I don't feel like anyone was in the right in this film. No one truly had the moral high ground, everyone had some basic issue that turned them into wild animals at the end. The set up is great; the background is one of hottest days of the year, and the film reminds you of this constantly as we reach the climax. People become more and more aggressive as the film continues and we see some peoples true colours emerge.
One of the main two characters is the patriarch of the small pizzeria at the edge of a black neighbourhood who has no issue with his clients. He takes pride in his customers loyalty, but he is dealing with his angry and racist eldest son and and his lazy and irresponsible delivery boy. Speaking of, the delivery boy is our other main character who is trying to mend his relationship with his Girlfriend and be a part of his sons life, but he needs money to provide for them and himself. The two seem polar opposites in their ethics and responsibilities, but for the most part share a good relationship that deteriates as the film progresses.
An interesting point is that a lot of the film feels like it was shot as an 80's music video as it has a lot of tilted angles and off the wall editing during faster scenes. I believe this is a stylistic choice meant to fit the black neighbourhood the film is set in. This gives the film a unique perspective though, as it's very hard not to get drawn into the setting the film creates.
One big point I want to make is the message of the film. Caitlin and Tom were both unsure what the film was trying to say, but I remain convince it is a message against rash action and anger. None of the destruction at the end of the film should have happened, but because of a lack of understanding and high tempers, damaged was caused that cant be taken back. Sure it seems like only the Italian family is affected, but the whole neighbourhood have lost a piece of their community now that has been with them for years. Children who have become adults have lost the pizzeria they used to eat at, losing a piece of themselves as well. People will move on, but they will always remember the damage that can be caused when instinct and rage is left unchecked.
Sunday, 29 November 2015
Sunday, 22 November 2015
Practical Screencraft 2: The Importance of Lighting & Shading
Lighting in film has always been my nemesis. It's an incredibly important aspect in not just cinema, but also photography as it helps set the tone and can even go as far as develop and establish characters. At the end of the day though, it's key for just being able to see (or not see) what is going on. One overestimation of how well a room is lit, and you'll have a very miserable day of shooting ahead of you. When I was experimenting with camera shots using figures, I made this mistake and in certain shots they are barely visible.
I've always had trouble with this for two reasons. The first is that I've always struggled to recreate the ideas in my head and put them onto film. I can see the end goal, but I don't always know how to get there. I easily forget some of the more technical aspects of composition and lighting, so they sometimes become a factor a little too late. As you can see above, I thought the dark velvet or the chair would show them surrounded by darkness, but I now realise I needed a source of light pointed at the models to make sure they're not swallowed by said darkness. They would have popped out much better then.
The other issue is just my lack of understanding on the matter. My brain feels like it's getting squeezed tight when I try to process how to even set up good lighting. I'm generally competent at setting up an area so it's well lit, but I become lost when I want to do very specific things with shadows and light, and how to make a dark room visible, but also still make it look dark. It's these little things that are so important that I just cant seem to achieve.
However, there is another aspect of lighting that is very important that I hadn't clocked onto until very recently; the art of shading. The image above comes from the film The Big Combo. Let's break down the image. Darkness is prominent in the image, and surrounds the characters. Most of his face is covered in it, but we can still make him out, and this is where shading come in. Look closely and while again, his head is covered in shadow, it's lighter at the front of his face so we can make out his features.
Now obviously, the shadow and the dark imagery is to give the sense that this man is a mysterious individual. Does he have a dark past? What is he here for? Is he dangerous? These are all question this frame can emote. However, why has the tone of black lessened at the front of his to the point it is grey? It's so we can still see him. He isn't just a blob in our sight, he is still a person. We can make him out and while we still have questions about his identity, it gives the audience the bridging point to recognise him in the film.
Shading is incredibly important especially in the black and white era of film. It gives away really tiny details away to the watcher, but during this era it was essential to help identify characters and tones of clothing as we couldn't see the colour. Even today though it's incredibly important and it easy to say why. I can use these techniques to show a dark room, but say if it was shot in black and white the characters identifying features were more grey, then the audience can still make them out, but sustains the illusion that the characters are in a dark room.
