Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

(and we must admit, it's not a particularly conventional sort of movie-soundtrack music).

Actually, I'd say it is. This sort of bland, ambient, theme-free electronic score has been growing in popularity over the last few years, especially since Trent Reznor won an Oscar for THE SOCIAL NETWORK. I'd have less problems with the score if it weren't there merely to serve as audial wallpaper, except, of course, for the moments when we need to be told to emote (Ryan talking about her daughter, etc).

 

 

I actually liked the the "bland, ambient, theme-free" elements of the Gravity score.  They had a sort of Vangelis/Blade Runner vibe that fit the coldness of space.  Unfortunately, though, those moments were rare.  Most of the score was loud, bombastic, super-hero type music that didn't work for me.  Plus, there's a classic "scare chord" when one character suddenly encounters a dead body.  It really broke the spell and made me think for a moment that I was watching a 70s horror flick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nathan Douglas wrote:

: Actually, I'd say it is. This sort of bland, ambient, theme-free electronic score has been growing in popularity over the last few years, especially since Trent Reznor won an Oscar for THE SOCIAL NETWORK.

Hmmm. That's an interesting point. I guess I haven't followed the soundtrack scene as closely lately as I used to. (Was The Social Network three years ago already? Yikes.)

I'd have to watch the film a second time to see what I really think about this, but my memory of the first viewing (and the build-up to it) is that the ads and a number of the early reviews gave me the impression that the music would be overbearing, but somehow the experience of watching the movie as a whole left me thinking that the music hadn't been all *that* bad really. So I went into the film preparing to hate it (the music, that is) and didn't.

 

Like Peter, I didn't hate the soundtrack.

 

And I liked the use of 3D, adding a sense of depth to the images and not popping out at you as much as I thought it would. Much like another film that I think used 3D even better: PROMETHEUS.

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, here's the 24-minute preview of the soundtrack that was posted to YouTube (and to this thread) shortly before the movie premiered -- are there any particular moments here that illustrate any of the criticisms anyone wants to make? (Anything that can be identified by the minute and second?)

Anyway, today the studio released this 24-minute preview of the soundtrack:

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

George Clooney Clarifies ‘Gravity’: I Didn’t Write That Pivotal Scene (Exclusive)

“That scene was there from the minute I was handed the script,” he said. “The problem they were having was afterward.”

Director Alfonso Cuarón told Vulture in an interview this week that Clooney had contributed to the scene, which has since been misinterpreted to mean he’d written the whole sequence.

“Alfonso’s such a sweet guy. He hands out credit to everyone all the time,” said Clooney. “I said, ‘You guys are struggling, here’s an idea.’ So I wrote out a scene, and there’s a portion of it in the movie about Sandy wanting to live. They were struggling with how to tell people she wants to live, and I said, ‘Maybe you say she talks to her little girl and says Mommy loves her.’”

TheWrap.com, October 9

- - -

I'm intrigued by the way Clooney describes his contribution to that scene, because when I first saw the film, I mentioned to someone that it was kind of funny that Bullock "prays" to Clooney to speak to her daughter in the afterlife, when presumably she could just speak directly to her daughter -- but it appears that, from Clooney's perspective at least, that's what Bullock basically did.

Insert comment here about prayers "to" the saints and how asking for their intervention compares to praying directly to God.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the score

 

My overarching problem was that the music dictated exactly what emotions the filmmakers wanted you to feel.  We've all heard of over-the-top performances that distract one from the story and make one focus solely on the actor; I would call this an over-the-top score.  So many of the cues contained such an extreme level of intensity and activity that the music ceased to create a mood of desperation and isolation, but rather fought with the imagery and the story by reminding the audience that this a film and it's fake.  It also didn't help that the first title told the audience space is a vacuum where no sound can travel, ("In space no one can hear you scream.") because the score is about as far removed from an isolated vacuum as possible.

 

The #1 rule for any composer, arranger, sound engineer, etc. is: never take the audience's attention away from what is happening on screen (or stage).  Gravity's score was constantly shouting for attention.  There were several times I was struggling to ignore the score and focus on the camera work and visual effects.

 

Examples from first two minutes (don't have time to listen to more right now):

 

0:19 - The whirling blade sound effects make no sense, (the title just told us space is a vacuum) and are therefore distracting.  The crescendo and sudden silence that follow try to aurally shock the viewer, but the amount of sound as well as giving the sudden silence away that early in the film (it's the first cue) undermine the power the effect could have had.  It comes across as an aural manipulation to jerk the viewer around.

