July 26, 2010
Never Let Me Go is by Kazuo Ishiguro, who wrote, among other things, The Remains of the Day. Time named it one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005. I don’t necessarily trust the list (they include Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret and Wide Sargasso Sea on that list; I’m not sure I can wrap my head around that — the first is a children’s book and the second is a revisionist “prequel” to a true all-time classic, Jane Eyre). It’s a difficult book to discuss in any detail, because I don’t want to give away the story. Let’s just say that it’s a very haunting, very disturbing book and not my usual fare, but it’s also a gripping page-turner.
Kathy, Ruth and Tommy are all children raised in a boarding school in the English countryside. They don’t mention families, nor do they ever talk about going home for Christmas or Easter or anything. Their teachers are referred to as “guardians,” and these guardians keep telling them how special they are. But at the same time, the guardians appear to be afraid of their charges. As I read their story, I learned what makes these children so special and was, frankly, appalled. Kathy, Ruth and Tommy don’t find any aspect of their lives strange, however, and that’s what makes the book even more disturbing. I learned about the book because I stumbled across the trailer for the upcoming movie starring Carey Mulligan (Kathy) and Keira Knightley (Ruth). The trailer looked interesting, so I took out the book in anticipation of seeing the movie. If the movie is as good as the book, it should be worth seeing.
Fifth Avenue, 5 a.m. is the behind-the-scenes story of the making of the film Breakfast at Tiffany’s and its role in modern American society. It was written by Sam Wasson and is a highly entertaining read about a movie that is rather iconic, but of which I am not a fan. I am glad I read it though — the idea that Truman Capote wanted Marilyn Monroe to play Holly is rather intriguing. Capote did not like the film because it differs so much from his book, and both are considered classics (I’m leaning towards borrowing the book at some point). The book’s front cover is a still from the movie, but the rest is, of course, in Tiffany blue.
Confessions of a Bigamist, by Kate Lehrer (wife of PBS’s Jim Lehrer). I put it down after 2 chapters. It may be wonderful, and dozens of people may tell me how great it is and how stupid I am for not liking it, but I just found it boring. Unfortunately, I thought I returned it but hadn’t, so I ended up owing $1 on it. I was not amused.
In the pipeline are 2 other books I’ve been wanting to read: Bedpan Commando by June Wandrey and Losing our Religion by S.E. Cupp. The first is coming to me through Interlibrary Loan, and the second is a new book for which I am in the queue.
July 23, 2010
Part III: Mansfield Park, cont’d.
Metropolitan, the first film by indie writer/director Whit Stillman, is thought by some to be a modernization of Mansfield Park. I happen to be one of the “some” in question. I saw the film 12 years after I first read the book, and didn’t remember much of the story. And, when I read the book after seeing the movie, I knew I liked the movie, but still didn’t like the book. Now, of course, I am a big fan of both.
But I digress.
Here is an essay I found that says a lot of the same things I think about this film — that, while it’s not a literal re-telling of Austen’s story, a lot of the same elements are present. We have a quiet, reserved, virtuous heroine (Audrey), a young man who is somewhat of an outsider (Tom), a notorious womanizer who tries to seduce the heroine (Rick), a woman Tom is obsessed with but whom we all know is wrong for him (Serena), and assorted other characters who occasionally resemble those from the book. For those who don’t have a copy of “Jane Austen in Hollywood” available to them, here is some of the book over at Google Books (the link should take you to page 65, where similarities between Mansfield Park and Metropolitan are discussed). As an aside, try to get a copy of the book; it’s excellent and is a good companion to another book that discusses Austen adaptations, “Jane Austen on film and television” by Sue Parrill. Parrill’s book disagrees with the premise that Metropolitan is an updated Mansfield Park, but the book is still worth reading.
Austen is mentioned repeatedly in the film; Audrey is a Janeite, and she and Tom even talk about Mansfield Park. Tom brings up Lionel Trilling’s famous essay on the novel, wherein Trilling says that nobody likes Fanny Price. Audrey defends Fanny and, in a way, defends herself for not being quite as “forward” as the other girls in the group the movie centers upon (the “Sally Fowler Rat Pack”).
