You must be always reference theory (i.e. gangster light is Steve Chibnall's idea, 2009) and Laura Mulvey did not write about the film, she wrote the 'Gaze' theory in 1975 but we can apply it to films now to see it her theory is still true.
Sunday, 21 November 2010
Friday, 12 November 2010
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
What does the film 'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' (Ritchie, 1998) tell us about male identity in Britain, in the 1990s?
The film Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is about the criminal underworld in London. The film shows different gangs of males that are all after the same things, money and power. The males in this film are represented as violent, ruthless and unemotional.
Guy Ritchie has a lot to do with the making of this film, as he was the director. He believes that "men should be more powerful than this". Magazines such as FHM and Loaded are thought to communicate the idea of ‘new laddism’, which emerged in the 90’s as a backlash to feminism. In 2000 "The Sunday Times" stated that this film was 'sexist' and 'fascist', he also thought that the film influenced the people of Britain with the amount of violence that happens in this film. He believed that Guy Ritchie had 'polluted the British film industry' and created a stereotype of men in Britain.
As Lock Stock is based on gangsters in the 90's I feel that the male gaze has much to do with this film. Laura Mulvey suggested that in certain films she had noticed that we see a lot more women than men; this film is a perfect example as we see mainly men and hardly any women. Mulvey also states that women are made to appear as objects of desire rather than herself. The male gaze theory argues that there is never a female protagonist in films, because females only have passive roles and that the active protagonist is always a man. There is a few women in this film but rather than actually being characters in the film they come across more as objects rather than actual roles in the film. Although this film is trying to portray that men are tough and violent there is a scene in this film where another gang in their own home is attacking the four men, after fighting for a while suddenly a woman appears with a rifle and shoots the intruders. The woman has saved them with a gun, although she did not say a word. The only man left standing in the room punches her in the face without a second thought. She would still count as a character in the film but this isn't a main role, as we do not get to know her and she does not speak. This shows that the males feel their identity should top the women's identity and it is more important. There is another scene in this film, which involves a woman but no words from her; she is a lap dancer in a club where the men are having a meeting. She is in the background of the shot dancing making it hard to focus on the men, as she is a distraction whilst they are trying to have a serious conversation.
Adorno and Fiske’s theories fit into context also with this film. Adorno would argue that because there is a lot of violence and laddism in this film that everyone would watch the film then decide this is the way they should be as he feels everyone will soon have the same identity due to the popular culture of today. Whereas Fiske would argue that everyone has a different opinion on film and therefore no identities would clash, as everyone is their own person. Adorno stated that because we were all watching the same things and learning nothing new we would gradually all become the same people. In the film Lock Stock it is portrayed that all men are violent and unemotional so Adorno would argue that this is what we will learn, that young men will watch this film, the many gangster films that followed until 2001, and get the same messages from the lad mags of the time, and grow up thinking that this is how they should act, Fiske argues that although this is what the public are viewing media is always updating itself with new cultures and ways of life. He says that we won't all be the same and we aren't all learning the same things as people would always have a different opinion on the film, therefore they would not all act in the same way after seeing this film. In this case I agree with Fiske as after watching this film and learning about when it was made and how London's culture was back then I could see that now there has been a change, stories like Lock Stock may still happen behind the scenes but its not as obvious as it was when the film was made, also nowadays with the way we have to take care and listen to health and safety none of what happened in this film would be allowed, the only way this would still be happening would be if it was all happening illegally. Many theorists agree that whether it be true or not, the film makes a comment about masculinity. At the time that this film was made British gang culture was very much about being a gangster and competing with other gangs of the same nature for the same thing, which was usually money.
I have decided this film is gangster light as it is a violent film but the violence has been turned into humor. There is no real violence in this film, there are fights, gun attacks and stabbing but we don't see any of this in detail. There is a part of the film where a man is getting beaten up and his head is hanging out of a car door, one of the male protagonists is beating him, we don't actually see his head in the door or any blood. We just hear him being beaten up. I feel that this has been created like this as the film is trying to show that although the male identity is meant to be above everyone else (in this film) that even though the male protagonist is beating up another male his identity is still the same, even though he is not beating a woman.