 

(anecdotal aside: Spielberg told Williams he wanted something intense and creepy for the opening of Jaws.  When Williams first played the two-note theme on the piano, Spielberg's reaction was, "You've got to be kidding me."  Then Williams told him to imagine a dark theatre and a solo bass plays the theme.  When Williams played it a second time, Spielberg realized something that simple was perfect.)

 

1:30 - The synthesized pulsing crescendos become so loud and repetitive, again becoming distracting.  Repeatedly pummeling the same jarring chords is not suspenseful.

 

And I believe that loud dissonant chords lose their power when repeated without any other context.  In music dissonance means "needing to resolve."  Depending on context and the tonal language of a piece, the same sound could be dissonant in one piece and consonant in another.  It depends what the composer does with the sound and how it fits into the work as a whole.  Gravity's score is compiled of so many jarring sounds that were probably meant to be dissonant, that those sounds lose their context and no longer sound dissonant or tense.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahem. smile.png

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed the film, looking at it as an old-fashioned disaster film like those from the era of The Poseidon Adventure or The Towering Inferno.  I thought this was better than most such films Hollywood has done lately, because its CGI is done in service to the viewer, in expanding the viewer's senses by engaging a positive curiosity, in placing this film in the setting of outer space.  It's a nice change from all the CGI-fests that take place in ugly urban or post-apocalyptic landscapes.  

 

I think that trying to compare this film to Kubrick or some other high-art film may places too great an expectation on the film. The film isn't perfect by any stretch.  I think the earlier observations regarding the score are well said.  I think that the film could have made better use of the silence of space all the way through, since the silence of the first minute or so of the film was very effective.  But this is big-budget Hollywood spectacle done right, which happens too rarely.  In that, I can say I was satisfied.

Edited by Crow
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that trying to compare this film to Kubrick or some other high-art film may places too great an expectation on the film. The film isn't perfect by any stretch.  I think the earlier observations regarding the score are well said.  I think that the film could have made better use of the silence of space all the way through, since the silence of the first minute or so of the film was very effective.  But this is big-budget Hollywood spectacle done right, which happens too rarely.  In that, I can say I was satisfied.

 

These are great points.  And while this film isn't Kubrick, it's downright obscure and arty compared to what might have been.  I read an article yesterday in which Cuaron said that Warner Brothers pressured him to make all kinds of changes to the script, including creating a love interest for Sandra Bullock back at mission control and shooting gauzy flashback scenes of Sandra and her daughter, etc.  Sheesh.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/gravity-sandra-bullock-love-interest_n_4078124.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother and I have a conversation about GRAVITY over at Three Brothers Film with some spoilers in here.

 


Anders: I guess ultimately I was impressed that the film managed to have as much thematic cohesion as it did. I’m not sure that a theme park ride would.

Anton: Be fair Anders, The Haunted Mansion has far more depth than this movie.

Anders: I love The Haunted Mansion! (The ride, not the Eddie Murphy film.)

While the film unfortunately stumbles for me in some of the moments where it strives for that extra moment of importance–saddling Stone with a dead daughter and then bringing in Clooney in a dream sequence to remind Stone of the meaning of life–as a whole it works because through its technical innovations it manages to impart something of how fundamentally unnerving it would be to be separated from Earth, adrift in space. It’s best thematic moments, even in its on-the-nose fetal imagery, works because it touches on the notion of human life as being like a baby, dependent on the Earth as a mother, and the evolutionary struggle to survive against all odds. What’s cool is how the technical aspects enhance those themes, rather than needing a clunky script to underline them. It’s one of the more clear examples of form and content mirroring each other in recent cinema.

 

 

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Clooney's return sequence, is it necessarily

a dream? I thought Matt gave Ryan a tip that she couldn't have known on her own (even in her subconscious), which makes it some kind of a miracle or supernatural event, and not just a projection from her own mind.

It's the side effects that save us.
--The National, "Graceless"
Twitter Blog

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Clooney's return sequence, is it necessarily

a dream? I thought Matt gave Ryan a tip that she couldn't have known on her own (even in her subconscious), which makes it some kind of a miracle or supernatural event, and not just a projection from her own mind.

