Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

The view from the side of the stage, the chorines' entrance down the staircase into the view of both the stage from the audience point of view then to the audience from the stage point of view is interesting.  In the Hitchcock interview in part 1 of the module he talks about staricases which were frequently part of his storytelling. While Vertigo and Psycho are probably the most iconic stair sequences, I always loved the sequence in the remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much where Doris Day is trying to reach her child (singing Que Sera, sera, no less) and the camera moves slowly up the staircase into the room where the boy is, letting us know how far the distance and how sharp the shot of Day to have picked this song in this space.  I also think (and again, I'm thinking of The Man Who Knew Too Much) of his pan of the audience; Hitchcock seems to really linger on his atmosphere people, each taking in the view in a slightly different way.  He does a very conventional establishing performance of both his chorus girl, flirting, giving the producer a lock of her hair, and then his lady in distress being stymied trying to (what?) get backstage.  I don't think he's too inhibited by the silent film conventions, but I think his actors' performances are more stock; in this first effort, Hitchcock seems much more at ease with images than with people.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I see the beginnings of Hitchcock's MO: the beautiful blond, voyuerism that we as audience members watch: the way of the gentleman looking at the girls through is opera glasses, later seen in in Rear Window with Jeff using his telephoto lense, Norman watching Marion in Psycho, Sotty watching Madeline in Vertigo, Doris Day as she watches an assassination attempt in The Man who Knew Too Much, the detectives watching uncle Charlie in shadow of a doubt, etc.

We see that we are cued to look at particular actions or detail such as the pickpocket in this film but also in films like vertigo and the curl in Madelines hair, the key in Ingrid Betmanshand in Notorious, the lines in the tablecloth in Spellbound, the burning cigarette in the window in a Rear Window,the stickpin in Frenzy, the money wrapped in the newspaper in Psycho.

Then there is the element of a character put at a disadvantage - this woman Was robbed, in other movies the main character are preyed upon by strangers.

 

I don't think dialogue is as important as the visual shots and POV thst are used and music is an important part of Hitchcock's film setting the mood and adding suspense.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question concerning the dialogue cards.  What were those names at the end supposed to be?  That did throw off my enjoyment of the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Hitchcock in this sequence manages to fly in the face of convention. As witnessed by the smoker in front of the non-smoking sign and blurry scene of the dancers only enhanced by binoculars, it is a tribute to his original defiance of the conventional upshot of stairs to his downshot. This defiance led to this first film and he pays respects to that signature scene of stairs in this clip, as unconventional camera play is a part of his well-deserved recognition.  The stairwell shot with the unloading dancers to the stage starts the action of the exploration of power dynamics, something Mr. Hitchcock seeks in many of his films. Inside a theater is also a scene Mr. Hitchcock uses repeatedly in many films. As this scene plays on, the hapless dancers are really the ones in the know about the unequal power dynamics of this life situation, the older gentleman customers are only observers and not the real force of the story. The robbery which happens later in the scene is also a motivator to the woman to become more aware of life's curveballs, something explored in many of his films. I believe Mr. Hitchcock also found this to be an interesting personal, professional and societal dynamic, the quirky "femme fatale" blonde in charge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the third TCM class that I have taken, and I have never participated in the online discussions. I find it difficult to express any new thoughts that haven't already been posted. With so many voices speaking about the same questions posed, I feel like I am just a parrot.

That said, I haven't seen a Hitchcock film in years, so trying to say that this shot or that theme is one that he will develop over the years is what I expect to learn in this course.

As for the limitations due to a lack of dialogue, to start with, I had to watch the scene twice just to realize that we weren't watching the same girl from the opening. I thought she was wearing a wig and took it off. In the second scene where she is robbed, I immediately thought it was money they took and they would be surprised when all they got was paper. It finally dawned on me that the guys who took the letter are bouncers for the club and knew what they were looking for. It also explains why she didn't react when he pulls her back when people come out, giving him a chance to take the letter.

Dialogue between the two men to set up the scene would have made clear why they were taking the letter, they might not even know, but we might have learned who wanted it taken, or even who the girl is.