As in Mansfield Park, we have a group of young people who are essentially left alone by their parents. And, as is often the case, regardless of what time period we’re talking about, young people left to their own devices have been known to get into trouble. In Metropolitan, the young people in question play games that virtuous girls don’t play (strip poker and “Truth”); unlike Fanny Price, Audrey is convinced to go along with the crowd and play. Unfortunately, she hears and sees things that hurt her — proving that her instincts were right all along, just as Fanny Price’s were when she refused to take part in the play Lovers’ Vows.
Of course, we have a happy ending here too, but the movie’s ending is a little more ambiguous than the book’s. In Mansfield Park, we know that Fanny and Edmund get married and live “happily ever after.” In Metropolitan, we know that Tom realizes Audrey is the girl for him, but we don’t know what happens to them after the credits roll. We don’t know if they’ll get married, and we don’t know about any “happily ever afters.” But that’s OK; I like to imagine that Audrey and Tom are as happy together as they want to be.
Up next, Emma.
July 22, 2010
You will after you read this from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal (video at the link):
State elections officials Wednesday narrowly rejected a Milwaukee Assembly candidate’s attempt to run with the slogan “NOT the ‘whiteman’s bitch’ ” under her name on the ballot.
Ieshuh Griffin, an independent candidate with a history of feuds with local officials, said in response she would sue the state Government Accountability Board for infringing on her freedom of speech.
“I’m not making a derogatory statement toward an ethnic group. I’m stating what I’m not,” Griffin told board members. “It’s my constitutional right to freedom of speech.”
Unlike candidates from the established Democratic and Republican parties, independents are allowed a five-word statement of purpose on the ballot to explain to voters what their candidacy is about.
The irony is, of course, that the document that guarantees her that “constitutional right to freedom of speech” was written by a group of white men. You may have heard of some of them: James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington.
To quote the inimitable Hermione Granger, “What. An. Idiot.”
Griffin deserves nothing less than a thorough shellacking in the election. Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling that she may win. The election board who denied her this slogan by a razor-thin 3-2 margin appears to be as irony-deprived as the candidate. But the publicity this has garnered could put her over the top.
h/t to The Schnitt Show and Hot Air.
July 21, 2010
I hoped I wouldn’t have to use this title again, but I do. It’s actually a good thing that the boys are playing out West because I can’t stay up late enough to watch the nightly debacles. When the current series with Arizona started, the D-backs were 20 games under .500. The Mets were 6 games over .500. You’d think we’d have a mismatch on our hands and that the Mets would easily win this series.
Two games with Arizona, two losses for the Mets. And this was on top of losing 3 of 4 to the Giants to open the 2nd half of the season. The first one was a thumping; Arizona won 13-2. And then last night, Arizona won by a score of 3-2. Metsblog quotes a tweet from David Lennon saying that Alex Cora had to get on the team’s case when he heard guys laughing after Monday night’s loss. You tell ’em Alex. Yes, I know that professional athletes need to be able to forget painful losses so they don’t dwell on them the way fans do, but laughing and cracking jokes in the aftermath of a pounding is not good. I’m glad Alex said something; I just wish Wright would. He’s the de facto captain of this team and he needs to let his teammates know that this is unacceptable.
In the meantime, too bad Saturday and Sunday are 4 p.m. games. I’ll actually be able to watch them. Saturday’s game is on Fox — maybe my part of Florida will air the White Sox/A’s or the Rockies/Phillies and I’ll be spared. Ugh.
As an aside, to mention something that really matters, last night’s episode of “Deadliest Catch” was a tribute to Captain Phil Harris. It was very well done, and I freely admit I cried for much of it. Next week is the last episode of the season and I’ll be in front of my TV at 9 Eastern to see it. In my not-so-humble opinion, it’s the best show on television.
July 19, 2010
Part III: Mansfield Park, cont’d.
I just finished watching MP07, starring Billie Piper as Fanny, Blake Ritson as Edmund and Jemma Redgrave as Lady Bertram. I saw it shortly after it first aired in the UK, and my personal copy happens to be a Region 2 disc. But, since my multi-region players are still in storage, I had to rent the disc from Netflix. And, since we all know that PBS slices and dices the adaptations they show, the version I watched is a victim of such “editing.” Unfortunately, I don’t remember enough about the film to tell you what is missing from the original. The envelope the disc came in said that this film is 90 minutes long — that’s way too short to be able to deal adequately with the complexities of this novel. The region 2 version is 120 minutes long (per Amazon.co.uk) and, when I first saw that version, I remember thinking even that is too short. This book deserves a better, more thorough treatment.
