It is currently Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:47 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:03 pm
Quote:
For all of your bluster about Bernard here, you haven't drawn attention to one concrete element of any of these films that could convince me they were "good," never mind "great." You repeat that they've got "poetry" and basically look nice. What's so complex about what Bernard is saying about humanity, or war, or camaraderie in Wooden Crosses? That it's "bad and ghostly," and that "grim irony may befall these characters"? -- the grimmest irony being that the ironic formulation of: "wooden crosses = the soldiers themselves" gets super-ironized by the fact that the conceptions of the characters on the scenaristic level, and the way Bernard directs the actors, transforms them very much into "wooden things."

Wooden Crosses seems little different conceptually and in execution than the other two major early sound WWI pictures, namely Milestone's All Quiet on the Western Front and Pabst's Westfront 1918. Both those films fail to reconcile the interpersonal conflicts with the grander conflicts of the war. Some succeed where the others fail. All of them however demonstrate various different, but all astonishing (to my eyes) recreations of WWI battle. What's so astonishing, and different, about Wooden Crosses is the way that Bernard manages to create such a frighteningly realistic and poignant construction of battle, and the fears, doubts, and anxieties that it creates. Sure, he does this with lavish pyrotechnics, but he also does it via montage, cutting between the soldiers and their plight, and the battle itself in all its jarring discord. The effect is one that I find sublime, and one that strongly evokes a sense of style that I don't get from other "Tradition of Quality" filmmakers of the early 30s (like say, Pagnol, who for all intents and purposes was a styleless filmmaker who relied on bland exposition and "superior" scripts and performances).

This is not to say that Wooden Crosses is a perfect film. It's not, but much in the same way the aforementioned 30s WWI films are not perfect. They fail in their exposition of characters and interpersonal conflict. That this is so consistent to these three films makes me think that this problem is one inherent in the approach to the material during this period, and not indicative of this supposed symptom of "Tradition of Quality." Such criticism strikes me as Cahiers auteurism run amok. That said, you raise some salient criticisms of Bernard and his films, but I personally feel that you're approaching it from a skewed, distorted, and biased perspective.

Quote:
Are you seriously suggesting Bernard's treatment of actors somehow pre-figures Bresson's?

How did you get this from his comment? It was very clearly a joke.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:43 pm 

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
Location: LA CA
Via_Chicago wrote:
How did you get this from his comment? It was very clearly a joke.

The purpose of which was ... ?

To show that charges of "wooden acting" are equally applicable to Bresson? If so, that's a bit problematic since the performance styles and the ideas behind the two styles seem to me completely different. If not, then what?

And I think you might be confusing irony with joking. He seems to me to think that his response - "Like Bresson, then ..." - though wittily ironic, is a relevant and revelatory one. I guess I just don't see it.

Or maybe it's that the joke only works if you're on the joker's side.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:03 pm
yoshimori wrote:
Via_Chicago wrote:
How did you get this from his comment? It was very clearly a joke.

The purpose of which was ... ?

To show that charges of "wooden acting" are equally applicable to Bresson? If so, that's a bit problematic since the performance styles and the ideas behind the two seem to me completely different. If not, then what?

Or maybe it's that the joke only works if you're on the joker's side.

The joke merely rejects the notion that Bernard belongs in a discussion of "Tradition of Quality." That is, Craig's criticism betrays values opposite to those of the "ToQ." Wooden acting, whether coaxed or not, seems to fly in the face of the "ToQ," at least as I've come to understand it.

To answer your last question, maybe. But maybe it also requires a sense of irony.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:53 pm 

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
Location: LA CA
Via_Chicago wrote:
The joke merely rejects the notion that Bernard belongs in a discussion of "Tradition of Quality."

I think we read it the same way. Our only disagreement here then, I think, is that while you believe the joke "rejects" the notion that Bernard belongs in a discussion of TOQ, I think the joke "tries but fails to refute" etc etc.

Thanks for pointing out my irony-deficiency, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: UK
Wow, you really sucked the fun out of that joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:34 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
evillights wrote:
Continuing from some remarks over at the "Delirious Fictions of William Klein" thread --

craig.

craig how old are you?