Now onto the technical side, where are the placements of lights and what are there intensity (ignoring the possibility of a director using natural light for their film.) well of course that depends mostly on the scene and what you are trying to get across, so lets use an example of a moment from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. First off, why is the lighting like this? So we can see the aliens, but we cant make out any distinguishing features. We see them, but we do not, as the shading has blackened them out. We our kept in mystery as much as we given answers.
Now where is the lighting? Definitely behind the aliens as we can make out their outlines, the camera can only make out a wall of white behind them because it is so bright. There may also be another softer light off to the left side of the shot so we can make out a bit of two people at the right edge of the screen. Why is it so bright? As I said above, so we can make out the aliens, but also only their outlines. It's also noteworthy that it gives the affect that the man being carried away is entering a new world beyond are one since we cannot see the ships interior. This effect is great and something that I can easily use for my own work as it's sort of a case of saturating the image just enough to make someone or something out, but also blur out the details so it's keep the person/thing in mystery.
Now looking at the Godfather, there are some annotations of the lighting set-up which I will break down. The key light is the main source of light on the subject. It is the primary one in the shot. You have the fill light that works on keeping just enough shadow on the subject. This obviously differs depending on the aesthetic you wish to create, of may just remove it entirely. Here the subject of the image has given a purposely dark side to himself, perhaps a reference to his dark nature or two-faced mannerisms. The back light (which is being created by the lamp) is creating a pop out effect for the character. It's defining him on the screen even further, by highlighting his head and body.
This is a simple, but effective lighting set-up that I want to use in my own work. It seems so simple but going through these examples have helps me to understand exactly what I have been missing from my own work. Just simple light set-ups can help define the characters in my films more, and reflect their inner personal thoughts.
Biblography:
- The Big Combo. (1955) Film. Directed by Joseph H. Lewis. [DVD] UK: Reel Media International.
- Close Encounters of the Third Kind. (1978) Film. Directed by Steven Spielberg. [DVD] UK: Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment
- The Godfather. (1972) Film. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. [DVD] UK: Paramount Home Entertainment
- FILM SCHOOL ONLINE! (Unknown) Attributes of the Visual Image [Online] Available from: http://filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_cinematography.htm [Accessed: 22nd November 2015]
- FILM110. (2009) Lighting [Online] Available from: http://film110.pbworks.com/w/page/12610256/Lighting [Accessed: 22nd November 2015]
I've always had trouble with this for two reasons. The first is that I've always struggled to recreate the ideas in my head and put them onto film. I can see the end goal, but I don't always know how to get there. I easily forget some of the more technical aspects of composition and lighting, so they sometimes become a factor a little too late. As you can see above, I thought the dark velvet or the chair would show them surrounded by darkness, but I now realise I needed a source of light pointed at the models to make sure they're not swallowed by said darkness. They would have popped out much better then.
The other issue is just my lack of understanding on the matter. My brain feels like it's getting squeezed tight when I try to process how to even set up good lighting. I'm generally competent at setting up an area so it's well lit, but I become lost when I want to do very specific things with shadows and light, and how to make a dark room visible, but also still make it look dark. It's these little things that are so important that I just cant seem to achieve.
However, there is another aspect of lighting that is very important that I hadn't clocked onto until very recently; the art of shading. The image above comes from the film The Big Combo. Let's break down the image. Darkness is prominent in the image, and surrounds the characters. Most of his face is covered in it, but we can still make him out, and this is where shading come in. Look closely and while again, his head is covered in shadow, it's lighter at the front of his face so we can make out his features.
Now obviously, the shadow and the dark imagery is to give the sense that this man is a mysterious individual. Does he have a dark past? What is he here for? Is he dangerous? These are all question this frame can emote. However, why has the tone of black lessened at the front of his to the point it is grey? It's so we can still see him. He isn't just a blob in our sight, he is still a person. We can make him out and while we still have questions about his identity, it gives the audience the bridging point to recognise him in the film.
Shading is incredibly important especially in the black and white era of film. It gives away really tiny details away to the watcher, but during this era it was essential to help identify characters and tones of clothing as we couldn't see the colour. Even today though it's incredibly important and it easy to say why. I can use these techniques to show a dark room, but say if it was shot in black and white the characters identifying features were more grey, then the audience can still make them out, but sustains the illusion that the characters are in a dark room.
