Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
John Drew

The Hateful Eight

Recommended Posts

I had a similar experience at the Seattle screening for Fahrenheit 9/11. The crowd was there to spew verbal abuse at the mere sight of a political conservative.


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I similarly was tempted to reevaluate my love for movies after watching Dogtooth (that content went well beyond what I considered necessary to the story), but then I watched Frances Ha and that restored my spirit and love for cinema. So I would suggest starting off the new year with some film like that.

 

Also, I don't know what to make of the reviews I've seen for The Hateful Eight; it's strongly dividing all the critics with whom I often agree, so I don't know what I'll make of it, although I do hope my screening isn't too crowded.


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tarantino's command of widescreen imagery in this film is impressive. I was actually enjoying the film until about the 90-minute mark, when a certain show-stopping monologue (you'll know it when you see it) reminded me that Tarantino always operates within a moral vacuum.

Edited by Nathaniel

"A great film is one that to some degree frees the viewer from this passive stupor and engages him or her in a creative process of viewing. The dynamic must be two-way. The great film not only comes at the viewer, it draws the viewer toward it." -Paul Schrader

Twitter     Letterboxd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rushmore said:

At intermission, already disgusted, repulsed by the reactions of the theater full of jackals and hyenas I was apparently watching the movie with who hooted with laughter at every crescendo of the horrific violence and the sheer joy of using the words "bitch" and "nigger," and knowing it was going to get a lot worse, I considered making an exception, and should have really done it. This loathsome experience is now making me question not only my love for movies but my membership in the human race.

This reaction from the audience bothers me. Much, much more than anything the characters do or say in the film.


"It's a dangerous business going out your front door." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
"I want to believe in art-induced epiphanies." -- Josie
"I would never be dismissive of pop entertainment; it's much too serious a matter for that." -- NBooth

"If apologetics could prove God, I would lose all faith in Him." -- Josie

"What if--just what if--the very act of storytelling is itself redemptive? What if gathering up the scraps and fragments of a disordered life and binding them between the pages of a book in all of their fragmentary disorder is itself a gambit against that disorder?" -- NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darryl A. Armstrong said:

This reaction from the audience bothers me. Much, much more than anything the characters do or say in the film.

 

That makes sense (having not seen the film.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what the extra five or so minutes of film in the roadshow are? The roadshow's 20 minutes longer, but 10 of that's intermission, about 5's the Entr'acte, so that only leaves five or so more minutes of the story.

Specifically, I was wondering how long is the hanging scene in the roadshow version, because based on descriptions I read, I was expecting closer to five or six minutes, not two.


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Evan C said:

Does anyone know what the extra five or so minutes of film in the roadshow are?

A friend of mine saw both cuts and said that all the extra footage occurs in the first half, and has to do with editing rhythm (i.e. substituting coverage for some longer takes).

Edited by Nathaniel

"A great film is one that to some degree frees the viewer from this passive stupor and engages him or her in a creative process of viewing. The dynamic must be two-way. The great film not only comes at the viewer, it draws the viewer toward it." -Paul Schrader

Twitter     Letterboxd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nathaniel said:

A friend of mine saw both cuts and said that all the extra footage occurred in the first half, and have to do with editing rhythm (i.e. substituting coverage for some longer takes).

Good to know. Thanks.

 

The two things that first struck me about The Hateful Eight were this is the first Tarantino movie to be entirely comprised of repellent, odious, immoral individuals with no redeeming qualities, and that makes this film seem darker and more disgusting than his other films, and secondly, the violence is far less aestheticized than any other Tarantino film, which again makes it more inhumane. The violence here is not the cartoonish over the top gorefest of the final shoot out in Django Unchained or the sword fight with Crazy 88 in Kill Bill vol. 1, it's the torture/ear scene in Reservoir Dogs kicked up one step further. Consequently, I'm horrified that anyone would laugh and cheer at it, and I thought the focus on the dehumanizing aspects of the violence made it a more mature and conscientious use of violence than most of Tarantino's other works.

Maybe I'm applying too much of my own sensitivities, but one scene that many critics have cited as pushing the envelope too far - when Warren and Mannix hang Daisy - I thought was arguably the most horrifying scene in the movie, partially because the savage glee the two characters took in the act and partially because the time the camera took to focus on Jennifer Jason Leigh's face - her look of fear and desperation was the one time she almost became sympathetic.