 

As far as I understood it, the tip Matt gives her about the landing rockets was merely a new way to use knowledge that she would have learned during training on the Soyuz capsule, that is the fact that the capsule has landing rockets. So it isn't necessarily superanatural.

If anyone posted this, I missed it. Jonas Cuarón directed a short accompanying piece to the film that played at Venice.

 

ANINGAAQ - JONAS CUARÓN

 

Synopsis

Aningaaq, an Inuit fisherman camping on the ice over a frozen fjord, talks through a two way radio with a dying astronaut who is stranded in space, 500 kilometers above earth. Even though he doesn’t speak English and she doesn’t speak Greenlandic, they manage to have a conversation about dogs, babies, life and death.

 

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone posted this, I missed it. Jonas Cuarón directed a short accompanying piece to the film that played at Venice.

 

ANINGAAQ - JONAS CUARÓN

 

Synopsis

Aningaaq, an Inuit fisherman camping on the ice over a frozen fjord, talks through a two way radio with a dying astronaut who is stranded in space, 500 kilometers above earth. Even though he doesn’t speak English and she doesn’t speak Greenlandic, they manage to have a conversation about dogs, babies, life and death.

 

Oh, that's kind of awesome. Surely it will be an extra on the Blu-ray? smile.png

Edited by SDG

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Regarding the Clooney's return sequence, is it necessarily

a dream? I thought Matt gave Ryan a tip that she couldn't have known on her own (even in her subconscious), which makes it some kind of a miracle or supernatural event, and not just a projection from her own mind.

 

As far as I understood it, the tip Matt gives her about the landing rockets was merely a new way to use knowledge that she would have learned during training on the Soyuz capsule, that is the fact that the capsule has landing rockets. So it isn't necessarily superanatural.

 

I think the scene in question is intentionally ambiguous, but I think it certainly leaves open the possibility that what happened was Divine Intervention rather than simply a projection of Ryan's subconscious mind.

 

Actually, I think there are moments like this throughout the film... the movie strikes an essentially nihilistic tone and then counters it with a moment of hope.  It happens over and over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much loved it.  I'm not gonna say it's a masterpiece that will be remembered forever, but it's certainly as innovative in its use of the camera and point of view as anything I've seen, and that is a terrific artistic accomplishment, not just a technological one.  I understand many people's problems with the film.  It's attempts at depth are all just a little, um, shallow, and the score gets a tad overbearing at times, and I think I could easily focus on these aspects and find them to be much more irritating than I do.  (At the end I even had a little feeling of, "Is that it?" because it was over so quickly.)  But that would be denying myself the ability to bask in a tremendous moviegoing experience, and I don't want to do that.  

 

Basically, here's what I think is the best way to account for these supposed flaws and why they work out all right:  This is a film entirely dedicated to immersing the audience in its world and its character's POV.  It is shot in the most creative and imaginative way possible to convey the boundlessness of space, both the weightlessness and directionlessness of zero gravity, the speed of everything in orbit of Earth, and the constant danger confronting the characters.  While we start out in a long, slow shot moving in toward a group of astronauts doing routine work and listening to George Clooney, by the time Bullock is spinning off into space we are completely married to her as the point of identification for the audience.  The camera may move in and out of her exact point of view, allowing us glimpses of her from far away or shots facing her that let us see the danger behind, but otherwise we are experiencing the events in the movie as she does.  Every other element of the film works to convey this too, and immerse us in these events, from the special effects to the sound design.  The musical score and the sound design go hand in hand--music and sound, voices and mechanical pings, all of it movies around the audience in the theater in fairly radical ways, imposing on us a spatial awareness and constantly heightening our nerves and tightening the suspense.  The characters are simple, with only a few minutes of conversation to get to know them, because there simply isn't more than that to give, and because we need to identify with Ryan Stone and feel her emotions more than we need to understand her (that's not entirely contradictory).   The story of her daughter may be explainable as cheap screenwriting shorthand, yet clearly we need something to know about her since everyone seems to want more, but it also makes good sense that in her moments of greatest danger and fear she would remember her past grief.  The music throbs with dissonance and noise in a way that isn't realistic, but reflects her nerves throughout the action of the film.  The musical grandiosity at the final moments reflects the triumph of survival.  Extremes of emotion are conveyed to us directly and unashamedly. The effort to survive, the terror and thrill of facing near certain death, the desire for something more spiritual in a world operating on such geometrical absolutes, the wish for life after death, the certainty of death and loss suddenly and gloriously obviated in a way almost divine--all these themes spiral around the film, heavy and obvious, but nonetheless pure and gripping.

 

Everything in the film works to immerse us in the experience and have us feel what Ryan feels.  Since this is the object of the film, choices were made.  We are not given time to contemplate the vastness of space and our place in the world more than the film wants us to.  We are not given space to observe Ryan at work, form opinions of her based on her behavior, gradually come to understand her basic motivations and emotional hang-ups in a naturalistic way.  We are not left noiseless in the vacuum of space to feel the existential dread of 2001's HAL sequence.  We are not, in fact, given much room to form other opinions about any of the events and actions of the film, or to view them with anything like objectivity, because this film is relentlessly subjective.  It is manipulating us from the first moment, drawing us in, terrifying us, making us cry for grief and joy, and all of it equally heavy-handed and blunt in its intentions.  The only question is, really, is that something we are willing to have done to us, is that something we are willing to experience?  Is a thrill-ride that makes us feel without much thinking something we can let the movie be, or do we require it to tell us more, leave us more room to think and know, provide us with scientific believability, etc?  I mean, I guess the other question is, "Does the movie do this well?", but there doesn't seem to be that much disagreement on that score.  I found the experience incredibly pure and visceral at all levels, the most intense film experience I've had since The Tree of Life, and while it has left me thinking there could be a little more complexity to character and theme that would keep me thinking after the film is over, at the same time I think that's asking for something more that I don't really have to have in this case.  I think a movie crafted to thrill that does, in fact, thrill, and in innovative new ways, has achieved its goal.  

 

And surely it's a good thing that I really want to see it again?

Edited by StephenM
Link to post
Share on other sites

And surely it's a good thing that I really want to see it again?

 

Yes! I think we often look past that impulse, or lack thereof, when evaluating films. But there are interesting categories of "want to see."

 

There's "want to see it again right away," which is usually a sign that a film is highly enjoyable/entertaining/artful.

 

There's "I need to see that again sometime," which could mean you didn't quite get the film or what might make it special, but are open to revisiting it later in hopes that the film opens up at that time. This has happened to me with many film classics.

 

There's "I want to see that again, but not anytime soon," which means the film's heavy themes or content, while admirably delivered, make for a tough sit, whatever merits the film might have. You hear this said in relation to something like Schindler's List or 12 Years a Slave (which I would watch again today, if given the chance).

 

Then there's "I never want to see that movie again," which doesn't necessarily mean the film is bad -- maybe just too much for certain viewers -- but usually does.

Edited by Christian

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, my own two bits, which ultimately zero in on how this film fits into the pattern whereby mainstream white American protagonists have to rely on exotic "other" characters for some sort of spiritual dimension in their stories (but hey! I *am* glad to see an Orthodox icon here!).

 

Great thoughts there. It is as if "whiteness" is still defined by the Protestant work ethic (white astronauts in space fixing stuff) and that spiritual dimension is extraneous until necessary - at which point spiritual reflection only occurs through the kind of exotic intervention you mention. Can American-ness ever be "other"? I found it sad that the only physical emblems of spirituality in the film are present in the spaceships of other nations. 

 

I don't think GRAVITY is deserving of any real venom. It might not be much of a film, but it's harmless.

 

The hyperbolic praise from some quarters doesn't strike me as anything to be worried about. In a few years, GRAVITY will be selling for $5.99 in Blu-Ray bargain bins across America.

 

I do think there is something harmful about this film. It presents itself as a materialist, matter-of-fact observation of stuff happening in space which then all goes awry. But...

 

A major plot point of the film is based on ridiculously incorrect physics (that being Clooney hurtling off into space after disconnecting himself...). She could have just, you know, tugged him slightly and his inertia would have changed trajectory. In response to these science-based criticisms, Cuaron has basically said: "Just suspend your disbelief, as this is fiction." So... which is it? I am not a fan of being asked to pretend that a given film is representing things "as they actually are," but doesn't do the hard work of actually presenting things as they actually are. Much has been said about the special effects of

Gravity as a great leap in cinema, but I disagree. The special effects do not accomplish what the film implicitly suggests they accomplish - they are simply at the service of plot points that don't actually make sense. It is lazy storytelling, which is often harmful.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there is something harmful about this film. It presents itself as a materialist, matter-of-fact observation of stuff happening in space which then all goes awry. But...