Dude I don't have the slightest idea what youre saying here. You're garbling everything in this abysmally confused pseudoliterary hypolingo, stomping sentence form into the grave... and my suspicion is the "point" is Craig, not the subject matter at hand.

Your posts are so studded with sophomoric lockdown ("Bernard does what Renoir would never do"-- well thank God the world is big enough not only for both, but Appreciation of Both, rather than the Filmmaker Superbowl running thru your head) that I doubt mixing it up with you will get anywhere. This was why my initial reply was more of a tongue in cheek goof on the Finality of your tastes (craig they're just your taste in film), rather than a serious opening of a dialog. I was going to goof on you and ask if your name was Armond White (see a few posts down here) owing to the way you see Your Taste In Film as the last word on Cinematic Science (which has now been solved). In the world of art appreciation nothing will send a crowd fleeing for their lives than this kind of talk. Craig, they're just films. We're all just fans. It's entertainment.

But I'll take on a couple of points. The first is Bernard (I'm a Bernardine, Oh Bernardine, Bernardine, why did you hurt me soooooooooooooooo...-- soft shoe, dried out falsetto with flipping chimps in pink burning dresses--). Let's take the death of Vanel.

How you receive a scene says something about yourself. Show your doctor your post in the Klein thread and he'll tell you. You wanted an angry bitter death where the man doesn't at least sacrifice his final possession in the world (besides his body) which is his bitterness at his wife for cheating. The reason Vanel's character didn't do this is-- that's not who he was. Clearly the script or novel rendered a man who died what some would consider an enlightened death-- perhaps he remembered at the last that he himself could gain nothing by taking his stomach acid into the afterworld, perhaps he grew up at that last moment, perhaps he had an epiphany, that the world itself (and the battlefield) is filled with enough misery and suffering that taking same into the next is pointless. Obviously you'd prefer to see him spit a final curse like Narcy in They Made Me A Fugitive, then croak, but that's not this character in this film.

You don't like Bernard, that's beautiful pal. It's a huge world out there and I don't wish to keep bumping into Me (I can barely get by with one of me). Pronouncing it Bad because you don't like it= comedy.

The last is the whole Tradition of Quality Thing (I'm really having a hard time taking this thing seriously.) We're not at war with the French Studio thing, and we're not locked out of jobs or an ability to make those kinds of films anymore. Personally I think the whole Vague was vastly overrated repetition of mobile location techniques and to-the-nuts storytelling that'd been in operation since the silent era. And I'd advise you to understand those guys back then-- they were spieling to a degree. They were overstating and spieling to get attention so they could break in. You do so by talking loudly and creating a myth for the ignorant masses. They were forming their own "team" because the industry was a "team" that locked them out. And I'm sure many of their pronouncements were made with a secret chuckle. Cinema de papa? I don't think so pal. Why bother?

The last is this whole Speaking Truth To Forum Groupthink.

There's a groupthink about every single subject under the sun. Particularly on this forum. Since when was the Vague some obscure splinter group. It's only a "groupthink" to be "pierced" if it upsets you. Which it never should. And the fact that you feel the need to speak "truth" to it shows the white knuckle contention that your post does evidence.
evillights wrote:
I certainly didn't feel "seething tremorous anger" while writing the post, nor does the end-result really read that outrageous.
yes it does. You wouldn't be the better judge of that. Even your single ally thought you were over the top.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:53 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
This whole Tradition of Quality argument really only works if you watch films morally. Evillights, do you see cinematic anti-clericalism as harmful to post-occupation France? Because talk about your pertinent criteria for enjoying a film in 2007!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:09 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
HerrSchreck wrote:
You're garbling everything in this abysmally confused pseudoliterary hypolingo, stomping sentence form into the grave... and my suspicion is the "point" is *HerrShreck*, not the subject matter at hand.

This perfectly describes 99% of your posts. Methinks you're projecting again.

Craig made a perfectly reasonable objection to Bernard. Your hysterical reaction is...wait a minute- have you and Jaime Christley ever been seen in the same forum?