There is a debate about this film affecting male identity as it can only be an opinion and does not actually have a correct answer but I think that the gangster light style of this film makes the violence seem funny and also it is made out to look like there is no consequences of their actions. People may feel that it may have a negative impact on the formation of identity in young males, as they will follow the men in this film thinking that what the do is right.
Overall I think Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is a great film and personally I don’t see a problem with it. People see it as a bad influence on young males identity suggesting that they will follow people in the film, as violence is not taken seriously. The male gaze shows a lot in this film as it is mainly male cast with few women, the only women in this film are seen as distracting objects rather than people. I think Guy Ritchie was trying to portray a message due to the gang culture at the time that this film was made. Men in this film are seen as violent and ruthless, they are all competing for the same thing, which in this case, is money. I think he was trying to show that men are powerful and strong, although the problem was that not everyone see’s this film in this way.
Monday, 1 November 2010
Essay 2 Feedback
Showing some progress Jess, well done. You have offered a balance of theory and knowledge of the text, relevant ideas and generally relevant arguments, although sometimes straying from the point of the question. This means you are on the D/C grade border.
Your next step is to ensure you carefully plan your essays BEFORE you write. It really shows that you don't do this and you really need to as you develop essay writing skills. You lose your path so some of your points don't clearly fit the question or they aren't thought through so you have no evidence to back it up (essential).
You now need to re-write this essay ASAP, acting on ALL feedback points in red below.
Level 3 (You are bottom level 3)
Explanation/analysis/argument (12-15 marks)
Candidates adapt their learning to the specific requirements of the chosen question well, in the main. The answer offers a sensible, mostly clear balance of media theories and knowledge of industries and texts, with a proficient attempt at personally engaging with issues and debates.
Use of examples (12-15 marks)
Examples of theories, texts and industry knowledge are connected together in places, and a clear argument is proficiently developed in response to the question. History and the future are discussed with relevance.
Use of terminology (6-7 marks)
Material presented is mostly informed by contemporary media theory, articulated through use of appropriate theoretical terms.
Relatively straightforward ideas have been expressed with some clarity and fluency. Arguments are generally relevant, though may stray from the point of the question. There will be some errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar but these are unlikely to be intrusive or obscure meaning.
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
What does the film 'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' (Ritchie, 1998) tell us about male identity in Britain, in the 1990s?
The film Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is about the criminal underworld in London. The film shows different gangs of males that are all after the same things, money and power. The males in this film are represented as violent, ruthless and unemotional.
Guy Ritchie has a lot to do with the making of this film, [was the director] he believes that "men should be more powerful than this". [Where is this quote from?] Magazines such as FHM and Loaded also believed that this view was correct. x [No, like the film, they are thought to communicate the idea of 'new laddism' which emerged in the 90s as a backlash to feminisim] In 2000 a writer [state name of writer] for The Sunday Times said that this film was 'sexist' and 'fascist', he also thought that the film influenced the people of Britain with the amount of violence that happens in this film. He believed that Guy Ritchie had 'polluted the British film industry' and created a stereotype of men in Britain.
As Lock Stock is based on gangsters in the 90's I feel that the male gaze has much to do with this film. [Bring the theory in as a way of discussing the film as a text set up for the 'Male Gaze' - it was written with a male audience in mind.] The male gaze theory argues us that there is never a female protagonist in films, because females only have passive roles, and that the active protagonist is always a man. In this film I have found that this is exactly what happens. There are a few women in this film but rather than actually being important characters in the film they come across more as objects. Although this film is trying to portray that men are tough and violent there is a scene in this film where another gang in their own home is attacking the four men, after fighting for a while suddenly a woman appears with a rifle and shoots the intruders. [The men are shocked at her actions but don't complain as she just got them out of trouble. x Not shown in the film.] The woman has saved them with a gun, although she did not say a word. The only man left standing in the room punches her in the face without a second thought. She would still count as a character in the film but we do not get to know her and she does not speak. This shows that the males feel their identity should top the women's identity and it is more important. There is another scene in this film, which involves a woman but no words from her; she is a lap dancer in a club where the men are having a meeting. She is in the background of the shot dancing making it hard to focus on the men, as she is a distraction whilst they are trying to have a serious conversation.