The other scene which has garnered a lot of criticism - Warren's story about what he did to the general's son - we did not need to see acted out and told; it would have plenty horrifying without the flashback, possibly more so, and it would have served it's dramatic purpose: to remind us that all these characters are equally repugnant, especially the one's we might have begun to sympathize with as slightly less horrible than the others.

There was a little laughter at my screening, mostly at the eccentricities of the characters: "It sounds like you're callin' me a liar." "It does sound like that, but I ain't said it." or the awkwardness of certain blunders such as the broken door. The vomiting blood and a few of Russell's rationales for punching Leigh garnered some nervous chuckles, but those seemed to me to be more out of shock and horror at the atrocity on display, much like the laughter I heard during The Wolf of Wall Street.

If it's not clear by now, I rather liked the film; I thought it functioned successfully as a morality play specifically by focusing on the absence of any morality and showing how the hatred brews into a bloodbath. It's human nature to find a protagonist to identify with when watching any film, but The Hateful Eight challenges the viewer to identify with none of its characters, instead focusing on each character's desire to be the center of the story and showing how that desire contributes to the hatred and inhumanity (as Darryl pointed out). The final shot seemed slightly too sympathetic to the two characters in the frame, but I don't think it undermined the horror which preceded it.

Other final thoughts: Morricone's score is fantastic; it's mostly monothematic, and it's a theme which reflects the nasty menacing nature of the film. The Hateful Eight doesn't have anything as good as the best aspects of Django Unchained, but it doesn't have anything as misguided as the shoot out finale. Tim Roth's performance was too reminiscent of Christoph Waltz, and I wished he had been playing that role; I would wager Tarantino wrote the role with Waltz in mind. No character is a colorful or as repellent as Waltz's Hans Landa either, although Russell and Leigh may come close. The frequent use of "nigger" is definitely made more disturbing considering this was made after Django Unchained, which has nearly twice as many uses of that slur - I checked several content advisory website, because I was expecting more after early reports. I honestly think the word is more borderline gratuitous in that film, and if I hadn't seen Django, I probably would have accepted without second thought its use here as natural for repellent racist characters living shortly post-Civil War. However, it's clear Tarantino likes to see how far he can push it not only with that word but with all aspects of edgy, provocative content as well. Which, like most of his other films, keeps this just shy of greatness.


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lack of a single sympathetic character is certainly a focal point for understanding what Tarantino is attempting here, but it carries with it a depressing reminder that he has yet to create a single good character in his entire oeuvre. His inability to comprehend goodness neutralizes his moralizing. Even a misanthrope who understands chaos as the governing norm must take into account aberrant acts of kindness, compassion, empathy, etc. and acknowledge those anomalies as part of the fabric of reality. I can't seem to find any evidence to support that QT recognizes goodness as a category. I'm also convinced that Tarantino does in fact invite us to laugh at much of the violence (blaming the audience is a copout), but then switches gears when he wants to make a specious political statement. And there is no denying that Hateful Eight is more nakedly political than previous efforts. Consider the uses the Lincoln letter.

As a side note, Agatha Christie has been evoked a number of times in reference to the whodunit subplot, but the film also resembles a claustrophobic Rod Serling chamber drama--particularly a Night Gallery episode called "The Waiting Room"--minus Serling's finely tuned moral compass and metaphysical sophistication. 


"A great film is one that to some degree frees the viewer from this passive stupor and engages him or her in a creative process of viewing. The dynamic must be two-way. The great film not only comes at the viewer, it draws the viewer toward it." -Paul Schrader

Twitter     Letterboxd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nathaniel wrote:
: A friend of mine saw both cuts and said that all the extra footage occurs in the first half, and has to do with editing rhythm (i.e. substituting coverage for some longer takes).

Ah, that might explain why some scenes look very different (a conversation in wide shot vs. a conversation in alternating close-ups) depending on which featurette you're watching.


"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nathaniel said:

The lack of a single sympathetic character is certainly a focal point for understanding what Tarantino is attempting here, but it carries with it a depressing reminder that he has yet to create a single good character in his entire oeuvre. His inability to comprehend goodness neutralizes his moralizing. Even a misanthrope who understands chaos as the governing norm must take into account aberrant acts of kindness, compassion, empathy, etc. and acknowledge those anomalies as part of the fabric of reality. I can't seem to find any evidence to support that QT recognizes goodness as a category.

