Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

Dogville

Recommended Posts

Nicky, Nicky. Shame on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unable to find one of the older threads on this film, I settled for this one.

Here's what aquarello says about the new Von Trier. If true, then my fears are again realized. He sums up my own take on Von Trier pretty tidily...

http://www.filmref.com/journal2003.html

10-05-03: Dogville (Lars von Trier). Lars von Trier's films have always had a polarizing effect, and I'll acknowledge that, after having seen several of his major works (Zentropa, Element of Crime, Kingdom, Breaking the Waves, and Dancing in the Dark), I've always been in the detractors' camp. The consummate provocateur's latest film, Dogville, is no exception: an over-the-top, emotionally manipulative tragedy (with the requisite dose of nausea-inducing, rapid camera movement) where, once again, the virtuous, idealistic, and na

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The consummate provocateur's latest film, Dogville, is no exception: an over-the-top, emotionally manipulative tragedy (with the requisite dose of nausea-inducing, rapid camera movement) where, once again, the virtuous, idealistic, and na

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda like the book of Job. wink.gif

Good point, Stef.

What results is a film that is utterly cynical, nihilistic, unredemptive, and simply unpleasant.

Reminds me of real life!! I can't wait for another dose of reality from the master himself.

(EDIT: OK, with the exception of the word "unredemptive," sounds a lot like real life.)

Except for our little dust-up over "The Element of Crime," I think we're on the same page. smile.gif

Now for the equivocation.

I feel Jeffrey's pain, sort of. After watching "Dancer," which I liked, I nevertheless found myself beginning to tire of von Trier's persecuted females and was hoping he'd move on to something else. But "Dogville" is the first in a trilogy, right? Even without Kidman, will we be getting two more films about emotionally and/or physically abused women? I hope not.

Then again, "The Element of Crime" didn't follow that pattern, and I didn't care for that film. So maybe I'm the one with the problem.

[pause while the board collectively thinks to itself, "It's about time you realized that, dude."]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That last post was a little too cheery. I want to dig a little deeper into my feelings on this.

It's all nice and good if a critic without faith has a problem with the excessive amounts of pain and misfortune Von Trier brings upon his leads. Viewers get tired of a director whose main thrust in the narrative is to manipulate and basically whip its main protagonist. Fine, i can live with that, especially from someone whose ideals are typically humanist in approach.

But when a person of faith steps up to the plate and blames Von Trier for the same things, i'm left wondering where their faith stands. God Himself goes unquestioned day after day for many of the same exact things that people blame Von Trier for.

Perfect example: Dancer in the Dark. As a Worship Arts Minister i have to experience many more funerals than i care to attend, but i am obliged to be there and help out in any way i can (mostly in leading a gospel song from piano, etc). Five weeks ago Monday i was at the funeral of a girl named Sandy who was 22 years old when she passed away. In the last few years Sandy had gone thru a bout with diabetes, the death of her parents, and trying to support her little brother (8 years old) and keep him out of foster homes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when a person of faith steps up to the plate and blames Von Trier for the same things, i'm left wondering where their faith stands.

Oh my. It's in decent standing ... I think.

Who gets the blame for all this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda like the book of Job. wink.gif

Well, not quite for several reasons:

1. So Von Trier captures in his films the desperation of people caught in the monotonous predictability of "man's inhumanity to man." His "world" is consistently one in which the weak are helpless and the strong have a peroccupation with a will to power. Just because we have a body of film in which:

"von Trier's penchant for subjecting protagonists to ridiculously excessive and impossibly compounding misfortunes has a cumulative effect of desensitizing the viewer to the film's thematic reality by smothering the underlying truth in the film's unnecessarily overconcocted situational absurdity. "

does not mean that in any way we could compare his films to the Theodicy of Job. For one thing, the "God" of the narrative of Job is not preoccupied with a will to power, He is preoccupied with the testing and vindication of those who trust in him. Von Trier's films lack any sort of structure that would give any meaning to the tragedies that occur in them other than they are supposed to make us cry (perhaps with the exception of Breaking the Waves to a limited extent). The book of Job does not rub our nose in the absurdity of life, it provides a structure in which to make sense of it. Von Trier's films do not have this same sort of profundity.