Via_Chicago wrote:
What's so astonishing, and different, about Wooden Crosses is the way that Bernard manages to create such a frighteningly realistic and poignant construction of battle, and the fears, doubts, and anxieties that it creates. Sure, he does this with lavish pyrotechnics, but he also does it via montage, cutting between the soldiers and their plight, and the battle itself in all its jarring discord.

And yet the revolution battle scenes in Les Miserables are so pedestrian. This raises the question- to what degree was Bernard responsible for the great battle scenes in Wooen Crosses? Or was it cinematographer Rene Ribault (who didn't work on Les Mis) and who got his start under guess who- Renoir!

Via_Chicago wrote:
They fail in their exposition of characters and interpersonal conflict.

Which is all the Cahiers crowd would need to dismiss it. They weren't very interested in battle scenes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: UK
GringoTex wrote:
And yet the revolution battle scenes in Les Miserables are so pedestrian. This raises the question- to what degree was Bernard responsible for the great battle scenes in Wooen Crosses? Or was it cinematographer Rene Ribault (who didn't work on Les Mis) and who got his start under guess who- Renoir!

Ribault was assistant cinematographer, and Wooden Crosses was his first film. It was premiered in France on March 17 1932; Renoir's Chotard et Cie, the only Renoir on which Ribault worked as cinematographer, was shot between November and December 1932 . So maybe, by your logic, we should attribute the good stuff in Renoir's film to Raymond Bernard?

Chief cinematographer on Wooden Crosses was Jules Kruger, who was Gance's cinematographer on Napoleon. But, of course, the reason you didn't try to make anything out of that was that Kruger also worked on Les Misérables, whose battle scenes you find "pedestrian".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:55 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
Kinsayder"
Ribault was assistant cinematographer, and Wooden Crosses was his first film. It was premiered in France on March 17 1932; Renoir's Chotard et Cie, the only Renoir on which Ribault worked as cinematographer, was shot between November and December 1932 . So maybe, by your logic, we should attribute the good stuff in Renoir's film to Raymond Bernard?[/quote]
It was too good to be true.

[quote="Kinsayder wrote:
Chief cinematographer on Wooden Crosses was Jules Kruger, who was Gance's cinematographer on Napoleon. But, of course, the reason you didn't try to make anything out of that was that Kruger also worked on Les Misérables, whose battle scenes you find "pedestrian".

I'm just making guesses on why the battle scenes are so much better in Wooden Crosses. The one thing it does suggest is that Bernard didn't have a total control over his materials (also evidenced by the bad Part 2 of Les Miserables).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:03 pm
Quote:
I'm just making guesses on why the battle scenes are so much better in Wooden Crosses. The one thing it does suggest is that Bernard didn't have a total control over his materials (also evidenced by the bad Part 2 of Les Miserables).

No, you're making guesses because:

1) You haven't seen his silent work.
2) You want to discredit Bernard.
3) You are defending the Cahiers crowd that needs no defending.

Quote:
Which is all the Cahiers crowd would need to dismiss it. They weren't very interested in battle scenes.

I don't care why the Cahiers crowd would dismiss it; that's sort of the whole point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
Via_Chicago wrote:
3) You are defending the Cahiers crowd that needs no defending.

??? Is there evidence that the Cahiers crowd attacked Bernard?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River
GringoTex wrote:
Via_Chicago wrote:
3) You are defending the Cahiers crowd that needs no defending.

Is there evidence that the Cahiers crowd attacked Bernard?

There's a very mild sideswipe from Rivette (Cahiers no. 81) where Bernard is namechecked alongside some potboiler directors, as superficial and merely picturesque as compared to Mizoguchi and Naruse but it doesn't rate as corruscating criticism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:26 pm
Truffaut apparently grouped Bernard in a category labeled "the honestly commercial."
He listed the following directors in the same category:

Bernard Borderie, Henri Calef, Maurice Cloche, Guy Lefranc, Léonide Moguy, Richard Pottier, Jean Sacha, Robert Vernay, Henri Verneuil, Jacqueline Audry, Pierre Billon, Le Chanois, Jean Dréville, Robert Darène, Georges Lampin, Jean Devaivre, Christian-Jaque, Jack Pinoteau, René Chanas, Kirsanoff, Swoboda[sic], Henri Decoin, Sacha Guitry, Julien Duvivier, Georges Lacombe, and André Hunnebelle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
thethirdman wrote:
Truffaut apparently grouped Bernard in a category labeled "the honestly commercial."
He listed the following directors in the same category:

Bernard Borderie, Henri Calef, Maurice Cloche, Guy Lefranc, Léonide Moguy, Richard Pottier, Jean Sacha, Robert Vernay, Henri Verneuil, Jacqueline Audry, Pierre Billon, Le Chanois, Jean Dréville, Robert Darène, Georges Lampin, Jean Devaivre, Christian-Jaque, Jack Pinoteau, René Chanas, Kirsanoff, Swoboda[sic], Henri Decoin, Sacha Guitry, Julien Duvivier, Georges Lacombe, and André Hunnebelle

And includes this by Truffaut: "Let's regret finding there the names Raymond Bernard, Christian-Jaque, Sacha Guitry and Julien Duvivier who prior to the war knew how to demonstrate themselves as commercial but better yet as artists"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
thethirdman wrote:
Truffaut apparently grouped Bernard in a category labeled "the honestly commercial."
He listed the following directors in the same category:

Bernard Borderie, Henri Calef, Maurice Cloche, Guy Lefranc, Léonide Moguy, Richard Pottier, Jean Sacha, Robert Vernay, Henri Verneuil, Jacqueline Audry, Pierre Billon, Le Chanois, Jean Dréville, Robert Darène, Georges Lampin, Jean Devaivre, Christian-Jaque, Jack Pinoteau, René Chanas, Kirsanoff, Swoboda[sic], Henri Decoin, Sacha Guitry, Julien Duvivier, Georges Lacombe, and André Hunnebelle

KIRSANOFF??? COMMERCIAL??? Well, if there's any need for defending Bernard against foulmouthing, that must seal it.... Give me "Wooden Crosses" any day as long as it comes in a package with "Menilmontant" and "Brumes d'Automne". The latter was made DURING the war, and "Arriere saison" in 1950.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:14 pm 

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:12 pm
Quote:
Give me "Wooden Crosses" any day as long as it comes in a package with "Menilmontant" and "Brumes d'Automne". The latter was made DURING the war, and "Arriere saison" in 1950.

I completely agree with you about Kirsanoff, but wasn't Brume d'Automne made in 1929 and Menilmontant in 1926?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Wow Gringo- that was psycho even for you. Which is saying something. Back to back-posting!! This is awesome. You guys lose your mind and I'll pop in every here & there for laughs & fuel, deal? (not).


You guys having fun there?
(Worst auto wreck on the forum. Adios.)

PS-- Brumes de was made in the late silent era, 28/9


Last edited by HerrSchreck on Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Tommaso wrote:
KIRSANOFF??? COMMERCIAL??? Well, if there's any need for defending Bernard against foulmouthing, that must seal it....

It looks like Kirsanoff made a number of feature films in the 50s (judging by IMDB). How many have you seen? How many do you think the Cahiers people saw?

Honestly commercial is NOT really a slam, you know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
EDIT: Indeed it's getting faster and faster here, I missed two posts while typing. So ptmd and Schreck: Yes, you're right. I wonder why I mixed the date for "Brumes" up (and with what, Epstein's "Tempestiare" perhaps? Just because it's on the same disc). Sorry.

Thinking about the Truffaut quote again, I still wonder whether I missed something regarding a supposed artistic decline of Kirsanoff. Of course I only know these three films I mentioned (as there are no others easily available with subs, apart from one other film only available in some massive set of Swiss films). I can't see much of a stylistic difference comparing the two early films with "Arriere saison", made 20 years later. So either the latter film is a 'return to form', or Truffaut's list was somewhat off in the first place. And that's of course what I believe. Same for Bernard: he MAY have had his later films in mind, of course, as he tentatively acknowledges the early films' artistic worth. I think the whole split between commercial vs artistic films is a product of the late 50s and doesn't really apply to pre-war films. Many Renoir films from the 30s were highly commercial, but still they are among the most artistic films from that period as well, at least speaking of France.
EDIT again: So of course I agree with Michael Kerpan that commercial needn't be a slam, but I'm not so sure about Truffaut's intention when using the word.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:28 pm 

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: U.S.
HerrSchreck wrote:
craig how old are you?