There are people who will tell you that they dislike this adaptation more than MP99. I beg to differ. I dislike MP99 intensely. Enough that I almost didn’t include it in the Odyssey. As for this film, well, I don’t think this one is dreadful; it’s just not very good. We have another feisty Fanny and another Sir Thomas who isn’t as good a man as Austen’s. We have a Lady Bertram who is too aware of what’s going on. I know I said I think that Austen’s Lady Bertram knows more than she lets on, but Jemma Redgrave’s Lady Bertram is not indolent enough. And Mrs. Norris isn’t enough of a bully.
While watching it, I took notes to keep track of my thoughts, and it hit me that the filmmakers seemed to have trouble with Austen’s characters the way she wrote them. Let me explain. One minute, Fanny will be quiet and reserved, and then the next, she’ll be running around the house, playing with Pug. Or we’ll see Lady Bertram falling asleep in the drawing room in the middle of the day, and then all of a sudden, she’s paying very close attention to what’s going on around her. Or we’ll see Sir Thomas soften up one minute, and then the next he’s gruff again. Mrs. Norris will say something awful, and then she’ll shut up and mind her own business. It’s like being at a tennis match with all that backing-and-forthing going on.
While it’s still closer to the book than MP99 is, there’s still a lot that’s different, and not all of it is good. For example, Maria and Rushworth are engaged before Sir Thomas leaves for Antigua, and there’s no trip to Sotherton. Maria and Edmund have their discussion about his becoming a clergyman almost immediately after their first meeting. Tom never goes to Antigua. There are no Grants – Mary and Henry appear to live in a “cottage” by themselves. The Admiral is their step-father, not their uncle. There is no Mr. Yates, so the play is all Tom’s idea and Julia remains unmarried at the end. There is no ball for Fanny; she gets a picnic for her birthday instead. There’s still dancing, but it’s on the lawn, not in a ballroom (as an aside, some of the music sounds identical to the Meryton Assembly scene in P&P05). We don’t get Sir Thomas realizing that Fanny doesn’t have a fire in her room. There’s no trip to Portsmouth either. Instead, to punish Fanny for not marrying Henry, Sir Thomas, Lady Bertram and Mrs. Norris all leave to go visit Lady Bertram and Mrs. Norris’ mother for three weeks. Sir Thomas gets a letter about Maria and Henry, and Mary comes to Mansfield Park to talk about the situation. She tells Fanny in person that she wishes Tom would die.
What I did like is that they show Fanny getting the cross from William, and we do see that both Edmund and Mary have given her a chain for the cross (unfortunately, however, we don’t actually see Mary giving it to her, and there’s nothing about Henry’s role in the gift or about Henry’s necklace not fitting). I also like that they have the scene where Sir Thomas offers Maria a chance to get out of the marriage. But I just loved that, near the end, when Mrs. Norris tries to blame Fanny for the Henry/Maria situation, Sir Thomas tells her she’s free to leave Mansfield Park and go be with Maria. The expression on her face is priceless!
So, on the whole, I’ll just say that it’s a below-average adaptation. It’s not terrible, but it’s far enough off the mark that it’s not in the neighborhood of good either. It’s a shame too, because the cast has such potential. If they’d had better material to work with, this could have been more enjoyable.
Technically, we’re done with Mansfield Park, but I’m going to take a bit of a detour before moving on to Emma. In 1990, Whit Stillman wrote and directed a film called Metropolitan that some Janeites (including yours truly) think is a modernization of Mansfield Park. Lots of people disagree with me, but I’ll certainly do my best to change their minds when I write about it later this week.
July 15, 2010
Part III: Mansfield Park, cont’d
7:25 pm EDT — I am about to pop the DVD of MP99 into the player and am filled with dread. I saw this film in November of 1999 on a big screen at the Directors’ Guild in New York City before it was released to the general public. I went with 3 friends, all of whom are devout Janeites. A handful of people walked out during the film. More walked out during the closing credits. But we stayed because the writer/director, Patricia Rozema, was going to be there in person to talk about the film and to take questions from the audience. I only remember one thing about that Q&A: Patricia Rozema said point blank that she didn’t like Mansfield Park, she didn’t like Fanny Price and she thought she could do better.