2. Job takes place within a canon. It is to be read intra-textually, in which we allow data from other sections of the canon inform what is going on in the subtext of the story of Job. Von Trier's little "canon" is a monotone litany of bad philosophy. He offers us no perspective with which to see the suffering of his characters other than his own. Which is decidedly uncaring. You think he cares about Selma? No he doesn't, he is just using her to make us cry anyway. He has as much regard for her as the "world" in which Selma lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for what it's worth, I don't think there's anything morally wrong with giving us a story of suffering that ends bleakly with tragedy.

What bugs me is that Von Trier is becoming redundant, and seems so far to have very little that "speaks to" anything. All he's doing is showing us pictures of suffering, of goodwill and kindness that comes to nothing. The question isn't: Do we suffer injustly? Or, Is there hope for redemption? But rather, Gee, what mind-blowing accumulation of tragedy, evil, misunderstanding, and disability is going to befall this latest victim?

Further, his heroines are not merely generous or kind... they're affected in some way, so their generosity and kindness is portrayed as partly symptomatic of their affectation. Bess is not just offering unconditional love for her husband... she is sorely misguided in her own mind about what love really is. Love is not slavish devotion to the desires of one's lover. Likewise, Selma's love for her son leads her to make some severely unwise choices. I understand her desperation, but some of what happens to her is her own fault. This again seems to me like stacking the deck so unfairly in the storytelling that we don't really think much about the issue of suffering... we just reel from the intensity of it. It's merely melodramatic. It's a sort of sentimentality... an assault on our emotions.

I sincerely believe that somewhere there is a squirrel that was born with a disease that makes it walk funny and foam at the mouth. I also believe that squirrel might be captured by a small child who will torment the squirrel with matches and forks. I then believe that the squirrel might be set free, on a sunny morning, to run through the fields... only to discover that he has been set free so the child can turn loose his dogs to chase the squirrel for the child's entertainment. Eventually the squirrel will be caught and slowly devoured by the dogs. This might indeed happen somewhere in the world. Someone might document it, put a frame around it, call it art. Does the fact that "it happens" make it great art? Does the fact that God allows it make it great art? I don't think so.

I will not say that Von Trier's art cannot speak to people. I am just explaining how it strikes me, and why I have no desire to see another film of his. I come away exhausted, assaulted, sick to my stomach, and actually rather bored with the drawn-out relentlessness of the suffering I've just been forced to endure, sensing very little interest on the part of the director in having me actually think through anything at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "God" of the narrative of Job is not preoccupied with a will to power, He is preoccupied with the testing and vindication of those who trust in him. Von Trier's films lack any sort of structure that would give any meaning to the tragedies that occur in them other than they are supposed to make us cry (perhaps with the exception of Breaking the Waves to a limited extent). The book of Job does not rub our nose in the absurdity of life, it provides a structure in which to make sense of it. Von Trier's films do not have this same sort of profundity.

The problem is that we are once again speaking from different sides of the same coin. If Von Trier is to be compared to the book of Job, then He is playing God, and he is turning mourning into dancing, ashes to beauty, sorrow to joy. The ashes and sorrow are the situation themselves, the dance is the dance of film and the joy is the expression of beauty projected.

We see people in pain all the time, but for some odd reason Von Trier is singled out as a masochist for displaying it so perfectly. I don't care if he's "on the side of his characters" or not. I think he's more like a news reporter who tries to maintain objectivity. In his playing of God, he remains very close to what his understanding of God might be -- nameless, faceless, silent and unapproachable. He has no relationship with his characters because he's had no relationship with anyone else in life, including God. Even look at his parents, who never parented Him and IIRC taught him agnosticism at best. He is lacking closeness to anyone or anything. But his movies aren't a cry for help, they're just a very real projected image of his mind and its inability to connect.

