to which subplot you're referring to, Nathaniel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that was obscure! 

 

I'm thinking of the paramedic being taken to court for essentially taking on the role of priest for a man who "happens to be dying." In God's Not Dead, the characters who gather around Radisson don't call an ambulance, but immediately set to work saving his soul. The backlash against this scene came in the form of an assumption: Christians care more about the soul than the body, and woe to him who gets hit by a car when Christians are nearby! Do You Believe? resolves this by showing us a man who cares for both soul and body, and his actions are misunderstood and litigated. "I'm not sorry for what I did," he says. Neither are the screenwriters, apparently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew   

Ah, I see.  I actually expand a bit on that subplot in my review, as I see it as problematic on at least two levels.  First, the fireman was clearly derelict in his duty.  You don't stop checking vital signs, putting in IVs, checking for sources of blood loss, etc., until the patient is declared dead.  The fireman deserved to be fired as well as censured by his licensure board.  Second, it was inappropriate for the fireman to proselytize to his patient regardless.  There was a clear power differential between the fit, caregiving fireman and the prone, dependent victim.  Medical ethics (and I think, common sense morality) see this as a clear no-no.  In my review, I turned the tables and asked Christian readers:  would you be ok with a Muslim doctor trying to convert your dying mother to Islam?  If no, then why should the converse be acceptable? 

Edited by Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrmando   

What is Radisson's first name? I know his wife calls him by his name, but it's not at IMDb or Wikipedia. 

It's Jeffrey! Or, as it's spelled on the envelope containing his treasured letter from his dear departed mum, "Jeffery." There are also two letters addressed to Radisson on his desk, one of which also spells his name Jeffery and the other Jefferey, and both of which have only one s in Radison, although the closing credits spell it Radisson. 

 

I also note that Radisson's list of famous atheists includes "Bertold Brecht." One, Brecht was a playwright and poet, and is not generally regarded as a philosopher. (Same goes for Camus, who's also on the list.) True, Radisson says his list also includes "poets" and "authors," but why should it? This is a philosophy class. Two, whereas Brecht was a committed Communist and I don't doubt that this also means he was an atheist, he did have a Catholic father and a devout Protestant mother, and his writing alludes time and again to the Lutheran Bible. Three, he seems to have been christened "Eugen Berthold" but used the spelling "Bertolt" as an adult, never "Bertold."   

The IMDB "Goofs" page alleges that Ayisha's father speaks Persian (support for the Iranian theory!) even though the family's given names sound Arabic (common mistake by Western screenwriters, who seem to assume that every Muslim, regardless of his or her native language, is named something like Abdul). It further alleges that Martin, the Chinese student, speaks Cantonese to his father, who speaks Mandarin back to him (two completely different dialects).

The American Atheists will host a screening of GND at their annual convention next week, with help from the MST:3K cast. 

I don't see anything in the film indicating that Mina is supposed to be Radisson's wife. We first see Mina visiting her afflicted-with-Alzheimer's mum, who notes the absence of a ring on her hand, to which Mina replies, "It's complicated." Next time we see her, she's standing alone in a fabulous-looking $50,000 kitchen; Radisson comes in and says the door was open, so he let himself in. Odd thing to say to one's wife. Do they even live together? If not, whose upscale home is this? If it's Mina's, clearly she's a self-sufficient woman and it seems less likely that she'd have a Cinderella complex. If it's Radisson's house, why does he make excuses for letting himself in? Radisson and Mina don't use the terms "wife" or "husband"; Radisson says "relationship," not "marriage."  More on Mina in the next post. 

Edited by mrmando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything in the film indicating that Mina is supposed to be Radisson's wife. We first see Mina visiting her afflicted-with-Alzheimer's mum, who notes the absence of a ring on her hand, to which Mina replies, "It's complicated." Next time we see her, she's standing alone in a fabulous-looking $50,000 kitchen; Radisson comes in and says the door was open, so he let himself in. Odd thing to say to one's wife. Do they even live together? If not, whose upscale home is this? If it's Mina's, clearly she's a self-sufficient woman and it seems less likely that she'd have a Cinderella complex. If it's Radisson's house, why does he make excuses for letting himself in? Radisson and Mina don't use the terms "wife" or "husband"; Radisson says "relationship," not "marriage."  More on Mina in the next post. 