Adorno and Fiske’s theories fit into context also with this film. [Link to question here - the power of the media over male identity. What would Adorno argue? What would Fiske argue?]
Adorno stated that because we were all watching the same things and learning nothing new we would gradually all become the same people. In the film Lock Stock it is portrayed that all men are violent and unemotional so Adorno would argue that this is what we will learn, that young men will watch this film, the many gangster films that followed until 2001, and get the same messages from the lad mags of the time, and grow up thinking that this is how they should act. Fiske argues that although this is what the public are viewing media is always updating itself with new cultures and ways of life. He says that we won't all be the same and we aren't all learning the same things as people would always have a different opinion on the film, therefore they would not all act in the same way after seeing this film. [Good point] In this case I agree with Fiske as after watching this film and learning about when it was made and how London's culture was back then [I could see that now there has been a change, stories like Lock Stock may still happen behind the scenes but its not as obvious as it was when the film was made, also nowadays with the way we have to take care and listen to health and safety none of what happened in this film would be allowed, the only way this would still be happening would be if it was all happening illegally. Take this part out and use facts about British gang culture at the time]. Many theorists agree that whether it be true or not, the film makes a comment about masculinity.
I have decided this film is gangster light as it is a violent film but the violence has been turned into humour. [Explain the concept and who came up with it] Although it's a very violent film, with fights, gun attacks and stabbing, we don't see any of this in detail. There is a part of the film where a man is getting beaten up and his head is hanging out of a car door, one of the male protagonists is beating him, we don't actually see his head in the door or any blood. We just hear him being beaten up. I feel that this has been created like this as the film is trying to show that although the male identity is meant to be above everyone else (in this film) that even though the male protagonist is beating up another male his identity is still the same, even though he is not beating a woman. [Don't understand this point, re-write this part]. There is a debate about this film affecting male identity as it can only be an opinion and does not actually have a correct answer. I don't ? this film affected male identity greatly as the
violence is made humorous rather than serious. I noticed that in this film no one gets arrested for the crimes they are committing. Therefore people are believing that it is okay to behave in this manner and think that it is fine to do so. [But isn't this the main problem some critics have with the film? The ganster light style makes the violence seem funny and with having no consequences, some feel it might have a negative impact on the formation of identity in young males, viewed in combination with other media texts. Change this part also and use a quote to support your point.]
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is mainly a male cast with only a few female characters of which none are protagonist. I think this film is a great way of showing how male identity is portrayed as the whole film is based on gangs of men who all want the same thing - money. It shows how there is still rivalry between men of the same age, who are from the same place and who all want one thing. Their identities are all different but they work together to succeed in what they are trying to achieve. - This conclusion does not sufficiently summarise your answer to the question. Re-write.
Your next step is to ensure you carefully plan your essays BEFORE you write. It really shows that you don't do this and you really need to as you develop essay writing skills. You lose your path so some of your points don't clearly fit the question or they aren't thought through so you have no evidence to back it up (essential).
You now need to re-write this essay ASAP, acting on ALL feedback points in red below.
Level 3 (You are bottom level 3)
Explanation/analysis/argument (12-15 marks)
Candidates adapt their learning to the specific requirements of the chosen question well, in the main. The answer offers a sensible, mostly clear balance of media theories and knowledge of industries and texts, with a proficient attempt at personally engaging with issues and debates.
Use of examples (12-15 marks)
Examples of theories, texts and industry knowledge are connected together in places, and a clear argument is proficiently developed in response to the question. History and the future are discussed with relevance.
Use of terminology (6-7 marks)
Material presented is mostly informed by contemporary media theory, articulated through use of appropriate theoretical terms.
Relatively straightforward ideas have been expressed with some clarity and fluency. Arguments are generally relevant, though may stray from the point of the question. There will be some errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar but these are unlikely to be intrusive or obscure meaning.
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
What does the film 'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' (Ritchie, 1998) tell us about male identity in Britain, in the 1990s?
The film Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is about the criminal underworld in London. The film shows different gangs of males that are all after the same things, money and power. The males in this film are represented as violent, ruthless and unemotional.