I agree there. Tarantino's obsession with portraying vice and depravity, even when he makes it repelling, makes his moralizing far less profound than he obviously thinks it is. However, I don't think the absence of goodness completely undermines his point either, although it makes it weaker than it otherwise could be.

Quote

 I'm also convinced that Tarantino does in fact invite us to laugh at much of the violence (blaming the audience is a copout), but then switches gears when he wants to make a specious political statement. And there is no denying that Hateful Eight is more nakedly political than previous efforts. Consider the uses the Lincoln letter.

The political bits are some of the weakest writing in the film, mostly because of how heavy handed they are. The Lincoln letter bits practically scream #BlackLivesMatter, which as others have pointed out, may or may not be the card Tarantino's playing to get away with the racial slurs he uses so frequently. I'm not convinced Tarantino wants us to laugh at the violence. Maybe he does, but if he does, I think it's in a similar way that Haneke wants the audience to root for violence in Funny Games. We can hope and root for the characters we like more to achieve a violent, gruesome retaliation, but when they do, they're signing their own death warrants. Although Haneke does pull it off more successfully.

Edited by Evan C

"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

This reaction from the audience bothers me. Much, much more than anything the characters do or say in the film."

"

There was a little laughter at my screening, mostly at the eccentricities of the characters: "It sounds like you're callin' me a liar." "It does sound like that, but I ain't said it." or the awkwardness of certain blunders such as the broken door. The vomiting blood and a few of Russell's rationales for punching Leigh garnered some nervous chuckles, but those seemed to me to be more out of shock and horror at the atrocity on display, much like the laughter I heard duringThe Wolf of Wall Street."

-

I haven't viewed the film yet so I'm not sure how relevant the following may be.  I'll share it just in case it adds some value to the conversation.

It is excerpted from the book the Power of Film, which I believe I have recommended here before.

 

"For the last 2,500 years the most popular and memorable dramatic stories have tended to be filled with sex and violence.  Some people have always been offended by this, and periodically throughout history theatres have been condemned, censored, and shut down as a result.  Others have argued that, rather than being a danger to individuals and society, the depiction of these deep human impulses on stage and on screen produces "catharsis."

The term was used a couple of times in Aristotle's Poetics, but what he meant by it has been debated for centuries.  Aristotle's father was a doctor and he may have had in mind the biological process of "purgation," or cleaning out the bowels.  Or he may have meant the more metaphysical sense of "cleansing" or even "purification." 

Whatever Aristotle and other ancients meant by "catharsis," there has always been a widely held belief that we are, both as individuals and as a society, auto-toxic.  That is, our systems generate bad things, whether of the body, mind, or spirit, and they must be flushed out of our systems, because if they are not we will be poisoned by them.

Other scholars have argued for centuries that the process of "catharsis" is not what happens in art and entertainment at all.  People, they argue, become fascinated with sex, violence, and other impure, unclean, or poisonous thoughts and emotions, and therefore the depiction of these noxious acts increases toxicity rather than purges it....

.... The two sides agree that individuals and societies generate impure thoughts and emotions; where they differ is in what should be done about it.

This argument has gone on for two millennia.  People who create drama and stories generally side with Aristotle, but it is possible this is because they have a vested interest in doing so.  This much seems clear: the most memorable, and popular, stories do fascinate, do bind us to them.  But by the end of the story, they usually provide a sense of release, sometimes even of freedom and exultation.  So, it may be possible that the most memorable films involve both catharsis and cathexis."

-

Could it be that part of what is going on in the theatres with some of these people is a form of a reaction to "catharsis?"

-

Also.  FWIW, it seems to me that violence in a story can be either good or damaging depending on how it is handled (I just touched on this over at Peter's facebook page.)  Probably some films have instances of both.  Of course, having not viewed this film yet I can't say my opinions on it in these regards.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nathaniel said:

The lack of a single sympathetic character is certainly a focal point for understanding what Tarantino is attempting here, but it carries with it a depressing reminder that he has yet to create a single good character in his entire oeuvre. His inability to comprehend goodness neutralizes his moralizing. Even a misanthrope who understands chaos as the governing norm must take into account aberrant acts of kindness, compassion, empathy, etc. and acknowledge those anomalies as part of the fabric of reality. I can't seem to find any evidence to support that QT recognizes goodness as a category.

Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah so, I'm still struggling deeply with this film. Perhaps because I came to it hoping it would be a stronger political film than what it was. I wanted to see a Samuel L Jackson character that was a good person, among some terrible white men, which for me would have been even in its perhaps inaccurate portrayal of all white men still true to the inner fear that is legitimate among black males in particular. And for a bit we get exactly that. His reference to having to use the letter to get around without violence is particularly powerful. The very white anger of his friend who feels he's been lied to...these are some smart script choices.

But then I felt as if Tarantino took it way too far with the one scene involving the general's son. This is the moment when I realized this film was less about Black Lives Matter (which Tarantino has spoken publically for), and more about Tarantino's love of a good revenge film, or in this case, just a sick one.

The other thing that deeply bothered me is the obvious misogyny towards Domergue from the beginning....we see Ruth continually beat her when she speaks, and we see Warren even laugh at this and take a shot at her as well when she spits on his letter.

I never felt unsympathetic towards her through the first act or so, other than the fact that she was shown and made out to be not a very nice person, perhaps by choice, or perhaps by how environment had made her. But Ruth and Warren were almost set up as good people, but as the movie goes on we see more and more that they're just as messed up as the rest.

finally by the end we see Tarantino choose to use an act that has been historically used against black people continually to satisfy the need for revenge and violence in the movie, perpetrated BY a black male and a Confederate soldier, then tries to make it all better by their sitting over the letter and contemplating a better America...apparently one where they can beat women and be racist towards Mexicans as much as they want...and...I just couldn't stand it anymore. This was such a messed up understanding of marginalized advocacy and lack of intersectionality that I felt literally sick by the end of it.

And maybe that was the point, maybe instead of pointing fingers at some peope, Tarantino decided to point fingers at everyone....but his penchant for violence and revenge just didn't feel right to me. I respected his film Django Unchained far better. This film was just....hateful.


"The truth is you're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin Ringo, I'm tryin real hard to be the shepherd." Pulp Fiction

Justin's Blog twitter Facebook Life Is Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Justin Hanvey said:

And maybe that was the point, maybe instead of pointing fingers at some people, Tarantino decided to point fingers at everyone.

I think that definitely was Tarantino's point. Whether or not he was successful or has a worthwhile point, are of course, separate questions.


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Nathaniel said:

 

As a side note, Agatha Christie has been evoked a number of times in reference to the whodunit subplot, but the film also resembles a claustrophobic Rod Serling chamber drama--particularly a Night Gallery episode called "The Waiting Room"--minus Serling's finely tuned moral compass and metaphysical sophistication. 

I haven't seen the film yet, but do plan on it. The other thing that I've seen mentioned which relates to this aspect of the the film is as a riff on Carpenter's THE THING, complete with Morricone and Russell.


"A director must live with the fact that his work will be called to judgment by someone who has never seen a film of Murnau's." - François Truffaut

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes 3 films in a row where QT has focused on ethnic apocalypse.  First you had the Nazi/Jew/black conflagration that ends Basterds.  Next came the decimation of Southern slavers in Django, wherein Jamie Foxx and Kerry Washington's characters suffer enough even for the most die-hard masochist.  

Now in this film, the lodge serves as America in miniature (one of the characters even names the fireplace as Georgia and the bar as Philadelphia, to try and placate Northerners and Southerners alike).  Here, black/white/Mexican and male/female are bloodied and torn apart equally.

QT is an excellent storyteller and aesthetician, but man, I hope he grows up and pulls himself out of this sickening rut.

Here's the link to my full review:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularcinephile/2016/01/fixated-on-ethnic-apocalypse-in-the-hateful-eight/


To be an artist is never to avert one's eyes.
- Akira Kurosawa

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularcinephile/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2016, 11:29:39, Nathaniel said:

The lack of a single sympathetic character is certainly a focal point for understanding what Tarantino is attempting here, but it carries with it a depressing reminder that he has yet to create a single good character in his entire oeuvre. His inability to comprehend goodness neutralizes his moralizing. Even a misanthrope who understands chaos as the governing norm must take into account aberrant acts of kindness, compassion, empathy, etc. and acknowledge those anomalies as part of the fabric of reality. I can't seem to find any evidence to support that QT recognizes goodness as a category. I'm also convinced that Tarantino does in fact invite us to laugh at much of the violence (blaming the audience is a copout), but then switches gears when he wants to make a specious political statement. And there is no denying that Hateful Eight is more nakedly political than previous efforts. Consider the uses the Lincoln letter.. 