If Von Trier made Job, we would sit through hours and hours of torment and, instead of ending with God's speech and Job's restoration, Job would be walking along a road at dusk, wondering if he'd ever hear an answer from God, and muggers would come out of nowhere and kill him with sticks. If Von Trier was feeling generous, he might then give us a few moments of heavenly bells ringing in the distance, but even that would make me wonder if he's being cynical or not.

HEh. Pretty clever, Jeffrey. You might be right about his Job remake.

The Breaking the Wave bells, btw, fit right into the image of Von Trier i've just made. Perhaps in his mind all of the sufferings of the world and everything in it lead straight into sainthood. Maybe he feels like he is suffering thru it and is hoping that it does indeed lead to something.

What bugs me is that Von Trier is becoming redundant, and seems so far to have very little that "speaks to" anything. All he's doing is showing us pictures of suffering, of goodwill and kindness that comes to nothing. The question isn't: Do we suffer injustly? Or, Is there hope for redemption? But rather, Gee, what mind-blowing accumulation of tragedy, evil, misunderstanding, and disability is going to befall this latest victim?

To which i again ask, from his background and experience, what else does he understand?

Is a part of the reason we’ve gone over this as many times as we have because I’m trying to assess a film director by director, as much as I can understand them, and that when i approach their art i try to see things thru their eyes?

(Feel free to call me a Pleasantville hypocrite. wink.gif )

And yes, Christian is right: The story of Job gives God room to speak. It gives us a larger framework in which the suffering makes sense…

Job takes place within a canon. It is to be read intra-textually, in which we allow data from other sections of the canon inform what is going on in the subtext of the story of Job. Von Trier's little "canon" is a monotone litany of bad philosophy.

This is a terribly unfair argument considering the canon of the Bible is complete but the canon of Von Trier is not. The timeline and the philosophy of his canon are currently somewhere around Ecclesiastes. We are still waiting for his messianic films, so to say. All we can do now is judge from the beginning to what we currently understand of him. He is currently in a phase that greatly differs from his Genesis, that is Medea and The Element of Crime. It would be impossible to judge his canon when he hasn't even got to his NT yet.

He offers us no perspective with which to see the suffering of his characters other than his own.

And your point is...?

Which is decidedly uncaring.

Oh, boo hoo, he's so uncaring. cry.gif

You think he cares about Selma? No he doesn't, he is just using her to make us cry anyway. He has as much regard for her as the "world" in which Selma lives.

No, i don't think he cares about Selma. And like i said above, i'm not sure that it matters whether he does or not. I think he's using her to drive a point home, and that point is very close to Dreyer's point in Day of Wrath. That overly legalistic religious institutions, when left to their own devices, have the ability bring more devastation than good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that we are once again speaking from different sides of the same coin. If Von Trier is to be compared to the book of Job, then He is playing God, and he is turning mourning into dancing, ashes to beauty, sorrow to joy. The ashes and sorrow are the situation themselves, the dance is the dance of film and the joy is the expression of beauty projected.

For the record, I really wouldn't want to compare the book of Job and Von Trier's films at all. I don't think it is a helpful comparison. And the "beauty" of Von Trier's films in terms of form is a matter of debate.

We see people in pain all the time, but for some odd reason Von Trier is singled out as a masochist for displaying it so perfectly. I don't care if he's "on the side of his characters" or not. I think he's more like a news reporter who tries to maintain objectivity.

Well, I don't think objectivity is key here at all. Let's take Leigh for example. We are very conscious of the storied dramatic nature of his films. He is careful to frame and structure the tragedies in his films in a way that allows us to indentify their purpose and meaning. Von Trier is an expressionist. Why else would he want to wear Dreyer's tux in the figurative or literal manner. I think we have to be careful to understand what expressionism entails, and specifically in the case of von Trier how that affects the way we read his films. His films are a lot like Max Ernst's series of circus performers (another prominent expressionist). They are expressively objective portraits of that dreary and absurd life, little snap shots from a von Trier film. But that is as far as we can go with them because they are so opaque. They express a certain key reality, but only in a limited fashion. They lack the depth that allows us to incorporate them into our lives and personalities (our personal stories).

To which i again ask, from his background and experience, what else does he understand?