73, or 12 -- whichever gives you the fuller sense of self-satisfaction.

HerrSchreck wrote:
Dude I don't have the slightest idea what youre saying here. You're garbling everything in this abysmally confused pseudoliterary hypolingo...


Pot, meet CriterionForum's protesting-too-much kettle of manic insecurity.

Since you're incapable of having a conversation without blowing your lid (cf. Christley), I'll bow out of any more discussion here about that great Spielberg, Raymond Bernard. -- who, in summary for readers just tuning in, was a giant of a filmmaker because (a) movies are just entertainment; and (b) the creation of visceral, "realistic" battle scenes is one of the hallmarks of a major artist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Tommaso wrote:
So of course I agree with Michael Kerpan that commercial needn't be a slam, but I'm not so sure about Truffaut's intention when using the word.

I think the key word is "honest" -- which would appear to involve a certain degree of approbation -- on an important point.

But perhaps one might need to know the French word that is translated as "honest"' to be absolutely sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River
Tommaso wrote:
EDIT: Indeed it's getting faster and faster here, I missed two posts while typing. So ptmd and Schreck: Yes, you're right. I wonder why I mixed the date for "Brumes" up (and with what, Epstein's "Tempestiare" perhaps? Just because it's on the same disc). Sorry.

Thinking about the Truffaut quote again, I still wonder whether I missed something regarding a supposed artistic decline of Kirsanoff. Of course I only know these three films I mentioned (as there are no others easily available with subs, apart from one other film only available in some massive set of Swiss films). I can't see much of a stylistic difference comparing the two early films with "Arriere saison", made 20 years later. So either the latter film is a 'return to form', or Truffaut's list was somewhat off in the first place. And that's of course what I believe. Same for Bernard: he MAY have had his later films in mind, of course, as he tentatively acknowledges the early films' artistic worth. I think the whole split between commercial vs artistic films is a product of the late 50s and doesn't really apply to pre-war films. Many Renoir films from the 30s were highly commercial, but still they are among the most artistic films from that period as well, at least speaking of France.
EDIT again: So of course I agree with Michael Kerpan that commercial needn't be a slam, but I'm not so sure about Truffaut's intention when using the word.


In Wheeler Dixon's collection of Early criticism Truffaut dismisses Kirsanoff as unworthy of a review citing only films with 'a minimum of ambition' review worthy. From the date (1955/6) these films though not named are taken to refer to 'Le Craneur','Ce soir le jupons volent' and "the aptly named" 'Miss Catastrophe."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
evillights wrote:
I'll bow out of any more discussion here about that great Spielberg, Raymond Bernard.


As the great (Tradition of Quality cartoonist) Tex Avery's Wolf said to that other great muncher Billy Boy --

"copy-cayat"

(Broom Whack).

(Cartoon out-take an extra for the dvd)

Hey yall m'name is evillights
I come out & gyrate in pink tights
I & Gringo lay awake nights,
Staring at the ceiiiiil-ing;

This Bernadine love it make-a us rage
We simply cannot turn-a the page
Until those Battle Scenes from a yonder age
seem less appeallll-ing.

Hips to the right, hands up & down
Gringo & Me, we draw on this town
Sixshooters blazing Les Miz all around
and Ray-mond-y destruuuction

Toe shoes a-click, gringo a twirl
I pirrouhette like a flirting girl, (then)
sink the knife deep in the Woodcrossy world
and leave a wet suuuuc-tion.
(Electric boogaloo then headspin. Blast of trumpets:
fadeout).

(Cheap analog Warner Credits roll.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:43 pm 

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
Location: LA CA
Quote:
(Worst auto wreck on the forum. Adios.)

Ladies and gentlemen. Back to the pile-up after a nearly four [!] hour absence, our own second-rate Thomas Pynchon wannabe, master of the didactic and final arbiter of all things, I give you ...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection