Cinemablography@gmail.com
Cinemablography
  • Home
  • About
  • Journal
    • Existentialism in Film >
      • The Existential Philosophy of Melancholia
      • The Philosophy of Camus in The Dead Don't Die
      • The Existentialist Subtext of Dear Evan Hansen
      • An Existentialist Reading of "The Turin Horse"
    • A Woman's Perspective: Gender, and Identity in the Romanian New Wave
    • Film Theory Issue 1
    • Film Theory Issue 2
    • Science Fiction
    • Science Fiction Issue 2
    • Pan's Labyrinth
    • Kathryn Bigelow >
      • Opening Scene
      • Supermarket Scene
      • Round Table Discussion
  • Blog
  • Articles by Category
  • Contributors
  • Videographic Essays
  • Our Work
    • Links

Reverence & Revision: David Lowery’s "The Green Knight" in Conversation With the Original Poem

11/19/2021

0 Comments

 
by Ned Kuczmynda
When works of literature are brought to the silver screen a common litmus test revolves around the fealty paid by the adaptation to the source text. Faithful films are praised for being true to the original story, but those that deviate are often panned and viewed as artistic compromises. One such example is Robert Zemeckis’ Beowulf (2007), which took many liberties with its adaptation of the ancient poem. Similarly divisive was Baz Luhrman’s Romeo and Juliet (1996) which transported the classic play into a heavily stylized gangster-epic.
These films’ failures to win the approval of devotees indicates that despite being thousands of years old, ancient works are not exempt from the confines of the source. This is what makes David Lowery’s screenplay for The Green Knight (2021) so daring. His film is not just a recreation of the Arthurian original but a response as well. Despite many major deviations from the events of the source material, the film is true to the heart of the myth and embodies a similar tone despite its occasional alternate events.
Picture
King Arthur (Sean Harris)  at the head of his round table
David Lowery understands the importance of context. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was a story told to represent the ideals of the society that birthed it. The poem represents three things that were of utmost importance to Medieval society: physical prowess, chivalric honor, and chastity. Lowery seems to isolate those specific aspects of the play, offering his own revisions for how they are portrayed, and raising questions about how much of their value persists in modern society.
In the film’s most famous scene, the Green Knight enters the room, and makes his fateful proposition. Gawain’s acceptance is not bold, it is scared and reluctant. As he takes to his knees the Knight raises his axe in offering. Gawain refuses, instead using Excalibur to deliver the deadly blow. In the text Gawain sees an enemy kneeling in submission as much less of a threat. He confidently raises the axe and mightily strikes downward.

Gawain grips to his ax and gathers it aloft--
The left foot on the floor before him he set--
Brought it down deftly upon the bare neck,
That the shock of the sharp blow shivered the bones
And cut the flesh cleanly and clove it twain,
That the blade of bright steel bit into the ground (421-426).
​

Curiously, the story that the people of Gawain’s village seem to latch onto in the film with their stories and puppet shows is much more akin to the myth, in which Gawain’s smiting of the Green Knight is an act of bravery, not of fear.
A year later, when Gawain embarks on his journey he is almost immediately set upon by teenaged bandits. Instead of fending them off, they subdue Gawain, taking everything from him and leaving him tied up to die. Lowery uses a clever time lapse here showing the seasons passing as Gawain slowly starves to death on the forest floor, unable to escape his bonds. Suddenly he awakes from his morbid dream, but the message of what could have happened is clear. The quest nearly ended before it even began.

Picture
Lowery shows us a vision of Gawain’s quest going horribly wrong
Lowery’s Gawain does not just subvert the average moviegoers idea of what a knight should be, he undercuts what one would have been historically. Throughout the film, different characters see Gawain, and expect strength from him; after all knights are meant to be armor clad saviors. Gawain is a coward carrying armor and weapons that aren’t his, riding a horse he acquired on loan from his uncle. In doing this, Lowery also manages to subtly castigate the notion of a benevolent warrior. We don’t see much actual armed conflict in the film but we do see the aftermath of one of Camelot’s battles. All the glorious heroes have ridden off, and Gawain travels through a field of smoke and slain bodies.
The second major change that Lowery makes is to Gawain’s moral character. The mythical Gawain, though powerful, is known for his rectitude. Lowery robs him of that too. We first find Gawain in a brothel. We learn that he frequents it and is particularly close with a woman named Essel. Despite their relationship Gawain refuses to make any commitment to her. Then there is his on-screen motivation: which is solely for himself. Arthur asks him prior to the Green Knight’s entrance to tell him a story, and Gawain responds that he has none. His willingness to take the Knight's challenge can be seen as a response to the desire to finally have a story of his own to tell. Standing in contrast is Gawain’s speech in the text in which he begs Arthur to let him take on the challenge. “My body, but for your blood, is barren of worth; / And for that this folly befits not a king, / And it is I that have asked it, it ought to be mine,” (357-358). Here, his sole motivation is for King Arthur’s honor, and this is shown by the way Gawain demeans himself in the process of asking.
After Gawain beheads the Green Knight, and becomes a celebrity, he uses his new fame in the worst ways. He carouses about in bars, trying to drink away the threat looming in the future. At another part of the film Gawain is faced with the opportunity to help a ghostly damsel in distress. He asks her what she will do for him if he completes this task for her. Her response is likely the same as the audience’s “Why would you ask me that?”. Gawain does eventually oblige but such a question is one that would likely not even enter his mind in the poem.
A central attribute to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is the way our hero is tested along his journey. The Gawain Poet pits him against two tests. The most obvious is the beheading test: how will he answer the challenge to take a knee before the Green Knight and meet his axe? The second is what is colloquially known in Gawain scholarship as “the love test”.
Picture
Lady Bertilak (Alicia Vikander) “tests” Gawain (Dev Patel)
In his travels, Gawain comes upon a mysterious castle, with a very hospitable lord. He invites Gawain to stay for three nights. Because it is near Christmastime, he proposes a friendly game. When he returns out from hunting each day, he will give Gawain whatever he catches. In return, Gawain must pay him back with whatever he happens to receive while he is gone. Each night while the lord is away, his wife enters Gawain’s bedchamber, and tempts him. He resists each time, only accepting kisses – one the first night, two the second night, and three the third --  and nothing more. However on the third night, she gives him a magical girdle, woven with an enchantment that will protect him from the Green Knight’s blade. When it comes time to make good on their agreement, the lord of the castle gives Gawain a deer, a boar, and a fox. For each of those, Gawain gives the lord the kisses he received, he withholds the sash.
David Lowery’s changes to this portion of the story are perhaps the most jarring, probably because one could easily say that Gawain decisively fails the love test. He allows much more than a kiss, but an act of sexuality that concludes with the lady exclaiming “you’re no knight!”. Gawain does not make good on his agreement however, instead he leaves the castle in a hurry and runs into the lord on his way out, at which point the lord takes his kisses, indicating that he knows more than he is letting on.
Also worth mentioning is that Gawain’s encounter with the spirit of Saint Winifred practically constitutes a third test. Winifred is a woman who was brutally raped and murdered by a nobleman, who beheaded her and threw her head into the spring. When she meets Gawain, she asks him if he will retrieve her head from the spring. He does, and this bodes well for the quality of Gawain’s character. Here Lowery gives Gawain an opportunity to offer dignity to a woman who has been starkly wronged by a powerful man.
Finally, Lowery changes how Gawain reacts to the most important test - facing his death at the hand of the Knight. Like in the text, Gawain kneels down, and flinches at the first blow. In the text, Gawain braces himself for a second blow, and the Knight swings, but does not complete the strike, simply saying that he was seeing how Gawain would react. In the film however we receive an extended alternate ending sequence a la La La Land (2016), in which Gawain runs away from the second blow. He leaves the Green Chapel, mounts his horse and rides back to Camelot, where he is received as a hero. He inherits Arthur’s throne and becomes a powerful ruler. As the years progress we see evidence of his conquest. Finally, invaders come to Camelot, breaking down the castle door. Gawain removes the magic girdle from his waist, and his head dramatically falls from its shoulders.

Picture
Gawain’s vision of himself as King
We flash back to reality and Gawain, still kneeling before the Knight, removes the girdle. He urges the Knight to finally make good on his promise. The Knight thanks Gawain for his honesty and says, “off with your head”. What happens after that, unlike in the text, is left ambiguous for us to infer. In the text, the Knight merely knicks Gawain’s neck, and spares him, chiding him for keeping the girdle a secret (he doesn’t take it off in the original version). In the film, we cut to black.
Lowery’s motives are ambiguous. One could assert that he is simply varying the story of Sir Gawain for the sake of telling something new. Although he does accomplish this, Lowery’s revisions to the story are part of the conversation he is having with it. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight became the classic poem it did because it addressed something that was of serious concern to people in that society. Gawain’s fealty to the code of chivalry, and steadfastness in doing right save his life in the end.
Lowery gives us a modern myth in which we don’t know what Gawain’s fate is. Whether he lives or dies is left up to the imagination. Throughout this film Gawain fails time after time to do the right thing, and at the end as he looks death in the face, he does what is honorable. He may still die; we don’t know. Lowery wants us to know that doing the right thing won’t save us, but right or wrong death will come for us. He invites us to consider what kind of death we want to have. 

Image Credits:
Wonderland Magazine
Vox
Geek Girl Authority
0 Comments

The Last Duel: A Review

11/12/2021

1 Comment

 

by Mason Leaver

Picture
Trigger Warning: Domestic Violence and Sexual assault in The Last Duel 

The Last Duel (2021) by Ridley Scott is a complicated work to review. It is a film with incredible spectacle and action, beautiful cinematography, gripping performances, and a compelling narrative. At the same time, the story deals with a subject matter that is so horrific, it’s hard to analyze any part of the film save for it’s handling of this event. In his latest film, Ridley Scott rides a fine line between creating an epic and sensationalizing assault, between denouncing brutality and highlighting it, between criticizing medieval values and oversimplifying modern values. Nevertheless, he has succeeded in threading the needle, though not without the occasional misstep. 
    The Last Duel focuses on the story of the historical duel between the French knight Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) and squire Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver). After Carrouges’s wife, Marguerite (Jodie Comer) accuses Le Gris of violently raping her, Carrouges challenges the squire to a judicial duel, to “allow God to decide” who is lying and who is telling the truth. Carrouges and Le Gris were once friends, but the film shows how the two slowly fall apart over the years. This takes up the majority of the runtime, and plays out as a complicated medieval court soap opera. The characters and their relationships are complex, and the politics of medieval France are played out carefully and dramatically. ​
Picture
The film is structured in three chapters, each offering a different character’s perspective on the events. The first chapter focuses on the perspective of Carrouge, and the second shows Le Gris’s. The final chapter is titled “The Truth”, featuring the perspective of Marguerite. What we learn through these repeated viewings of events is that both men have horribly misunderstood Marguerite and have horribly mistreated her, culminating in Le Gris raping the woman. As we learn more about the two men and their history, we begin to realize that the reason for this duel may just be a pretense - it is suggested that the two men just want a reason to try to kill each other. Using this repeating structure allows the audience to progressively gain a better understanding of the characters and their motivations in a unique way. At the same time, it naturally creates a three act structure, culminating in the climax of the titular duel. After the duel, the film wraps up so quickly that it feels as if the film may have been better served by ending on the conclusion of the duel, rather than trying to fit in additional content. 
Picture
                                                                     Carrouge (left) and Marguerite (right)
    One of the most outstanding aspects of The Last Duel is the incredible scale of the film. Ridley Scott frequently features massive set pieces that depict a Medieval France that feels lived in and real. Likewise, the war scenes and battles feel epic in scale. The film cost around 100 million dollars to make, and this huge budget makes the film feel as grand in scale as some of the Biblical epics of the 1950’s. Likewise, the final duel of the film feels extremely gritty and personal. The scene is dynamic - the positions of the two duelists shift and change throughout the fight, offering a tense and dramatic conclusion. It feels like Ridley Scott brought much of what he learned from making Gladiator (2000) into these scenes, though this film’s combat feels a bit weightier and more brutal than the combat of Gladiator. ​
Picture
                                                                  One of the intense duels in “The Last Duel”
    As I stated previously, it feels like Ridley Scott is walking a fine line in this film. The scenes are gorgeously shot and feature huge set pieces and high drama. At the same time, the film is centered around some horrific events and depicts the horrible conditions that women lived in during the Medieval times. Scott simultaneously uses these events to critique the modern treatment of women, suggesting that many of the barbaric tendencies of the Medieval world have persisted to this day. Scott’s decision to show the assault not once, but twice, may seem to some viewers to be gratuitous. Indeed, I do wonder if this was necessary; it feels as if the film would have been just as powerful without showing us the scene from Le Gris’s perspective. Nevertheless, Scott broached a very difficult subject with a level of finesse and sophistication, even if I do not agree with every decision he made throughout, as I would have advocated for removing the assault scene from Le Gris’s chapter. Ultimately, it will be up to each viewer to form an opinion on what is in good taste and what is not. 
    The Last Duel is a film which features deep truths, challenging content, beautiful cinematography, excellent performances, and a compelling drama. It is a shame, then, that the film has done horrendously at the box office. The film has grossed just $23 million out of the initial $100 million budget. It is upsetting that more people are not seeing the film. If films like The Last Duel are going to be made in the future, audiences need to show their interest and appreciation by attending these films in the theater. A film like The Last Duel deserves to be seen on a big screen, in order to capture it’s grand scale. I cannot recall a film in recent memory which feels quite as large as Duel, and I fear that we may not see another for some time as a result of it’s financial failure. Regardless of its box office struggles, the film remains a deeply engrossing epic, worthy of seeing in a theater. ​
1 Comment

The Danger of Movie Remakes: The Guilty (2018) vs The Guilty (2021)

11/12/2021

3 Comments

 

by Reed Milliken

Picture
The Guilty (2018, Gustav Möller) is a Danish drama crime thriller about an emergency dispatcher and former police officer, Asger Holm, who answers an emergency call from a kidnapped woman. When the call is suddenly disconnected, the search for the woman and her kidnapper begins. The Guilty (2021, Antoine Fuqua) is an American drama crime thriller about an emergency dispatcher and former police detective, Joe Baylor, who answers an emergency call from a kidnapped woman. When the call is suddenly disconnected, the search for the woman and her kidnapper begins. Sound familiar?
The following article includes spoilers for The Guilty (2018) and The Guilty (2021). Viewer discretion is advised.
Picture
When a movie is remade, a new version of an already made movie is created to tell the same story using a different cast and alters the theme or changes the story's setting. Remakes are by no means a new concept, but my grievance towards them first started when I saw that Bong Joon Ho’s six-time Academy Award-winning, South Korean drama-thriller, Parasite (2019), was being remade into a TV show on HBOMax. With the film’s laundry list of awards and overwhelmingly positive reviews, Parasite (2019), is the closest thing to a masterpiece we have gotten in the last ten years.
So, you may ask yourself, if this movie is so good, why would it need to be remade? In this situation, where the remake involves taking a foreign film and remaking it in English for an American audience, the answer is simple. People don’t want to read subtitles. Joon Ho acknowledges this and even goes as far as to mention it in his acceptance speech for Best Picture at the 2020 Oscars, “Once you overcome the-one-inch barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.” (Joon-Ho, 2020). From a personal perspective, this is very true. Movies such as House (1977), Train to Busan (2016), and The Guilty (2018) are all amazing films that I wouldn’t have watched if I was afraid to read subtitles. A film being made in a foreign language isn’t always the reason for remaking a movie, but it is one of the most popular. A prime example of this involves the two films I want to discuss today, The Guilty (2018) and The Guilty (2021).
The Guilty (2018) was produced in Denmark and was therefore released in Danish. This version of the film has been very well received by audiences and critics alike; mostly due to its style of storytelling is. As mentioned before, The Guilty (2018) follows an emergency dispatch operator named Asger Holm as he tries to help a woman who has been kidnapped. However, the camera never leaves Holm’s perspective, and every aspect of the kidnapping story is heard over the phone. By keeping the story within the operator's room, we're forced to picture the rest of the story in our heads. This made for an entirely new film-watching experience, almost combining the charm of reading a book with the luxury of watching a film. ​
Picture
Unfortunately, The Guilty (2021) is not many of these things. Released three years later and in English, this version of the movie has not been as critically successful as its father film. Furthermore, there are a plethora of differences between the two when it comes to the story and how it is told. In what I assume was an effort to differentiate itself from its predecessor, The Guilty (2021) does not use as unique of a storytelling method. For starters, the camera is taken outside of the operator's room, therefore ruining the magic of being able to picture the situations on the other end of the line for yourself. My father, who I watched The Guilty (2018) with at the time, as well as myself both really enjoyed being able to picture the action for ourselves. On top of being able to experience a unique filmmaking experience, this technique also was beneficial to building tension. With fewer cuts between different locations, and not truly knowing for sure what is going on the other end of the line, we both found ourselves captivated and immersed in the severity of the situation. Not only does the camera stay with Asger the whole time, but we do too, feeling each twist and turn just as Asger is experiencing it. Going back to The Guilty (2021), by leaving the operator’s room and cutting to other locations, the suspense, at least for me, was ruined. Therefore, a large part of what made the original so special and so unique became absent in the remake. I encourage filmmakers to distance themselves from the original work when producing remakes, but not so much so where the intrigue is lost. 
Picture