IIRC, I think Radisson refers to Mina as "mistress" in one conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrmando   

A couple of further points about Radisson and Mina ... 

 

1) Sexuality is something GND tries to avoid, so we're left to draw some inferences. Radisson makes it clear that he doesn't value any social or intellectual contributions Mina might try to make, so what's left? She must be amazing in the sack, if you'll pardon the expression. We can assume that, having dismissed Christianity, Radisson has also dismissed whatever sexual mores he was raised with, and the relationship wouldn't have lasted this long if Mina refused his advances. (Mina's played by Cory Oliver, whose first IMDB credit is from 1994, who moved from Redwood City to Los Angeles to break into acting upon graduating from high school, and who says she took 13 years off from acting to raise her daughter, so you do the math. She must be in her late 30s at the youngest. She wouldn't be credible as a just-graduated 22-year-old. Either this relationship has gone on for a while or Mina went to college later in life than the typical student — but then, if she's not 22, why does Radisson say she used to quote SpongeBob Squarepants? Anyhow...) 

 

Which is why her declaration that she and Radisson are "unequally yoked" strikes me as so odd. (She's just now figuring that out?) The phrase comes from 2 Cor. 6:14; there's nothing in the context to indicate that it's meant to refer specifically to marital or coital relationships, but it's often invoked to encourage believers to date and marry only other believers. But as far as I know, this use of the phrase is largely confined to the context of the most traditional Christian teaching on sexuality. So it seems weird that Mina would be concerned that she is "unequally yoked" with Radisson but not concerned that she is fornicating with himunless GND intends to put forth some new strain of evangelical thought which claims that unmarried coitus is perfectly OK as long as both of the beast's backs are Christian.

2) Then we learn that Mina is a former student of Radisson's (and a Christian whom he's somehow failed to convert to atheism, but still wants to have a relationship with — did she sign a paper saying God was dead?), and that they started dating just after she got an A-minus on the midterm in his class, i.e., while she was still a student. (Ken Morefield's review mentions this.) So ... that's a major ethical violation on Radisson's part. He admits he could have lost his job over it. But what about now? His fellow faculty members know about Mina; is the beginning of the relationship some kind of open secret that the other faculty have laughed off? Or are they too dumb to figure it out? He's up for department chair and there's no dissension or envy among his colleagues about his indiscretion? Does he stay with Mina, perhaps, because she's blackmailing him over the whole thing—threatening to expose him if he dumps her? 

Oh, and how in the hell does a Christian get an A-minus on Radisson's midterm? Unless she ... ah, we're right back in the territory of fornication and violations of academic ethics. 

Edited by mrmando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrmando   

IIRC, I think Radisson refers to Mina as "mistress" in one conversation.

What he says is, "There's only room for two in this relationship. I'm not allowed to have a mistress, and you're not allowed to drag in a two-thousand-year-old dead carpenter," or words to that effect. So he doesn't refer to Mina as a "mistress"; the mistress is some hypothetical other woman. This is the only thing either of them says that indicates they might be married, since it ain't proper English to refer to a mistress if you don't have a wife. But we have other indications, as I've pointed out, that they are not married and have only a shackup or common-law arrangement ... so which is it? The screenplay is so sloppy that it fails to clearly establish whether they're married or not, in part because it doesn't want to address the sexual aspect of their relationship, and in part because it's generally uninterested in character development. Of course, if they are married, then Mina leaving Radisson = D-I-V-O-R-C-E, and it's unclear to me whether Pure Flix would consider that to be an acceptable plot element.