7:31 pm EDT — I have just watched two “featurettes” about MP99. One was the theatrical trailer, and the other had brief comments from the cast about the making of the film. In the “making of,” Patricia Rozema states that she liked the book. In the trailer, the announcer refers to Fanny as a “spirited heroine.” The trailer shows scenes that I don’t remember and that I wish could have remained forgotten. For example, I saw a scene where Edmund and Fanny are in a carriage and Edmund rests his head on Fanny’s bosom while asleep. I saw a scene where Fanny and Susan are talking and Fanny describes Henry Crawford as a rake and Susan becomes, shall we say, “interested.” I saw that the Prices live in filthy, disgusting squalor — they were not rich, but they weren’t dirt poor either.
Once again, I’m not impressed by this film. But I have to watch it. Here is my 1999 review from IMDb; I have not read it so it won’t influence me tonight, but I know I slammed the film, and I wonder if I’ll have any cause to change the review. IMDb also tells us that the film’s tagline is “Jane Austen’s Wicked Comedy.” I found quite a bit to laugh about in Mansfield Park, but I would never even consider calling it a “comedy,” much less a “wicked” one. *sigh* We’ll see.
8:00 pm EDT — I am 10 minutes+ into the film and am already fuming. Fanny sees a slave ship off the coast. Fanny overhears the conversation between Mrs. Norris and Sir Thomas about how Fanny is to be treated; she overhears the conversation between Sir Thomas and his daughters about how Fanny is inferior to them. We hear Mrs. Norris tell her that she is to be her aunt’s “assistant.” We see a painting supposedly done by Tom that looks like something a 20th century artist would have painted. We see Fanny crying in her room, and in voiceover, composes a letter to Susan (yes, Susan). So far, not good.
8:30 pm EDT — It’s even worse than I’d remembered. Another 10 or so minutes have gone by, and we’ve seen Fanny write Jane Austen’s Juvenilia and be scolded by Sir Thomas for being too rambunctious; we’ve learned that the reason Sir Thomas had to leave for the West Indies was because the abolitionists were making noise; we’ve seen Lady Bertram take laudanum; and we’ve seen that Mansfield Park has no furniture. OK, it has some. But not much. To say that it is sparsely furnished is not an exaggeration.
8:51 pm EDT — Lady Bertram takes more laudanum. Tom brings the Hon. Mr. Yates to Mansfield Park. Mary Crawford plays billiards, smokes and asks the men whom she will be making love to in the play (yes, it’s in the book, but she says the line with a decidedly modern tone — the phrase “make love” did not mean then what it does now). Mary tries to seduce Edmund through Fanny while she and Fanny rehearse the play. Sir Thomas leers at Fanny when he gets home from Antigua. Tom is a drunk who burps a lot and who disapproves of slavery. Sir Thomas announces the ball in honor of Fanny even before Maria is married. Fanny is so upset at the thought of a ball in her honor given by a slaveowner that she storms out of the room, saddles her own horse and goes for a ride. At night. In the pouring rain.
9:16 pm EDT — Maria tells her father she doesn’t like Rushworth but does like his money and wants to marry him right away. Fanny describes the wedding in a letter to Susan wherein she breaks the 4th wall again to talk to us. Fanny gets wet running an errand for Mrs. Norris and Mary tries to undress her. There, at the Rectory, Fanny breaks the news to Mary that Edmund is shortly to take orders, and he overhears the conversation. This conversation takes place at the Rectory because we never get to see the trip to Sotherton. Fanny dances with Henry at the ball, but I miss the scene with the cross or the chains. Of course there’s no such scene, because William doesn’t exist. My bad.
I didn’t think it could get worse, but it does.
9:31 pm EDT — Fanny turns down Henry’s proposal of marriage, and Sir Thomas berates her for what appears to be several days. He uses the trip to Portsmouth as a threat and tells her IN PUBLIC that maybe the deprivations of Portsmouth will make her appreciate the luxuries of Mansfield Park. I liked the book’s Sir Thomas. He’s flawed, but he is a decent man who changes over time and becomes a better person and a better parent. I don’t like this one. He’s a jerk and a creep and he makes my skin crawl.