Is a part of the reason we

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(M)Leary wrote:

: The book of Job does not rub our nose in the absurdity of life, it provides

: a structure in which to make sense of it.

Well, yes and no. God's response to Job could, in one sense, be said to rub Job's nose in the absurdity of life, or at least in the sheer inexplicability of life. As Chesteron says, God almost becomes a blasphemer, standing back and expressing surprise at the bizarreness of creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes, maybe it's true that the first thing God would do if he were us, so to speak, is to do what Frank Booth did in Blue Velvet. He would cry out and reveal what Peter Kreeft calls the "Christians biggest secret" ( That we are all usually grumbling at God most of the time ). He might look up toward the sky and say, like Frank, "F*** you you f***er's f***er!". This may be just what we need, and just what Von Trier supplies, in a way. We have a secret voice, and I think Von Trier may be trying to take away the hiding places within us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

And I have always wondered about what was brought up here from the Book of Job: does God really allow us to be arbitrarily tested? I read a quote from Lewis once that I understood to be saying that "no" God doesn't ever test us like this, but has a purpose for every evil that befalls us. Is God like a drill seargent? Or is this the Devil? And can we tell the difference anymore?

Another question I have:

Is there a connection between 1) the loss of a "sense of sin" and 2) the loss of the "sense of the faithful" and 3) the inability ( perhaps only in our society ) to understand parables? ( It seems that Von Trier, Lynch and possibly Godard - in 2001 at least - were following American culture into this land of make-believe with pictures that were attempting to communicate in a way 'simpler than parables' )

...actually, I would add another 4) mortal sin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that Romans 8 and even the book of Job make it clear that our testing is not done arbitrarily, but carries a higher purpose of bringing glory to God and helping conform us to the likeness of Christ. In addition, passages like Genesis 50 and (a personal favorite) 2 Cor 1:3-4 indicate that our suffering enables us to minister more meaningfully to our fellow man.

Not that I find all of this easy in practice, mind you. When I'm honest with myself, I'm troubled by how much of my inner conversation is spent on grumbling at even minor adversity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Maybe that's the puzzle I am trying to figure out. The 'purpose' of God allowing that bird to fly and smack into the side of my head is to see if I will conform to Christ by saying "Thy will be done". Isn't that an arbitrary test? Further, I have to believe that God did this hoping for THAT response and not because he has chosen me as the one child, out of all his human family, to secretly 'molest' in this way. Salvation seems to be an 'attitude'. An attitude that is willing to answer "Thy will be done" ...even to the statement, or rather, ESPECIALLY to the statement ( at the pearly gates ): "I'm sorry, you were close, but you have to go to that other place." If we answer "Thy will be done", we are already in Heaven; if we answer, "What! After all I've done for you...etc.", we are already in Hell.

Is there any way to truly know how one would respond to such a statement? Maybe Lars is trying to teach us just this about ourselves?

I'm sorry if these questions don't make sense or are embarrasingly simple to answer.

p.s. Andrew, you said "minor adversity". Does this ever include attacks by inanimate objects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attacks by inanimate objects certainly wasn't what I had in mind when I spoke of minor adversity, but I'm sure such adversities are different for each individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my initial response but I'm still processing. I saw Dogville at Sundance without having read anything about it. My only experiences with Von Trier going in were Dancer in the Dark, Breaking the Waves, and a very cursory familiarity with his Dogme '95 rules.

This film will be loved and hated and not much in between. I experienced both emotions. And saw many people walk out of the theatre.

About 20 minutes into the film I leaned over to my friend and said, "This is the most brilliant movie ever. Von Trier is a genius." By the end of the film I was infuriated. Infuriated with Von Trier and the fact that many people in the audience cheered at the climactic moment. Then as I watched the credits, I kind of thought maybe the joke was on those who were cheering (the credits show sad and sympathetic real life images of who the bad people in the film represented). I'm not sure what to make all of this. Maybe the joke is on all of us. There is something really condescending about the narrative voice in his films that is a huge turn off.

But Von Trier is still a genius.