Guy Ritchie has a lot to do with the making of this film, [was the director] he believes that "men should be more powerful than this". [Where is this quote from?] Magazines such as FHM and Loaded also believed that this view was correct. x [No, like the film, they are thought to communicate the idea of 'new laddism' which emerged in the 90s as a backlash to feminisim] In 2000 a writer [state name of writer] for The Sunday Times said that this film was 'sexist' and 'fascist', he also thought that the film influenced the people of Britain with the amount of violence that happens in this film. He believed that Guy Ritchie had 'polluted the British film industry' and created a stereotype of men in Britain.
As Lock Stock is based on gangsters in the 90's I feel that the male gaze has much to do with this film. [Bring the theory in as a way of discussing the film as a text set up for the 'Male Gaze' - it was written with a male audience in mind.] The male gaze theory argues us that there is never a female protagonist in films, because females only have passive roles, and that the active protagonist is always a man. In this film I have found that this is exactly what happens. There are a few women in this film but rather than actually being important characters in the film they come across more as objects. Although this film is trying to portray that men are tough and violent there is a scene in this film where another gang in their own home is attacking the four men, after fighting for a while suddenly a woman appears with a rifle and shoots the intruders. [The men are shocked at her actions but don't complain as she just got them out of trouble. x Not shown in the film.] The woman has saved them with a gun, although she did not say a word. The only man left standing in the room punches her in the face without a second thought. She would still count as a character in the film but we do not get to know her and she does not speak. This shows that the males feel their identity should top the women's identity and it is more important. There is another scene in this film, which involves a woman but no words from her; she is a lap dancer in a club where the men are having a meeting. She is in the background of the shot dancing making it hard to focus on the men, as she is a distraction whilst they are trying to have a serious conversation.
Adorno and Fiske’s theories fit into context also with this film. [Link to question here - the power of the media over male identity. What would Adorno argue? What would Fiske argue?]
Adorno stated that because we were all watching the same things and learning nothing new we would gradually all become the same people. In the film Lock Stock it is portrayed that all men are violent and unemotional so Adorno would argue that this is what we will learn, that young men will watch this film, the many gangster films that followed until 2001, and get the same messages from the lad mags of the time, and grow up thinking that this is how they should act. Fiske argues that although this is what the public are viewing media is always updating itself with new cultures and ways of life. He says that we won't all be the same and we aren't all learning the same things as people would always have a different opinion on the film, therefore they would not all act in the same way after seeing this film. [Good point] In this case I agree with Fiske as after watching this film and learning about when it was made and how London's culture was back then [I could see that now there has been a change, stories like Lock Stock may still happen behind the scenes but its not as obvious as it was when the film was made, also nowadays with the way we have to take care and listen to health and safety none of what happened in this film would be allowed, the only way this would still be happening would be if it was all happening illegally. Take this part out and use facts about British gang culture at the time]. Many theorists agree that whether it be true or not, the film makes a comment about masculinity.
I have decided this film is gangster light as it is a violent film but the violence has been turned into humour. [Explain the concept and who came up with it] Although it's a very violent film, with fights, gun attacks and stabbing, we don't see any of this in detail. There is a part of the film where a man is getting beaten up and his head is hanging out of a car door, one of the male protagonists is beating him, we don't actually see his head in the door or any blood. We just hear him being beaten up. I feel that this has been created like this as the film is trying to show that although the male identity is meant to be above everyone else (in this film) that even though the male protagonist is beating up another male his identity is still the same, even though he is not beating a woman. [Don't understand this point, re-write this part]. There is a debate about this film affecting male identity as it can only be an opinion and does not actually have a correct answer. I don't ? this film affected male identity greatly as the
violence is made humorous rather than serious. I noticed that in this film no one gets arrested for the crimes they are committing. Therefore people are believing that it is okay to behave in this manner and think that it is fine to do so. [But isn't this the main problem some critics have with the film? The ganster light style makes the violence seem funny and with having no consequences, some feel it might have a negative impact on the formation of identity in young males, viewed in combination with other media texts. Change this part also and use a quote to support your point.]Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is mainly a male cast with only a few female characters of which none are protagonist. I think this film is a great way of showing how male identity is portrayed as the whole film is based on gangs of men who all want the same thing - money. It shows how there is still rivalry between men of the same age, who are from the same place and who all want one thing. Their identities are all different but they work together to succeed in what they are trying to achieve. - This conclusion does not sufficiently summarise your answer to the question. Re-write.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
What does the film 'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' (Ritchie, 1998) tell us about male identity in Britain, in the 1990s?