Now onto the technical side, where are the placements of lights and what are there intensity (ignoring the possibility of a director using natural light for their film.) well of course that depends mostly on the scene and what you are trying to get across, so lets use an example of a moment from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. First off, why is the lighting like this? So we can see the aliens, but we cant make out any distinguishing features. We see them, but we do not, as the shading has blackened them out. We our kept in mystery as much as we given answers.
Now where is the lighting? Definitely behind the aliens as we can make out their outlines, the camera can only make out a wall of white behind them because it is so bright. There may also be another softer light off to the left side of the shot so we can make out a bit of two people at the right edge of the screen. Why is it so bright? As I said above, so we can make out the aliens, but also only their outlines. It's also noteworthy that it gives the affect that the man being carried away is entering a new world beyond are one since we cannot see the ships interior. This effect is great and something that I can easily use for my own work as it's sort of a case of saturating the image just enough to make someone or something out, but also blur out the details so it's keep the person/thing in mystery.
Now looking at the Godfather, there are some annotations of the lighting set-up which I will break down. The key light is the main source of light on the subject. It is the primary one in the shot. You have the fill light that works on keeping just enough shadow on the subject. This obviously differs depending on the aesthetic you wish to create, of may just remove it entirely. Here the subject of the image has given a purposely dark side to himself, perhaps a reference to his dark nature or two-faced mannerisms. The back light (which is being created by the lamp) is creating a pop out effect for the character. It's defining him on the screen even further, by highlighting his head and body.
This is a simple, but effective lighting set-up that I want to use in my own work. It seems so simple but going through these examples have helps me to understand exactly what I have been missing from my own work. Just simple light set-ups can help define the characters in my films more, and reflect their inner personal thoughts.
Biblography:
- The Big Combo. (1955) Film. Directed by Joseph H. Lewis. [DVD] UK: Reel Media International.
- Close Encounters of the Third Kind. (1978) Film. Directed by Steven Spielberg. [DVD] UK: Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment
- The Godfather. (1972) Film. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. [DVD] UK: Paramount Home Entertainment
- FILM SCHOOL ONLINE! (Unknown) Attributes of the Visual Image [Online] Available from: http://filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_cinematography.htm [Accessed: 22nd November 2015]
- FILM110. (2009) Lighting [Online] Available from: http://film110.pbworks.com/w/page/12610256/Lighting [Accessed: 22nd November 2015]
Thursday, 19 November 2015
Pratical Screensraft 2: Understanding Perspective and Composition Through The Shining
The composition of a scene can change exactly how we view it. It can create a mood and an atmosphere, it can even represent what a character is feeling. This is sort of the most basic summation of why composition is important, it completely effects are perception of an image, but in practice it is not nearly so simple.
In class, we were given an image to analyse. When we had a good look at it, we were told to now refocus the shot. We could look far into the background, turn the image over or do whatever we liked, but by changing our perspective of the picture, we were simultaneously changing the composition. If the image is focused on a shot of a boy jumping over a puddle, it could be a representation of childhood innocence, or the journey to adulthood, or simply a boy jumping over puddle. Then you notice a man standing far in the background. You now taken the image but the shot closer to the man, to the point where the puddle is mostly cut out and your main focus is the boy and the man. What does the image say now? Is the man looking on at the boy? Reminiscing about his own past? Or, is he watching over the boy as a parent or a guardian?
"Everywhere we go, we're confronted by pictures. We look at still pictures in books, magazines and museums. We watch moving pictures at the movies, on television, at concerts, and in theatres; we play video games and surf the internet. We look at a lot of pictures-big, little, moving, still, colour, black and white-but they are all pictures."
- The Visual Story: Creating the Visual Structure of Film, TV and Digital Media (Block, 2007)
That little change completely rewrites the image, and since composition is such a visual phenomenon, of course it is can be applied to film. This gave me a new way of looking at things. Looking back, I can use this as a new way to view through a camera and adjust the what I'm focusing on in the image. perhaps by doing that, I can rewrite the whole scene.
Of course there are many elements to composition, not just camera positioning. The lighting of an image can help focus on specific people or objects, or imply certain characteristics of an individual by hiding them in shadow and overexposing them. Speaking of focus, leaving parts of an image in and out of focus can force the audience to pick out whatever is left visible. Art direction as well, but I'll explain all of this by using an example: The Shining, directed by Stanley Kubrick.