I thought Brecht as I watched and this was the most exciting part for me. As actors mimed opening and clothes doors, you heard real sound effects, the imaginary walls, the stage with its white line parameters of gooseberry bushes, the meta-narrative structure of the chapters and prologue. Wow.

I felt some vindication when I read an essay from Film Comment. Here's an excerpt:

Nonetheless, sadomasochism is a word that comes to mind when considering the films of Lars von Trier. He is downright resplendent in both his cruelty and his coldness. I will never forgive him for what he did to Bjork in Dancer in the Dark--though, I hate to admit, I'll never forget his performance.

It seems that Von Trier derives pleasure from teasing the audience with his aesthetic sensibility and dragging them through a mire of moral condemnation in the process. Sadomasochism is the perfect word although the author of this essay suggested changing the word to sadovontrierism.

The film is an indictment on American culture and, IMO, draws parallels between fascism, Christianity, and Americana. I thought one of the reviewers at aintitcool summed it up well:

In my humble opinion it represents the inevitability of fascism that strikes in the heart of America and I'm sure it's already a controversial film regarding its tone and message (hear Roger Ebert's incredulous opinion in his Cannes '03 essay).

Von Trier reportedly said at Cannes:

I would like to start a Free America campaign, since we just had a Free Iraq campaign. ... I don't think American culture is how it should be.  

So presumptuous. On one hand I see what Von Trier is talking about in American culture and it is painful to look at and I think we should. On the other hand, I don't think preachiness is the way to go about it and, more importantly, there is a lot of goodness in America of which he is unaware (or at least chooses not to acknowledge). I don't imagine Von Trier is a Christian or even likes Christians yet he sermonizes. The condemned condemning the condemners. There really isn't much different between the rhetorical strategies (didactic preachiness and self-righteousness condemnation) of anyone who is confident that they are "in the know" and set out on a crusade to inform everybody else. Or maybe I'm just reading my own life experience into things.

I have not been able to track down Ebert's comments so if anyone finds them, please point me in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Weed, where have you been my whole life? I have missed this debate. smile.gif

First: Who is Bryce Howard? Cuz that’s who’s taking over the role of Grace in Manderlay.

To be honest, i don't really get the whole "down on America" tie-in that some say Dogville refers to. The Cannes interview is on the second DVD that Korea Pop sent me, and in it Von Trier states a few things about how this film is tied to America. He says that it has a setting, and that the setting is in America, but that the story could've taken place anywhere in the world. The setting was used to create a certain mood, much like how (he states) the words "Rocky Mountains" evokes a certain mood. He also stated, as he did later in his later interview with PT Anderson, that Danish TV is 80% about American culture which leads him to believe that America is a country reaching outside its borders only to gain bigger profits (paraphrased). I see this as an attack on big business and possibly capitalism, more than America, per se. So i guess the whole “American” issue is going to depend on who and where you are in America in order for you to feel guilty about the points he raises. I certainly don’t feel that i’ve attributed to this “free market problem,” and as an American i’ve been welcome all over the world in third world prisons, orphanages, schools, clubs, etc. One thing i’ve learned over the years is that any one culture cannot certainly be judged by one movie.

In the same sense i don't think anyone could refer to Von Trier and Dogville as sadomasochistic, especially if they’ve bothered to see his other works. A brief, brief capsule:

Medea: The female gets revenge on EVERYONE who has wronged her, taking innocent victims in the process. This is a wretched, cynical attack on female empowerment (Medea). It’s important to note here that Von Trier didn't write the narrative, and that the script was written with Carl Theodor Dreyer. Still, Medea is *not* the abused, she is clearly the *abuser*.

The Element of Crime and Zentropa: Two highly stylized art-films that have nothing to do with sadomasochism in any form. Both have arresting imagery and both are the most linear plotlines Von Trier has to date built.

Epidemic: Haven't seen it, it isn't available anywhere and if anyone wants to get me a great birthday present, have this ready for a screening by April 7. From the little bits and pieces of it i've been able to see, it looks a lot like The element of Crime and Zentropa in terms of style points and the hypnotic, alluring feel.