The third scene was fairly obvious and did have some dialogue to help the story along. But when the woman came down the stairs the dialogue was in her eyes. She was not happy to see the young men talking to the pretty girl.

The movie can go in any number of directions after this scene. Many questions where created during the scene and how they are answered moves the story in a different direction. For example: Why was the woman looking for a job at a low class establishment, and who wrote her the recommendation? Why did the men take said letter, and for whom? Why was the woman coming down the stairs bothered by the men, one of whom was most likely her date for the night, talking to another woman, and whether or not she knew the girl.

These are my thoughts. Although it feels like I am talking to myself.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. 

The use of subjective camera effects (the-out-of-focus reaction shot of the gentleman watching the dancing girls which comes into focus as he raises his binoculars and then clicks into perfect focus after he adjusts them). Hitchcock would use similar effects throughout his career to aid the audience in experiencing a character's senses (most famously in the in the "vertigo" shots in the movie of the same name)

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career? 

Absolutely! First of all there's the first "Hitchcock Blonde," then the mutual flirtation - bordering on seduction - between a powerful man and a woman who knows exactly what she's doing (think Cary Grant's Roger Thornhill and Eva Marie Saint's Eve Kendall in NORTH BY NORTHWEST). Also the theme of disguises is hinted at when the chorus girl removes the false curl from her hair... a bit of a stretch perhaps, but one could link it to Norman Bates' "mother's" wig!

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?

​Hitch never needed dialogue, but I do think he was greatly aided by the advent of synchronous sound, because he was a master at manipulating sound for maximum effect. He does already seem in full command of his skills here in THE PLEASURE GARDEN, with or without sound.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. I would say that even in such a short clip I saw examples of how Hitchcock set the standard for many of the films that he would make thereafter. What stood out to me the most was the long, sweeping camera movement over the audience which captured each individual face and unique reaction in the crowd. Many of Hitch's other films have similar shots, as the Royal Albert Hall climax of The Man Who Knew too Much (1956), the audience for Mr. Memory's act in The 39 Steps (1935), and the crowd for the tennis match in Strangers on a Train (1951) all come to mind.
  2. As others have mentioned, I can't say that I'm an expert, but I do agree that I saw quite a few trademarks in this clip of Hitchcock's early work that I recognize from some of the films that I have seen.
  3. I think for the most part there's nothing left to be desired from the dialogue, and I've always felt that silent films do a good job of giving the viewer the gist of the action in the narration and dialogue cards. However, I do wish I could have heard the tone and delivery of Virginia Valli's lines, as I found them very witty and I'm sure they would have sounded even better spoken by her.

This was a fun clip, and I can't wait to watch the rest of the film this evening so I can look for "the Hitchcockian touch"!  :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went back and looked at the clip again and have an updated response. So, you've got the Hitchcock "blonde" here. Wouldn't say this one is a "cool blonde" but she’s a blonde nonetheless. BUT the curl that's a hairpiece -- this foreshadows many of the blondes in Hitchcock's later films -- in the sense that these blondes appear to be one kind of person and then they turn out to be another kind of person completely. Madeleine Elster in Vertigo; Eve Kendall in North by Northwest, etc. When this chorus girl tamps down the man’s interest in the curl by pulling it and giving it to him. It’s the reveal that she’s not what he thought. The object of his interest – or in later films-- his “obsession” isn’t what it appears to be. So, there’s that I think.

I agree.  I think the blonde isn't even a blonde.  I believe she's the brunette in the last shot of the sequence.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the authors. This first scene of the first Hitchcock film, can serve to start us on what the great Master developed throughout his films.  The handling of the camera from a general level to a particular one, for example, women bag... look voyeuristic which handles the camera by introducing to the choristers descending the staircase. And the faces and attitudes of the men of the first rank are eloquent. Something you must have thought James Stewart at Miss Torso in "Rear window".  We can also mention the touch of humor and sarcasm in the brief dialogue between man and the showgirl... And in the next scene the passage to the concerns reflected in the way that shows two men in the portal and women that approximates. Something wrong will happen...!


 


And in response to the last question, as in the best films of the silent period, the images are sufficient if alone.  The management of the image, as well developed Hitchcock, undoubtedly learned it in the best school, the Germany of ´20

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I see beginnings of the Hitchcock touch in this sequence.  First the view of the performers from the side of the stage with the column and curtain in the foreground and the humor of Mr Hamilton smoking in front of the Smoking Prohibited sign.  I agree that we see elements, themes and approaches that become more developed in Hitchcock's later films.  I think silent films in general require a more exaggerated approach to creating a tone or a mood in a film.  When using a spoken dialogue, the tone can be developed subtly.  I relate it to the way we use texting today.  When texting you have to be exaggerated with your tone to insure that the reader interprets the text in the manner intended.  You sometimes use pictures, emoticons or exaggerated punctuation/capitalization.  Whereas if you were having a conversation, the listener would absorb the tone in your delivery without requiring shouting, exaggerated hand gestures or pictures. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I’d like to thank you for presenting this opportunity to explore one of the most innovative film creators of our time, Hitchcock.
Starting the Modules are a delight given the delve into his direction’s origins and styles.
After reading the source material provided and watching the clips, these were some of my observations;
-British Film was mentioned in much of Hitchcock’s early film career (FPL), yet it seems like he really got his directorial debut after Germany got involved (UFA), and with the timeline of events then, I could see how Germany’s ‘influence’ may have had an effect in his Macabre delivery.
-My first impressions were an immediate sense that the viewer’s ‘intelligence’ are at question, maybe even ‘morals’ as you watch the events unfold to the characters. This could be early signs of Hitchcock touches, as he challenges your mind.
-You get the sense the female dancer is the protagonist because of the way all the attention: audience, men, eyes, binoculars, eye glasses, etc. are on her. Also Hitchcock touches are represented in his directorial vision of an array of angles of perception by both character, audience and their intersections.
-She ‘eyes’ back in contempt after 1: noticing the stares 2: sending a clear message back using only her eyes (Silent Narration 1st) -Written Dialogue 2nd as characters are introduced.
-She’s introduced as Patsy Brand (Virgina Valli)
-She plays coy with the Rich ol’ pervy man for a moment almost giving him a heart attack after she pulls the hair off for him.
She laughs at him calling her own joke ‘unclever’ when she’s the only clever thing present.
-You sympathize for her currents surroundings (or should).
-She darts off n out of scene.
(This is where ‘Limitations’ for me occurred)      
Outside, new scene.
A girl is outside (Limitation: I thought it was Patsy)
She gets eyed by muggers
Gets pick-pocketed
And enters into the Pleasure Garden for her meeting with Mr. Hamilton suddenly un pre-paired under the name: Jill Cheyne (Carmelita Geraghty)
Because this seemingly new name appears by the Written Dialogue, I’m forced to see a New girl.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. 

 

Sorry. I don't see it. Maybe after I get further along in the course, I can review this clip and get it. What I see is that Hitch might have given Busby Berkley some inspiration when it comes to the close-ups of the gentlemen (except that Berkley does his close-ups on the girls in chorus); as well as the leg shots which Berkley also does.

 

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career? 

 

Again, sorry, but I'm not seeing it.

 

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?

 

Absolutely not. Every concept is communicated beautifully without spoken dialogue.

I also thought of Busby Berkley when I saw the opening sequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t made a study of Hitchcock so I can’t comment on the first two questions. As for the third this was an amazing start for a first-time director.


The voyeuristic scenes set up the vulnerability of the women; then the scene where the dancer meets the rich man shows her toughness. Later when we are introduced to the woman looking for a job we see her naivete and helplessness and see the dancer sizing her up.