What can be taken from this image. Let's break it down: We are looking at two girls from a distance, the colour scheme demands that you look at them despite the fact that the rest of the room engulfs the image. This is because the bright blue pops out compared to the duller colours of the room. The fact that the girls are looking at the camera makes the audience feel they are being looked at, and usually the distance between the twins and the camera would ease any tension or misgivings, but I believe the lens has ever so slightly warped the room. Something just doesn't seem right and this only creates more unease.
The framing of this shot has helped to create an uneasy atmosphere in this scene. I personally think this is fantastic. A lot of Kubrick's can be broken down into still images and nearly all of those images are worthy of being hung in a gallery because they create such imagery in a single shot. This is what this scene does so well. I could obviously use this slightly warped and distant shot in a corridor to create unease, but I could use the angle possibly in a forest path to get the same effect. What completes this is the art direction (the dull colours and the bright blue) and the narrow corridor as it force you to look ahead.
Now lets look at the scene from a different perspective. The distance is now even further, but since the camera has moved backwards we can see there is now another person in the shot. Now, the girls are looking at the little boy on the bike, and the boy is staring at them. For the most part what we get from the shot hasn't changed much. There is still a sense of unease, but it is more for concern for the boy rather then yourself since he is their focus, and of course a good horror film will always make you scared even when you are not the focus. The distance almost plays more into the sense of dread as it is harder to make out the girls from the distance.
The reason this is relevant is how a simple change can turn a scene on its head. We are not the focus, the boy is, and with this creates a new sense of danger and dread. The increased distance adds more dimension to the shot, and notably the bright blue is even more relevant now because if they wore a a duller colour you could be forgiven for possibly not noticing them at first. That could actually be effective if a character was supposed to blend in and not be seen, but in this scene we are meant to immediately react as the camera follows the boy and stops sharply as the girls come into frame, probably giving the audience a jump.
Composition is a funny thing. It can so easily be forgotten as you take in the whole scene, but it's always there and remains an integral part of cinema. Quickly, lets take a look at another scene that is broken down with a helpful diagram.
The main character is looking down at a model of a real maze that he will meet his fate in later on in the film. He seems so much more above the the structure, as if it is no threat to him, making the irony of his demise much more apparent. This of course wouldn't be obvious at first when you watch the film, but looking back or later viewings make the connection that much more apparent.
Back to the full perspective though, you'll notice that the maze covers a huge portion of the bottom of the frame and like the corridor scene, it stretches outwards. Another thing you'll notice is the choice of jumper the main character is wearing though, you'll notice it is a darker colour than the scenery around, which still helps him pop out just by reversing the tones. He is also centre frame and not too far away from the camera. He seems slightly ominous but not over threatening. Kubrick is already planting the seeds for his inevitable change later on in the movie.
Biblography:
- BLOCK, B. (ed.) (2007) The Visual Story: Creating the Visual Structure of Film, TV and Digital Media. Unknown: Focal Press; 2 edition
- The Shining. (1980) Film. Directed by Stanley Kubrick. [DVD] UK: Warner Home Video
In class, we were given an image to analyse. When we had a good look at it, we were told to now refocus the shot. We could look far into the background, turn the image over or do whatever we liked, but by changing our perspective of the picture, we were simultaneously changing the composition. If the image is focused on a shot of a boy jumping over a puddle, it could be a representation of childhood innocence, or the journey to adulthood, or simply a boy jumping over puddle. Then you notice a man standing far in the background. You now taken the image but the shot closer to the man, to the point where the puddle is mostly cut out and your main focus is the boy and the man. What does the image say now? Is the man looking on at the boy? Reminiscing about his own past? Or, is he watching over the boy as a parent or a guardian?
"Everywhere we go, we're confronted by pictures. We look at still pictures in books, magazines and museums. We watch moving pictures at the movies, on television, at concerts, and in theatres; we play video games and surf the internet. We look at a lot of pictures-big, little, moving, still, colour, black and white-but they are all pictures."
- The Visual Story: Creating the Visual Structure of Film, TV and Digital Media (Block, 2007)
That little change completely rewrites the image, and since composition is such a visual phenomenon, of course it is can be applied to film. This gave me a new way of looking at things. Looking back, I can use this as a new way to view through a camera and adjust the what I'm focusing on in the image. perhaps by doing that, I can rewrite the whole scene.