Furthermore, the differences lie deeper than just what you see on screen, as a lot of the meaning and context behind The Guilty (2018) is lost in its adaptation. For starters, there is a change in the name of the main character. In the Danish version, the emergency dispatcher is named Asger, while in the American version, he’s named Joe. This may not seem like too large of a change, it even makes sense for an American name to be chosen for the American version, but a lot of depth is lost in this translation. In Danish, the name Asger means spear, deriving from the Old Norse elements Æsir or ás, meaning "gods" and geirr, meaning "spear". This name is a proper reflection of the character, a spear is a pointed weapon made for quick, violent jabs. As we find out by the end of the movie, the reason Asger was put on dispatch duty was because he killed an innocent teenager by gunshot. His name reflects the reason he was put in the position we see him in the film. As for the American version, the main character’s name is Joe. In English, the name Joe just means an ordinary man, i.e. the phrase “just your average Joe”. While it could be argued that the character was named Joe as a juxtaposition to his true nature, I don’t think it’s that deep. 
My main reason for not making a mountain out of a molehill is that this isn’t the first time a meaningful name has been stripped of significance in favor of the name Joe in an American remake. Oldboy (2013) is a Spike Lee directed remake of the Korean mystery thriller Oldboy (2003), directed by Park Chan-Wook. In the original, the main character’s name is Dae-su, which means “to get through one day at a time”. Oldboy (2003) follows Dae-su as he is imprisoned for fifteen years, leading his name to signify the long, slow-paced life that he lives. Changing foreign names to a more common American one in this context is a no-brainer, but it’s unfortunate to see the new name choices become stripped of meaning when the originals held such significance. ​
Picture
On top of this, the twists and turns of the plot of The Guilty (2018) are copied, in some cases, word for word in The Guilty (2021). Therefore, anyone who wishes to watch the original after the remake will have the story spoiled for them, removing one of the most compelling parts of the movie, the tension. It could then be argued that the target audience for the remake are those who have not seen the original, therefore being able to enjoy the twists and turns as I did while watching the original, but I argue that if nothing is changed to the plot of the story then why does it need to be remade? If there are only aesthetical changes made to the film compared to the original, then is remaking it worth it? Again we go back to the issue of subtitles, but there are much easier ways to make foreign films a bigger appeal to English-speaking audiences, such as dubbing, rather than remaking the whole movie from the bottom up.
A common trend I noticed while perusing reviews for The Guilty (2021) is that those who hadn’t seen the original enjoyed the remake much more, those who had seen the original enjoyed it much less, and vice versa. What this means is that remaking a movie can damage the original work it was based on. The common intent while remaking a movie is for the story of the original to be more easily viewable by a wider audience. Instead, remakes are damaging the original films by making them less enjoyable for those who watched the remake. If remakes accomplished what they set out to do, then that would be a different story.
The length in time between the release of the original and when the remake gets greenlit is another large issue with remaking a movie. There were only three years between the release of The Guilty (2018) and The Guilty (2021). If a remake is made long enough after the original that modern-day technology can make a significant difference in the look and feel, then remaking the movie feels more worthwhile. Godzilla (2014) was released 60 years after its predecessor, Godzilla (1954) In the time between the two movies, there were vast improvements to almost every aspect of filmmaking. Godzilla (1954) brought the Kaiju to life through clever puppetry and suits shot on film, whereas Godzilla (2014) utilized CGI and VFX and was shot on digital. When you boil it down, both movies are the same when it comes to story, but due to these improvements, the look, style, and feel of the movies are vastly different. With only three years between the two versions of The Guilty, there was nothing new to bring to the table from a production standpoint.
Picture
When foreign movies are remade by an American studio and there is no ulterior motive other than to introduce the story in a more easily digestible form to American viewers, producing the remake doesn’t feel as worthwhile. Going back to that quote by Bong Joon-Ho, if someone isn’t willing to jump that one-inch hurdle to watch a great movie, then maybe they don’t get to watch that movie. It may seem like I’m gatekeeping, and maybe I am, but running around the hurdle instead of jumping over it by remaking it in English, only for a more bland version of the movie to be produced is a terrible way to overcome that obstacle. It not only ruins the original for those who watched the remake first, going against what the remake set out to do, but it strips the original of all of its meaning and importance. If Hollywood continues this trend of remaking film after film, creating a more dull and bleak version each time, how long is it before these stories are lost in the very thing that set out to make them known? I leave you with this question: would you rather jump that hurdle and preserve the movie’s true nature, watching a great film in the process, or run around it and watch a mediocre movie instead?
Picture
3 Comments