 

[backtracking]Ooh! Later on Mina meets with the ubiquitous Pastor Dave at a burger shop. Dave diagnoses her with a "Cinderella complex"; then a little later he says, "If [God] loves you that much, who cares what your boyfriend thinks?" So, my bad, the screenplay does definitely establish that they are not married.[/backtracking]

Minor nitpicks:

1) Clearly Pastor Dave is the only pastor in Baton Rouge; no wonder God keeps making his car break down. If he went to Disney World, who'd be there to counsel Josh, Ayisha, Mina, and every other Christian in town?

2) And, how is it that Reverend Jude, the Senegalese missionary, has an entirely American wardrobe, from the get-go?

3) Radisson's a bit of a nitwit for insisting that Mina buy a Merlot to pair with the coq au vin. Coq au vin is made with a red burgundy, Beaujolais, or pinot noir, and the whole point is that you're supposed to serve it alongside a glass of the same wine you used to cook it.

4) PTC is absolutely right: Josh's presentations include, at one point, an image of Adam from Michelangelo's Creation with his naughty bits airbrushed out. John Ashcroft would be proud. 

5) Josh and his girlfriend talk on their anniversary, "Thursday the 13th," and he invites her to the Newsboys concert "next Friday," which would be the 21st of whatever month this is (probably September, since school has just begun). But later, when Dean Cain gets the "God's Not Dead" text from his blogging ex-girlfriend the night of the concert, his phone says the date is Saturday, November 10.

 

In the much-discussed death scene, Pastor Dave twice yells at other people to "call the ambulance," but watch the extras in the background after he says this. The scene attracts as many as eleven onlookers, in addition to Dave and Jude, and no one ever gets out a phone to call an ambulance!  Jude diagnoses Radisson with crushed ribs, then stands up and clasps his hands, not bothering to see if anyone has called 911 or trying to make a call himself. We know Pastor Dave carries a phone, because the first time his car breaks down he fishes out said phone to call the rental company. Does he bother, while talking to Radisson, to whip that phone out again and hand it to his friend to make the call? No, he does not. At the instant Radisson stops breathing, we do hear a siren, faintly, for about two seconds, and then it fades out. Then there's a flash of light on Dave's face that might be an ambulance light ... but then the camera pulls away, skyward, and there are no more lights and no emergency vehicle in the shot. It doesn't seem to matter whether the ambulance gets there or not. Cut to the concert. Cut back to the street scene, and by golly, the ambulance is finally there, but it has stopped raining, and Dave and Jude, who were utterly soaked in a torrential downpour while engineering Radisson's conversion just moments earlier, are now dry as a bone. Let's be charitable and call this a huge continuity mistake, and hope that the film doesn't mean to imply that the ambulance didn't show up until long after the storm was over.

A chuckle in the credits: there are actors credited with playing "Ward Wheaton" and "June Wheaton." Does this suggest that Josh had parents who didn't make the final cut? 

Edited by mrmando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if things couldn't get worse...
 
Now the folks from Dinesh D'Souza's camp are suing the makers of God's Not Dead.
 

Over a year after its release and with a sequel supposedly in the works, the faith-based Kevin Sorbo starring hit has been hit with a lawsuit claiming producers took its premise in bad faith. Seeking at least $10 million in damages and alleging that God’s Not Dead was based on a “faith-based Dead Poets’ Society“concept called Proof that they came up with back in 2009, John Sullivan and Brad Stine today sued Pure Flix Entertainment and its CEO David A.R. White “God’s Not Dead, which is the Proof film simply slightly modified and re-titled liberally, substantially draws upon material from the Proof Treatments, including the genre, mood, pace, themes, settings, characters and plot points,” says the 4-claim jury trial seeking complaint filed in L.A. Superior Court Friday (read it here).

 

Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrmando   

Should be an entertaining trial, especially the part where the Pure Flix attorney yells "Why do you hate God's Not Dead?" and D'Souza cracks up on the witness stand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evan C   

In light of War Room's box office success, I decided to review God's Not Dead and touch on the problem of so-called "Christian cinema."