9:55 pm EDT — Fanny is in Portsmouth and the house is a pigsty. Bugs and creepy-crawlies roam the house. Fanny tells Susan that Aunt Bertram is an opium addict. Fanny is awakened one morning by a young man who is delivering fireworks and doves to her house. Afterwards, at church, Henry appears and walks her home. He tells her that he knows she’s in love with Edmund but that Edmund will marry Mary. Mrs. Price tells Fanny there is no shame in wealth and that she married for love. Fanny tells Henry “a woman’s poverty is a slavery more harsh than a man’s.” Fanny agrees to marry Henry, they snog in public and she giggles.
This is most certainly NOT the same story I finished reading barely a week ago. How much more can I take?
10:26 pm EDT— Fanny wakes up the next morning and tells Henry (who tries to waltz with her in her parents’ house) that she’s changed her mind. He gets angry and storms off. Shortly after, Edmund arrives to take Fanny back to Mansfield because Tom was left for dead in London and the family need her. Fanny and Edmund leave Portsmouth, but Susan stays behind. As the carriage pulls away, Fanny tells Susan “Run mad as often as you chuse, but do not faint.” This is not a line from Mansfield Park. It is a line from Jane Austen’s Love and Freindship, written when she was a teenager. Then, during the ride back to Mansfield, Edmund falls asleep and rests his head on Fanny’s bosom.
Henry, Mary and Maria are all at Mansfield Park to be with the family while Tom is ill, and Henry tells Maria that Fanny has rejected him.
Nurse Fanny tends to Tom and finds a sketchbook where he has recorded all the abuse of his father’s slaves down in Antigua, including one drawing of Sir Thomas being “serviced” by a female slave. Sir Thomas walks in on Fanny while she is looking at the drawings. I am now so angry I could spit. Yes, the ‘real’ Sir Thomas would have owned slaves, but he was not vicious or violent. The ‘real’ Sir Thomas was feared, but also respected and loved. This Sir Thomas is inherently unlikable and has no redeeming features whatsoever.
Fanny is asleep up in her attic room and she hears a noise downstairs that she thinks is Tom. Despite the fact that she’s lived in that house for almost 10 years, she opens Maria’s bedroom door instead of Tom’s and sees Maria in flagrente delicto with Henry. She then manages to find Tom’s room. Edmund senses something is wrong (what a smart guy!) and sees Henry pulling on his trousers. After Maria whines about what an idiot Rushworth is, Edmund goes back to his post in Tom’s room and comforts Fanny. He tries to kiss her on the lips but looks away and then apologizes.
Is this Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park or some soap opera that happens to have the same name? It’s getting harder and harder to tell.
10:48 pm EDT — At long last, it’s over. Mrs. Norris sees the item in the paper about Maria running off with Henry and they use names instead of initials. Mary is at the house when the news is discovered and is very condescending to Sir Thomas — she says “this is 1806, after all!” and tells him what he should do for Maria and Henry to be re-established in society. She assumes that she and Edmund will be married, but Edmund tells her off in front of his family.
Fanny then tells us in a voiceover what will happen next. She says that Henry and Mary will find partners whose “modern sensibilities” equal theirs. Julia does not run off with Yates. Somehow, it’s decided that Susan will live at Mansfield Park.
10:52 pm EDT — It’s even worse than I’d remembered. It doesn’t even work for me as a movie. I noticed the Netflix envelope says: “In this period drama loosely based on Jane Austen’s most autobiographical novel…” Yes, it is indeed a “loose” adaptation, but where do they get the idea that this is Austen’s “most autobiographical novel?” Awful. Awful. Awful. I can’t wait to get it out of my house.
I want these hours of my life back. In the meantime, I need a drink.
July 12, 2010
On Friday, KC, JR and I went to McKechnie Field in Bradenton to see the hometown Marauders play the Charlotte Stone Crabs in Florida State League (high-A) action. On Saturday, we went to Tropicana Field in St Petersburg to see the Rays play the Cleveland Indians. And last night we went to Port Charlotte to see the Stone Crabs play the St. Lucie Mets. Three different towns, three different stadia, three very entertaining evenings. I apologize in advance for the quality of some of the photos; they were taken under less than ideal conditions and I didn’t exactly have the equipment to overcome them.