Of course there are many elements to composition, not just camera positioning. The lighting of an image can help focus on specific people or objects, or imply certain characteristics of an individual by hiding them in shadow and overexposing them. Speaking of focus, leaving parts of an image in and out of focus can force the audience to pick out whatever is left visible. Art direction as well, but I'll explain all of this by using an example: The Shining, directed by Stanley Kubrick.
What can be taken from this image. Let's break it down: We are looking at two girls from a distance, the colour scheme demands that you look at them despite the fact that the rest of the room engulfs the image. This is because the bright blue pops out compared to the duller colours of the room. The fact that the girls are looking at the camera makes the audience feel they are being looked at, and usually the distance between the twins and the camera would ease any tension or misgivings, but I believe the lens has ever so slightly warped the room. Something just doesn't seem right and this only creates more unease.
The framing of this shot has helped to create an uneasy atmosphere in this scene. I personally think this is fantastic. A lot of Kubrick's can be broken down into still images and nearly all of those images are worthy of being hung in a gallery because they create such imagery in a single shot. This is what this scene does so well. I could obviously use this slightly warped and distant shot in a corridor to create unease, but I could use the angle possibly in a forest path to get the same effect. What completes this is the art direction (the dull colours and the bright blue) and the narrow corridor as it force you to look ahead.
Now lets look at the scene from a different perspective. The distance is now even further, but since the camera has moved backwards we can see there is now another person in the shot. Now, the girls are looking at the little boy on the bike, and the boy is staring at them. For the most part what we get from the shot hasn't changed much. There is still a sense of unease, but it is more for concern for the boy rather then yourself since he is their focus, and of course a good horror film will always make you scared even when you are not the focus. The distance almost plays more into the sense of dread as it is harder to make out the girls from the distance.
The reason this is relevant is how a simple change can turn a scene on its head. We are not the focus, the boy is, and with this creates a new sense of danger and dread. The increased distance adds more dimension to the shot, and notably the bright blue is even more relevant now because if they wore a a duller colour you could be forgiven for possibly not noticing them at first. That could actually be effective if a character was supposed to blend in and not be seen, but in this scene we are meant to immediately react as the camera follows the boy and stops sharply as the girls come into frame, probably giving the audience a jump.
Composition is a funny thing. It can so easily be forgotten as you take in the whole scene, but it's always there and remains an integral part of cinema. Quickly, lets take a look at another scene that is broken down with a helpful diagram.
The main character is looking down at a model of a real maze that he will meet his fate in later on in the film. He seems so much more above the the structure, as if it is no threat to him, making the irony of his demise much more apparent. This of course wouldn't be obvious at first when you watch the film, but looking back or later viewings make the connection that much more apparent.
Back to the full perspective though, you'll notice that the maze covers a huge portion of the bottom of the frame and like the corridor scene, it stretches outwards. Another thing you'll notice is the choice of jumper the main character is wearing though, you'll notice it is a darker colour than the scenery around, which still helps him pop out just by reversing the tones. He is also centre frame and not too far away from the camera. He seems slightly ominous but not over threatening. Kubrick is already planting the seeds for his inevitable change later on in the movie.
Biblography:
- BLOCK, B. (ed.) (2007) The Visual Story: Creating the Visual Structure of Film, TV and Digital Media. Unknown: Focal Press; 2 edition
- The Shining. (1980) Film. Directed by Stanley Kubrick. [DVD] UK: Warner Home Video
Monday, 16 November 2015
Moving Narrative 2: Rust and Bone
So at its core, I feel that this film is about loss. There are many times in are lives when we will lose something. It can be something small like a toy of some change, or it can affect us so badly it will stay with us for the rest of out lives.
Both of the main characters in the film start off by losing something. The father and his son lose their homes and have lost the relationship they once had. They spend the rest of the movie trying to reclaim both those things and hold on to it. The woman loses her legs and her future. Her whole way in life is dramatically changed, and she has to learn to do basic things that most people take for granted. That is the key factor to me though, you don't know what you have until you've lost it. The father and the son have a strained relationship throughout the film, but when the child nearly dies, it acts as a wake up call to the father who has not appreciated the people in his life.