 

I debated for awhile on whether or not I should write a review of God’s Not Dead, last year’s surprise faith-based hit. On the one hand, it’s the type of movie at which it is easy to take cheap shots, which can be fun and cathartic, but at the same time, even if those shots are deserved, they can be unfair to the filmmakers and also unfair to people who genuinely like the movie and do not understand why it’s not only bad art but also bad theology.

 

Edited by Evan C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I read one more intelligent takedown of this fascinatingly conceived, bunglingly executed movie, I may be forced to take a strong contrarian position, if only as an intellectual exercise. I can't defend it as art, but it's lot more complex than people are giving it credit for. There are extratextual forces at work here which make it unique among recent evangelical movies.

Can anyone point me to a review as well rounded as Brody's exegesis of War Room?

Edited by Nathaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happened to be on Box Office Mojo today and see that while the film grossed over 60 million in the U.S., it made less than 2 outside U.S. 

So GND is purely an American phenomenon. Make of that what you will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrmando   

That's actually encouraging. Perhaps we're the only nation afflicted with this particular strain of evangelicalism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kenmorefield wrote:
: I happened to be on Box Office Mojo today and see that while the film grossed over 60 million in the U.S., it made less than 2 outside U.S. 

Closer to $3.9 million, actually. Box Office Mojo hasn't added up the foreign totals since July 20, 2014 -- but some foreign countries were still reporting grosses as late as this year.

: So GND is purely an American phenomenon.

Most "faith-based" films are. Without checking to see how recently the foreign totals were added up (except for GND and cases where BOM reports no foreign grosses at all, which is always a little fishy), here's how the top ten "faith-based" films in North America (not counting The Passion of the Christ) have done domestically and overseas:

Heaven Is for Real -- $91.4 million US, $9.9 million overseas
War Room -- $67.8 million US, $5.1 million overseas
God's Not Dead -- $60.8 million US, $3.9 million overseas
Miracles from Heaven -- $59.7 million US, $8.1 million overseas
Son of God -- $59.7 million US, $8.1 million overseas
Soul Surfer -- $43.9 million US, $3.2 million overseas
The Nativity Story -- $37.6 million US, $8.8 million overseas
Risen -- $36.8 million US, $8.2 million overseas
Courageous -- $34.5 million US, $0.6 million overseas
Fireproof -- $33.5 million US, $16,980 overseas (in South Korea)

For whatever that's worth.

mrmando wrote:
: That's actually encouraging. Perhaps we're the only nation afflicted with this particular strain of evangelicalism.

It seems that Mexico and Brazil are more receptive to these films than most other foreign territories, for whatever that's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Attica   
16 hours ago, Peter T Chattaway said:

It seems that Mexico and Brazil are more receptive to these films than most other foreign territories, for whatever that's worth.

Isn't South America enjoying somewhat of a Christian "revival" right now, besides already being heavily Roman Catholic?

I think that the success of this film (or lack thereof) in other countries, specifically European, helps to explain why it had so much favour in North America.  There are a lot of Christians concerned that North America may go the path of Western Europe in a decline away from Christianity and Christian principles, and they feel that one of the issues is within the academy, so they are thus gravitating towards this film's message (as I understand it - I haven't seen it.)  

Plus, if there is a decline in Christian culture and practice in Europe there wouldn't be as many Christians per capita who would be interested in seeing it, and from what I understand, the Christians in Europe wouldn't see North American evangelical ways as being helpful for their society and cause.  Different sensibilities.