First, McKechnie Field. Here is the facade, facing 9th Street West in Bradenton, FL (remember, just click on the pictures to enlarge them):
As you can tell from the outerwear, this picture is from Spring Training 2010. McKechnie Field is a beautiful, cozy little ballpark. It’s been the spring home of the Pirates since 1969, and hosted the Cardinals when it first opened in 1923. The first night game was last year, and they only had one for Spring Training 2010. This picture is from that game; the Pirates faced the Baltimore Orioles, who just moved to nearby Sarasota for their spring games (I posted pictures of one of those games here):
And here is a picture I took that night of the Pirate Parrot — I believe this is the “real” Parrot rather than a ST replacement. He saw me trying to sneak a picture of him, so he decided to take advantage of the situation and make a face at me:
As mascots go, he’s not bad, but he’s no Mr. Met. But then, who could be?
And, just for the record, here is a day game at McKechnie, also from March:
Unfortunately, when I was at the Marauders/Stone Crabs game on Friday, I didn’t think I’d be blogging about it, so I didn’t take any pictures of that game. I did, however, get a look at the board where the FSL standings are posted:
On Saturday, we went to Tropicana Field in St. Pete to see the Rays beat the Indians. “The Trop” is, to put it bluntly, a butt-ugly stadium. The astroturf is old and worn out, the acoustics are horrible and, when Rays fans ring those blasted cowbells, the sound is enough to make one wish the vendors sold earplugs. And, to top it off, on Saturday night, some idiots brought vuvuzelas along to further torment their neighbors.
Here is the entryway to the Trop:
And here is a view of the field from the “tbt party deck”:
I wasn’t kidding about the quality of the turf.
On Sunday, we drove down the Interstate to Charlotte Sports Park in Port Charlotte. This is an absolutely GORGEOUS park that opened last year for Rays ST baseball, and is now the summer home of the Rays Florida State League team, the Charlotte Stone Crabs. They have a tiki bar out in left-center field:
I’m really glad we went because it gave me another chance to see the St Lucie Mets, the NY Mets FSL affiliate. The Mets are managed by Edgar Alfonzo, older brother of an all-time favorite NY Met, Edgardo Alfonzo. Wilmer Flores, one of the Mets’ top prospects was just promoted to St Lucie, and he played in last night’s game. Unfortunately, he went 0-for-4, but one game is not going to take him off the fast-track. He plays shortstop so, unless the PTB don’t think Reyes will be around after his next contract, they’ll either trade Wilmer or move him to another position before long.
Here is Wilmer at the plate:
This cracked me up — the bullpens in Port Charlotte have tiki bar-type coverings for shade. This is the Mets’ bullpen:
Number 34, who was very friendly, is Scott Moviel, a right-handed pitcher who has bounced around the various Mets Class A teams since he was drafted in the 2007 draft. He was injured for part of 2009, so that’s likely why he hasn’t been moved up to Binghamton (AA Eastern League) yet. He throws a fastball, a sinker and a change-up but, because of his size (6’11”), it could take him a while to get his act together (see Johnson, Randy), and he’s apparently slated to be a reliever.
One thing that surprised me was that the Mets have a catcher on the St Lucie roster named Michael Barrett. I figured he was some kid with the same name as the former Expo, Cub and Padre. But no. This was “the” Michael Barrett. He signed with the Mets very recently and is playing for St. Lucie. He has been out of professional ball for a while, so who knows if he’ll make it back to the majors.
Another interesting name on the roster is Kai Gronauer, a catcher from Germany. According to an article I read about him, he was the best hitter on the German national team, and now he’s in the Met organization. He’s batting .356 in 13 games with St Lucie so far, after hitting .267 with the Savannah Sand Gnats earlier on.
Unfortunately, the Mets lost to the Stone Crabs 5-4. Charlotte came back from a 4-0 deficit to win on a passed ball in the 9th. I was not amused, but I did have a great time. Last night’s loss gave St Lucie a 11-7 record and they are currently in 2nd in the Southern Division; Palm Beach has a 10-6 record and they’re currently in first place. But, as of right this minute (8:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time), the Mets are up 5-4 over the Stone Crabs in the bottom of the 5th.
Next Page »