Midsommar: An Occult Examination of Grief

11/5/2021

0 Comments

 
by Emma Zeller
Picture
Ari Aster stated that the concept for Midsommar (2019)  came to him after a breakup of his own. The first time watching the film I was in shock, but the second time around it was easier to pick up on the details Aster placed within the film.  
One night Dani (Florence Pugh) is sitting by her computer worried about her sister's well-being, she calls her boyfriend Christian (Jack Reynor) a boyfriend who is too afraid to end his long-term relationship, later Dani receiving a horrific call at her entire family, including her parents and sister are dead.  Realizing she has no one left in her life she must stay in her rocky and unstable relationship. On the other hand, Christian and his college friends planned a trip to Sweden with their friend who is a native and wants to take them to the Midsommar festival. Dani is made aware of her boyfriend's trip at a party, when they return home the conversation turns sour and given the circumstances Christian feels obligated to invite Dani both unaware of the events about to unfold.
Picture
The audience goes through all the events at the same time as Dani, this causes the viewer to feel Dani’s despair. Throughout the film all Dani wants is Christian’s full attention and devotion. Even when she starts to understand the Cult’s deepest intentions, she still seems to compromise her will for Christians. In the second half of the film, Christian is chosen and rugged by one of the cult’s young women who wants to have a baby. A ritual is performed while Christian and the women have intercourse, simultaneously Dani is searching for Christian to voice her concern and sees him cheating on her. This causes Dani to spiral, and she realizes their relationship has reached the point of no return. She fully realizes with her family dead and Christian no longer being committed to her that she is truly alone, which may be the most terrifying part of the film. At the end of the film when Dani accepts her fate and becomes at peace there is a distinct disconnect between the audience and the protagonist. Dani’s smile in the final sequence represents her full acceptance and the complete disconnect into the cult Which instills more fear into the audience. 
Midsommar is about Dani grieving her relationship with Christian. While rewatching the film and knowing the final scene, I was able to follow Dani’s stages of grief throughout the film. There is a sequence where Christian states that he is going to a party and says Dani does not have to come if she does not feel up to it. Dani denies she is feeling unwell and proceeds to go to the party. The following two scenes show Dani and Christian at the party, then arguing about his trip to Sweden. Once they return home Dani begins to get angry at Christian and when she feels him pulling away she begins to bargain so he will stay. Throughout the whole trip in Sweden Dani is Depressed and feels guilty for asking Christian to go home because she is afraid. It comes to a breaking point when she catches Christian cheating on her with one of the women in the cult. The final sequence, as Dani watches Christian burst into flames, she smiles. This is her full acceptance of her pain and loss. 

Picture
The concept of grief and watching the stages that Dani goes through, without Christian’s support, was the scariest part the second time viewing it. Dani’s smile in the final shot of the film  invoked fear in many of the viewers. Ari Aster rooted this film in Dani and Christian’s breakup while adding folk horror elements to almost give the viewer the worst-case scenario when it comes to a breakup. 
0 Comments

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    February 2023
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    July 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.