The film Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is about the criminal underworld in London. The film shows different gangs of males that are all after the same things, money and power.
The males in this film are represented as violent, ruthless and unemotional.
Guy Ritchie has a lot to do with the making of this film, he believes that "men should be more powerful than this". Magazines such as FHM and Loaded also believed that this view was correct. In 2000 a writer for "The Sunday Times" said that this film was 'sexist' and 'fascist', he also thought that the film influenced the people of Britain with the amount of violence that happens in this film. He believed that Guy Ritchie had 'polluted the British film industry' and created a stereotype of men in Britain.
As Lock Stock is based on gangsters in the 90's I feel that the male gaze has much to do with this film. The male gaze tells us that there is never a female protagonist in films and that it is always a man or men. In this film I have found that this is exactly what happens. There is a few ladies in this film but rather than actually being characters in the film they come across more as objects rather than actual roles in the film. Although this film is trying to portray that men are tough and violent there is a scene in this film where another gang in their own home is attacking the four men, after fighting for a while suddenly a woman appears with a rifle and shoots the intruders. The men are shocked at her actions but don't complain as she just got them out of trouble. The woman has saved them with a gun, although she did not say a word. She would still count as a character in the film but this isn't a main role, as we do not get to know her and she does not speak. This shows that the males feel their identity should top the women's identity and it is more important. There is another scene in this film, which involves a woman but no words from her; she is a lap dancer in a club where the men are having a meeting. She is in the background of the shot dancing making it hard to focus on the men, as she is a distraction whilst they are trying to have a serious conversation.
Adorno and Fiske’s theories fit into context also with this film. Adorno stated that because we were all watching the same things and learning nothing new we would gradually all become the same people. In the film Lock Stock it is portrayed that all men are violent and unemotional so Adorno would argue that this is what we will learn, that young boys will watch this film and grow up thinking that this is how they should act, Fiske argues that although this is what the public are viewing media is always updating itself with new cultures and ways of life. He says that we won't all be the same and we aren't all learning the same things as people would always have a different opinion on the film, therefore they would not all act in the same way after seeing this film. In this case I agree with Fiske as after watching this film and learning about when it was made and how London's culture was back then I could see that now there has been a change, stories like Lock Stock may still happen behind the scenes but its not as obvious as it was when the film was made, also nowadays with the way we have to take care and listen to health and safety none of what happened in this film would be allowed, the only way this would still be happening would be if it was all happening illegally. Many theorists agree that whether it be true or not, the film makes a comment about masculinity.
I have decided this film is gangster light as it is a violent film but the violence has been turned into humor. There is no real violence in this film, there are fights, gun attacks and stabbing but we don't see any of this in detail. There is a part of the film where a man is getting beaten up and his head is hanging out of a car door, one of the male protagonists is beating him, we don't actually see his head in the door or any blood. We just hear him being beaten up. I feel that this has been created like this as the film is trying to show that although the male identity is meant to be above everyone else (in this film) that even though the male protagonist is beating up another male his identity is still the same, even though he is not beating a woman.
There is a debate about this film affecting male identity as it can only be an opinion and does not actually have a correct answer. I don't this film affected male identity greatly as the violence is made humorous rather than serious. I noticed that in this film no one gets arrested for the crimes they are committing. Therefore people are believing that it is okay to behave in this manner and think that it is fine to do so.
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is mainly a male cast with only a few female characters of which none are protagonist. I think this film is a great way of showing how male identity is portrayed as the whole film is based on gangs of men who all want the same thing - money. It shows how there is still rivalry between men of the same age, who are from the same place and who all want one thing. Their identities are all different but they work together to succeed in what they are trying to achieve.
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Essay 1 Feedback
Low level 2 - Roughly equates to an E
Lack of personal engagement with text, heavy reliance on teachers notes. Nothing new from you here Jess to demonstrate your understanding of the theories and the task. Work was also late as it was not properly posted.