This summarizes my suspicion of Tarantino in general. The lack of any balance in his moral universe makes for pretty dull, monochromatic dramas whose only real tensions are aesthetic or structural. Most of the tension in his films is simply borrowed from all the other cinemas we are so familiar with. It is grafted in from other sources. What feel like deep, moral conflicts in our experience of Tarantino films are mostly just Pavlovian responses learned in other genres.

And I have no issue with this. It is a really crafty, viable, worthwhile use of cinema. I like the Kill Bill films as a demonstration of how influential pop cultural images and patterns are on the way we think or feel. There is deep humanity in Tarantino films, but only when another cinema or genre or reference is being channeled for that effect.

In this respect, Hateful Eight may be his most accomplished film. It is remarkably well shot and composed, especially given the use of 70mm (which is not mere stunt in this case). I was more captivated by the scenario than I thought I would be, primarily due to the performances. Surely Tarantino is one of our best directors of actors. Very engaging filmmaking on every level. The whole film makes explicit the gender, racial, and historical background to every spaghetti western shootout. But where you read the turn toward political statement as a sort of bait and switch - I can't help but read any feeling or perception that a political statement is being made as just another reference to the notion that such a statement should be present. So we as the audience insert that when prompted by Tarantino.

Sorry if that is confusing. But basically, I think the Tarantino math is this: 

an array of gender and racial cues + storyline pressing cues to violent logical limits

=

audience feels prompted to draw political conclusions x references to framing devices in other films where such political conclusions are present

In that last part of the math, the feeling that a political conclusion is present is deeply enhanced and problematized by explicit reference to other films where such political conclusions really are underscored.

 

 

Edited by M. Leary

"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that last part of the math, the feeling that a political conclusion is present is deeply enhanced and problematized by explicit reference to other films where such political conclusions really are underscored.

Which begs the question . . . is that enough? Is there wisdom in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darren H said:

 

 

Which begs the question . . . is that enough? Is there wisdom in it?

I have to equivocate on this point.

What we have here is an interesting, totally postmodern surrealization of propaganda - Tarantino's films becoming propaganda for what is actually a total absence of a worldview or ideology. (Basically, my thesis is that Tarantino is far more like Bunuel than any other single filmmaker.)

But I don't think that any cultural sign is empty. Any work of art is expressing or communicating something - even if it claims not to. I think Tarantino's films communicate an active nihilism that denies us the ability to assign moral or ethical value to specific parts of his films (the good guy or bad guy, as Nathaniel pointed out above). This is an ideology, whether Tarantino fans agree or not. I find no wisdom in that.

 

 

Edited by M. Leary

"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see Hughes and Leary in a panel discussion with Bret McCracken and the other authors of this new book.

McCracken's chapter is excerpted at CT Movies


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an ideology, whether Tarantino fans agree or not. I find no wisdom in that.

It's been a decade since I thought about any of this stuff, but isn't that what Fredric Jameson called pastiche?

I am disqualified from ever participating in a Tarantino panel discussion, as I've only seen three of his movies and am quite content to not see any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Overstreet said:

I'd love to see Hughes and Leary in a panel discussion with Bret McCracken and the other authors of this new book.

McCracken's chapter is excerpted at CT Movies

Very interested in seeing what the book intends to accomplish. I read Brett McCracken's essay, though, and could not find a place to agree with its argument. I think taking the materiality/sacramentalist approach to Tarantino is mistaken.

10 minutes ago, Darren H said:

It's been a decade since I thought about any of this stuff, but isn't that what Fredric Jameson called pastiche?

I am disqualified from ever participating in a Tarantino panel discussion, as I've only seen three of his movies and am quite content to not see any more.

I believe so. I am not sure how Jameson my equivocation is, though... I can't remember how he handles the possibility of truly artful pastiche, or pastiche that creates a new artist/subject relationship.

 


"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...