Riget: A good ghost story from beginning to end, the Twin Peaks of Danish television; a soap-opera horror story, and nothing more. Also the first time i believe that Stellan Skarsg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not biased against Von Trier. I think he is the logical extension of the longstanding expressionist tradition in Eastern Europe. If we would get a better handle on him we would realize that the whole point of his work is to elicit criticism at a variety of levels, both sexual/primal and social/cultural. He wants us to discover that the differences between these two poles of experience in modern society aren't as big as they seem. We always want to differentiate the primal from the academic, the visceral from the moral. It simply cannot be done.

Zentropa was a love story. One in which two lovers discovered who they really were and became disgusted with each other. One became so

disgusted that death was his only way out. One lover (the male) is

post-Enlightenment forms of socialization. A functional structure of norms and morals that assume they are correct because they have their roots in

reason. The other lover (the female) is being. Being is that which lurks

coldly and quietly around every corner of experience. Being is the

reason that the "male" exists. He exists to dominate it, to persuade it,

to love it into control and submission.

Zentropa is a love story between these two characters in which they

discover they will never be compatible. The presence of one is the death

of the other.

Now you can take this notion and extend it across Von Trier's corpus.

Brilliant stuff. It even shows up in his Dogme film, Idiots (which is one of my favorites of his by the way, it seems to be his clearest statement). This theme, this ethos, is the foundation of the expressionist enterprise.

Most Christians get hung up on Von Trier, Herzog, early Wenders, Lynch, and on artists like Becker, Ernst, and much later Pollock and Rothko etc... because they can't understand expressionism. The typical Christian framework of perception doesn't allow meaningful interaction with these expressionist forms of communication. We work with stories, we work with text, we work with discernable literary norms. But Von Trier doesn't make stories. He doesn't even make films. He creates cosmic cultural tensions in light and color and on the faces of people and forces us to watch them battle for supremacy. (And being will always win by virtue of its very definition.)

In the book 1984, there is a section about torture in the totalitarian

state of the future. In this future world, the torturer has the ability

to read the torturee's mind. Every time he is torturing someone, he will

look down and say: "I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that

you can handle this pain because it has meaning. You think that your

death will someday add up with all the other rebel's deaths and you will

win. You will eventually take back the state. I want to tell you that

your death has no meaning. I can see the future. The future is my

boot heel on your face forever."

(David Dark uses this same pericope in his book Everyday Apocalypse. If you haven't read that book, drop everything and go find it. It is an exciting read.)

Von Trier's films have this eschatalogical ethos. But they key thing

about expressionism is that a work by Von Trier will never necessarily

make a judgement call about which lover we should follow. Should we

follow morality and social structure to its death? Or should we follow

being into its absurdity? Should we side with the boot or the face?

He would say through his films: Neither. We cannot know. It is simply

enough to point out that both exist. He who wields the boot laughs. He

who wears the face cries. That is all we know.

So in short, I am starting to see Von Trier a lot differently than I once did. We have to percieve his "storylines" within this broader expressionist structure. He is forever and always wearing Dreyer's tux, especially while in the editing room. And if we are going to react negatively to his political diatribes, we are going to have to submit a lot of other directors under the same scrutiny. So far Von Trier has done nothing as ridiculous as Godard during his vocally Marxist phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to popular opinion, I am not biased against Von Trier. I think is is just about the most talented and groundbreaking filmmaker working today. I'm a big big fan of The Kingdom... and of most of Breaking the Waves.

I have just been discouraged to see him preoccupied with stories about women put through incredible acts of cruelty, something I find very difficult to watch unless the story is really expanding in meaningful ways from that plot point. I felt that Dancer in the Dark did very little more than Breaking the Waves, as far as a meaningful exploration of cruelty and culture.

I sincerely hope to see him exploring rather than preoccupied.

I haven't seen Dogville, but I'm keeping an open mind and am ready to see if he is, as an artist, a moving target, or someone who is just repackaging things he's already done.

And I second the recommendation of Everyday Apocalypse!! A great exploration of the value of art forms that "Christian perspectives" usually disregard. Long live Radiohead.

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...