Pacing wise the film is a bit weird, but it works. It switches between stories without a moments notice, but all the narratives move along at the same time and become so closely connected that you didn't feel that confused, or that I missed anything important. It also didn't feel like a two hour movie either as it felt shorter, which is always a good sign in my books.
The cinematography is very well done. It isn't obnoxious or pretentious, and gives the film a balanced and calming tone even in more desperate and hectic scenes. I believe this might have something to do with the metaphor of calm but brutal effects of the sea, which is presented multiple times in the film, but it also makes the more shocking moments that much more shocking.
Both of the main characters in the film start off by losing something. The father and his son lose their homes and have lost the relationship they once had. They spend the rest of the movie trying to reclaim both those things and hold on to it. The woman loses her legs and her future. Her whole way in life is dramatically changed, and she has to learn to do basic things that most people take for granted. That is the key factor to me though, you don't know what you have until you've lost it. The father and the son have a strained relationship throughout the film, but when the child nearly dies, it acts as a wake up call to the father who has not appreciated the people in his life.
Pacing wise the film is a bit weird, but it works. It switches between stories without a moments notice, but all the narratives move along at the same time and become so closely connected that you didn't feel that confused, or that I missed anything important. It also didn't feel like a two hour movie either as it felt shorter, which is always a good sign in my books.
The cinematography is very well done. It isn't obnoxious or pretentious, and gives the film a balanced and calming tone even in more desperate and hectic scenes. I believe this might have something to do with the metaphor of calm but brutal effects of the sea, which is presented multiple times in the film, but it also makes the more shocking moments that much more shocking.
Monday, 9 November 2015
Moving Narrative 2: Wrong
Wrong does a lot right. For the little sense the film makes, it does create an excellent atmosphere and spot on comedic timing, but when you start to look past that, the film is as shallow as a kiddy pool.
The first thing I have had to come to accept about this film is it makes absolutely no sense. There is no logic to be found anywhere in the film. We follow a man who has recently lost his dog and how over several days he tries and fails to find him. The relationship he has with his pet is also romantic in how he yearns for his return, a joke played up to some good laughs. Makes sense? Well it gets shit-tonne weirder as we go through.
An agency that kidnaps pets, an insane woman who thinks her boyfriend can change his face at will, a gardener who dies but is inexplicably alive again without anyone bringing it up, a neighbour who has cant stop driving into remote areas without any explanation; all of this just feels wrong. it feels like the film is punishing anyone that is trying to make any logical connection between everything that is happening.
So I have had to come to accept that the film wrong is the movie equivalent of "I am the Walrus." Remember that Beatles song? The band was famously annoyed that people kept overanalysing their lyrics so made a song that was absolute nonsense. People of course tried to understand the meaning of the song despite it being utter bollocks. That's kinds what I feel the inspiration of this film is.
From a technical standpoint, lighting was warm and fit the twisted yet lighthearted tone the film had, cinematography made scenes feel weird of normal when appropriate and the sound design and editing were fine. Not much else to say but "Wrong" was not entirely wrong.
The first thing I have had to come to accept about this film is it makes absolutely no sense. There is no logic to be found anywhere in the film. We follow a man who has recently lost his dog and how over several days he tries and fails to find him. The relationship he has with his pet is also romantic in how he yearns for his return, a joke played up to some good laughs. Makes sense? Well it gets shit-tonne weirder as we go through.
An agency that kidnaps pets, an insane woman who thinks her boyfriend can change his face at will, a gardener who dies but is inexplicably alive again without anyone bringing it up, a neighbour who has cant stop driving into remote areas without any explanation; all of this just feels wrong. it feels like the film is punishing anyone that is trying to make any logical connection between everything that is happening.
So I have had to come to accept that the film wrong is the movie equivalent of "I am the Walrus." Remember that Beatles song? The band was famously annoyed that people kept overanalysing their lyrics so made a song that was absolute nonsense. People of course tried to understand the meaning of the song despite it being utter bollocks. That's kinds what I feel the inspiration of this film is.
From a technical standpoint, lighting was warm and fit the twisted yet lighthearted tone the film had, cinematography made scenes feel weird of normal when appropriate and the sound design and editing were fine. Not much else to say but "Wrong" was not entirely wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)