 

. It is lazy storytelling, which is often harmful.

 

 

Oh, can I get an *amen* from the congregation, please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravity certainly takes substantial fictional liberties with certain aspects of orbital sciences -- not just in the grossly wrong physics of that fateful moment Leary and many others have called out, but in many other ways, including putting the Hubble Space Telescope, the two space stations and the communications satellites array in the same general orbital plane. (In fact, these are all at different altitudes, in different orbital planes not aligned to one another. The Hubble telescope is in low earth orbit and would crash to earth if it weren't moving much faster relative to the Earth than the communications satellites array in geosynchronous orbit, which is naturally at a much higher altitude.)

All the same, Gravity persuasively captures, as no previous film has, the physics and experience of a space walk. It portrays the experience of moving weightlessly through a space station more persuasively than any film other than Apollo 13, which could only do it in 25-second takes. The moment when Bullock flings herself backward using the fire extinguisher is terrific. For what it's worth, I understand Gravity is generally very accurate regarding the technology of the various vessels and so forth too.

Gravity does break new ground visually: above all, I think, in the shot with Bullock spinning off into space. In retrospect, this might be my favorite shot in the film, though I won't know for sure until I catch it again on Saturday and check my memory and impressions.

What I love about this shot, at least as I think I remember it, is the way the camera transitions back and forth between two different planes of reference: one in which the camera is more or less static to the Earth, or to the (former!) site of the Hubble telescope and the space shuttle, in which Bullock is endlessly flipping end over end, and then gradually realigning itself to Bullock's own perspective, in which the universe is whirling endlessly around her, a vast abyss with no meaningful point of reference. And then the camera pulls away from Bullock and gradually realigns to its original frame of reference, and she's flipping end over end again.

It's the most striking cinematic evocation of relativity I think I've ever seen in any film; at least, I can't think of any other shot in any other film that does anything quite like this. It's like Bullock's body is itself a space vessel whose velocity and direction the camera matches in order to "dock" with her, pushing through her helmet and giving us her own point of view before "undocking" and returning to a linear trajectory.

By and large, the complaints about the film seem to be to center around the mechanics of the plot. I don't much care about the mechanics of the plot. The plot, it creaks. It's a popcorn Hollywood survival story starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, about as plausible as The Grey (though less punishing and more fun).

What I care most about in Gravity is the environment; the vast emptiness of even low Earth orbit; the hubris of stepping into that void with only a clumsy pressurized garment for protection; the constant looming presence of the Earth (so near yet so far); the ruthlessly inexorable physics of the Kessler syndrome; the awe and dread, the utter isolation, of the premise of being stranded in space; and the way the film balances moments of nihilism with moments of hope, as morgan1098 says.


P.S. Jeff, at this point it looks like you are officially no longer in the minority among your friends, at least your friends on A&F.

Edited by SDG

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravity does break new ground visually: above all, I think, in the shot with Bullock spinning off into space. In retrospect, this might be my favorite shot in the film, though I won't know for sure until I catch it again on Saturday and check my memory and impressions.

What I love about this shot, at least as I think I remember it, is the way the camera transitions back and forth between two different planes of reference: one in which the camera is more or less static to the Earth, or to the (former!) site of the Hubble telescope and the space shuttle, in which Bullock is endlessly flipping end over end, and then gradually realigning itself to Bullock's own perspective, in which the universe is whirling endlessly around her, a vast abyss with no meaningful point of reference. And then the camera pulls away from Bullock and gradually realigns to its original frame of reference, and she's flipping end over end again.

It's the most striking cinematic evocation of relativity I think I've ever seen in any film; at least, I can't think of any other shot in any other film that does anything quite like this. It's like Bullock's body is itself a space vessel whose velocity and direction the camera matches in order to "dock" with her, pushing through her helmet and giving us her own point of view before "undocking" and returning to a linear trajectory.

Yes, thanks for this. You're making me want to go watch the film again just for this shot.

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the most striking cinematic evocation of relativity I think I've ever seen in any film; at least, I can't think of any other shot in any other film that does anything quite like this. It's like Bullock's body is itself a space vessel whose velocity and direction the camera matches in order to "dock" with her, pushing through her helmet and giving us her own point of view before "undocking" and returning to a linear trajectory.

 

I can dig that. There is some awe-inspiring stuff there. I guess my question has been: When does a film become more about the narrative of its technical construction than its actual script?

"...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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...