Lack of personal engagement with text, heavy reliance on teachers notes. Nothing new from you here Jess to demonstrate your understanding of the theories and the task. Work was also late as it was not properly posted.
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
Essay 1
Jess Renaud
Does the mass media have a significant amount of power over its audience, or does the audience ultimately have more power than the media?
One of the biggest debates about the social impact of the media is weather audience has more power over the media or the media has more power over the audience.
There are many different theorists that have studied this question. I have chosen to look at Adorno and Fiske.
Theodor Adorno attended a school for social research, a group of mostly German, Jewish intellectuals. Their antipathy towards the media may have been increased by the observation that Hitler had apparently been able to use the media organizations as a tool for widespread propaganda. They had a sudden encounter with American popular culture. Even worse for them was that a revolution of the workers predicted by Karl Marx in the nineteenth century didn’t happen. Marx predicted that the workers would become so annoyed with their exploitation in the factories that they would overtake the factory owners. Adorno was worried that the mass media had great power over the population. He was worried that as we are all watching and learning the same things we would be disadvantaged. John Fiske has a completely different view on this and says that as we are a wide range of individuals and we all have different tastes in media that this will not be a problem. Fiske’s work represents the opposite views of Adorno’s. He is a fan of popular culture and was one of the most influential media scholars in the world from the 70’s to the 90’s.
Adorno and his colleague Max Horkheimer wrote a book called ‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’ (1947). In this book Adorno talks about their views on the mass media and its impact on society. It contains the essay ‘Enlightenment and Mass Deception’ showing that the media had such a damaging effect on the audience and we are all being sucked into the first thing we hear, watch or learn. They referred to the mass media as the ‘culture industry’ to indicate its nature. Today when this is referred to as industry we are not surprised as we recognise most media products as industries, such as the film ‘industry’ and the music ‘industry’.
Fiske wrote a book called ‘understanding Popular Culture’ in his book he argues that the power of the audience is much greater than the power of the media institutions. Fiske wanted to show that the people are not drones and they don’t exist as a mass audience. Fiske agrees that our choices are limited to an extent but, he argues, audiences interpret different meanings from texts. He argues that audiences are not merely consumers of texts, they produce meanings and pleasures from the texts, to make sense of their existence. Fiske understands that the audience views the media how they want too, their personality plays a massive part in what they listen too. Where as Adorno argues that the culture industry can mass produce one product or a set of familiar products and successfully flog it into an audience of passive customers. Fiske is the reverse; he believes that units sold at an individual level are a unique item which its purchaser attaches with his or her own set of meanings.
Fiske’s work represents a view diametrically opposed to Adorno’s. Near the start of ‘understanding popular culture’ he tells Adorno fans bluntly:
‘Popular culture is made by the people, not produced by the culture industry. All the culture industries can do is produce a repertoire of texts or cultural resources for the various formations of the people to use or reject in the ongoing process of producing their popular culture’
Madonna is a case study that can be argued by both sides. The famous song artist is said to be able to ‘connect with the audience’ by Fiske, that is why she is able to sell many albums that reach top of the charts. On the other side of the argument, Adorno says that Madonna only is able to release many high chart songs because the audience are only used to ‘the same old entertainment’. We all settle for the same things without exploring different media. Adorno is saying that we don't seem to mind what the final manufatured product is, we just settle for it and move on, this is Adorno's main concern.
Although some people disagree with Adorno’s theory, we don’t actually know how we get pulled in by the media, as it is all the same. Fiske argues that we may change our own views towards the media, we aren’t being sucked in as Adorno says, we chose our favourite genre of music, or favourite films and the media make more of it because they know as an audience we like it.
To conclude, i have realised that Adorno and Fiske have both got completely different views on the media. This could be the reason to them being the most popular theorists the world has ever seen. When it comes to my opinion, i say that they both have a good point, most media products are similar in some kind of way but with technology changing all the time the final product is different every time. Finally, answering the question, we view the media in our own way, nobody can say weather people have more power or if the media has more power as this is something that is exclusive to us.
Monday, 20 September 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)