FWIW.  I do think that there is a resistance to Christianity within the academy.  Not everyone, for certain, but it is there.  I've interacted with some of these folks (actually some of them are real wonders - with a strong desire to destroy faith based thinking - when they don't actually have anything substantial to truly support their views - it isn't as "reasonable" as they like to think), and I've interacted with some who have dealt with this resistance.  I think academic philosophy might also explain some of the resistance to Christianity in Europe, as Europe, especially Continental Europe, is inclined more towards the school of "Continental Philosophy" as opposed to the "Analytical Philosophy" which is found in North America (and I'm not as sure about elsewhere.)  As I understand it, at least from what I have read, Analytical philosophy is much more able to come to Theistic / Christian conclusions than Continental philosophy.  I'm not entirely sure *why* this is so.

So, there are those dynamics at play I am sure.  European Christians and culture probably wouldn't have the cultural inclinations towards appreciating this film's central thesis, even if it was a good film.

Then there are other regions like Eastern Europe and Russia.  As I understand it, Eastern Europe is still far more Christian in culture than Western Europe and Russia has actually had a "revival" of Christianity since communism fell.  Something like 80 or 90 percent of the population, if I remember right.  But here we would find quite different Christian sensibilities (with the religious population mainly being Russian Orthodox), that wouldn't align much with North American sensibilities, and besides with Russian and Eastern Europe having such a rich tradition in religious storytelling and the arts, I can't really imagine their culture gravitating towards a film such as this.  I mean can we really expect them to more to this after raising up masters like Tarkovsky, or literary giants of spiritual discourse like Dostoyevsky.  I also question whether they have the concerns of oppression of Christian thought in the academy as Christians do in North America.  In my understanding they've come out of oppression under communism and the country is wary to allow itself to go back to that place.  Indeed they are warning us to not go there.  

 

Then we are left with the question of a variety of other countries relationship to American cinema in general, but, say, the Christians in communist China wouldn't have the same concerns, or the same ability to speak up (although interesting enough I know a philosophy student in China who says that most of his teachers are theists and a few Christians - apparently they have come to those conclusions through their philosophical considerations - even though the state is still mostly communist and according to him - anti theist.)

What I'm kind of curious about is the Philippines, a region that, as I understand it, is quite Christian and has also gravitated more towards American sensibilities than other Eastern countries?

Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Attica   

The trailer looks good anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Attica   

On a note related to the film.

 

The scarcity of conservatives seems driven in part by discrimination. One peer-reviewed study found that one-third of social psychologists admitted that if choosing between two equally qualified job candidates, they would be inclined to discriminate against the more conservative candidate.

Yancey, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas, conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said that they would be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican.

The discrimination becomes worse if the applicant is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancey’s study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.

“Of course there are biases against evangelicals on campuses,” notes Jonathan L. Walton, the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard. Walton, a black evangelical, adds that the condescension toward evangelicals echoes the patronizing attitude toward racial minorities: “The same arguments I hear people make about evangelicals sound so familiar to the ways people often describe folk of color, i.e. politically unsophisticated, lacking education, angry, bitter, emotional, poor.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not seen this film yet; but that said, I have just finished reading David A.R. White's book "Between Heaven and Hollywood", where he shares his experiences working in the film industry as a faith-filled Christian, first as an actor, and then as a producer (including films like "God's Not Dead.")

Anyway, here's an interesting tidbit: the first scene they shot was the rain-soaked conversion scene, the climactic scene at the end (I've not seen the movie, but hearing your angst about this scene has deterred me from actually seeing it). 

Why was this the first scene shot?  So to share with financial backers to get more funding so to complete the movie.  They knew they'd have a better chance securing funding if there was such a scene in their film.

Something to chew on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Alexander wrote:
: Anyway, here's an interesting tidbit: the first scene they shot was the rain-soaked conversion scene, the climactic scene at the end (I've not seen the movie, but hearing your angst about this scene has deterred me from actually seeing it). 

Just the conversion, or the entire scene including the God shot of the atheist bad guy being thrown in the air by the car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2017 at 11:43 AM, Peter T Chattaway said:

Just the conversion, or the entire scene including the God shot of the atheist bad guy being thrown in the air by the car?

White went into specifics about the conversion scene itself.  I don't recall him going into any other details about that initial shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×