This sets up the entire movie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to be taking note of this already, but in the beginning of the video there is definitely that voyeuristic quality that Hitchcock employs in later films. The old man with the monocle uses binoculars to get a closer look at the dancers, which puts the audience into his POV. What I really like about this particular moment is that the binocular view starts with a pan of the dancers' legs, rather than their upper bodies. I think Hitchcock did this for two reasons: 1. To make the "reveal" of the blonde dancer more dramatic; By only showing the legs of all the other dancers and ending the shot with a slow pan up to the blonde's upper body, Hitchcock really emphasizes the old man's fascination and focus on that dancer in particular. Only HER face is shown, so she must be of some importance, or at least of more importance than the other dancers.  

2. To add an enhanced sense of voyeurism to the scene; Women's legs definitely have a stereotypical voyeuristic connotation (the poster for The Graduate comes to mind), and Hitchcock is aware of that. By having the camera (binoculars) pan across the dancers' legs, he more clearly displays the old man's (possibly sexual) enjoyment in viewing the ladies on stage. This reminds me of L.B. Jeffries in Rear Window, specifically when he is watching Ms. Torso (the woman who is constantly wearing skimpier clothing). Jeffries, like the old man in The Pleasure Garden, seemed to get some sort of satisfaction in watching her dance.

Anyway, there's obviously more to explore in the clip, but that beginning part stuck out to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first course and I immensely enjoy watching the old classics though it has never been to "critique" or learn more about the film or the film maker.  I am also not one to recount what is already been said from many other participants.  That said, do hope to gain an insight into Hitchcock's film making.

 

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. 

 

Not having seen many Hitchcock films, I do know that there is a particular way he presented his female stars, demure, strong, etc., each to a purpose.  The tough blond, the brunette wishing an introduction to Mr. Hamilton....

 

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career?

 

 

I do agree with the assessments presented.  I think they state very well the focus and quality of the films that will come.

 

 

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?

 

Not having watched (many) silent films, watching this clip, I think that Hitchcock knew how to convey the message he wanted by using the actors and thereby being able to limit the spoken dialogue that would be needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One quick piece of the film clip that caught my attention: As the camera pans along the row of men who are in various ways transfixed by the dancers, we get about one second's worth of "a woman's viewpoint"--the last person in the shot is a conked-out woman, who apparently finds the flashing legs boring, even soporific! It's such a sudden contrast to the men's absurd over-interest, and it lasts such a short time, that I find myself chuckling, and just slightly out of sync with what's on the screen.

 

 

Definitely already the Hitchcock touches of humor, often very brief like here, that periodically lighten the tone of the movie. Always an element in his best films IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples.

 

Not a great deal. Some of the point of view shot in the first part reminds me of Rear Window, and the two men watching the girl later reminds me a bit of the lurking henchmen in North by Northwest. I'm struck by the notion of how clear things must be shown in silent film rather than said, so perhaps this helped lay the foundation for Hitchcock later.

 

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career?

 

 

Yes, particularly with the observing the observer.

 

 

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?

 

Not a great deal. I noticed this during the exchange when the girl is pleading when she realizes her papers are gone. In some ways, it makes me watch more closely, since essentially one medium of input is removed. That being said, I can't help but remind myself that we are not exactly a "silent film" generation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. 

 

Yes, the characters seem to have a naivete' but also possibly a dark side. The gentleman running to meet the blonde, why is he so fixated on her? What will he do now that she called him out? The blonde chorus girl has been introduced to men in the past, she knows a "line" when she hears it. Who are the two pick-pockets? Do they work for the theater, they are nicely dressed. The brunette who was robbed seems to be right off the bus. Will she take revenge? The camera shots are very deliberate, the close-up of the dancers' legs, the focus on the purse for example.

 

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career? 

 

I think you cannot help but see the elements and approaches of Hitchock because we have  watched his career. For me it will be like looking back in time so I will automatically see the nuances and themes in every Hitchcock film.

 

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?

 

No, I could sense the embarrassment of the gentleman, the frustration of the desk clerk, the confusion of the brunette when she couldn't find her letter. The actors do a very good job creating emotions without words.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the “Hitchcock touch” in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. 

I guess I’m not very familiar with Hitchcock’s films, although I do see a sophistication in this clip that I don’t usually notice in silent films. For instance, the dancers are a bit out of focus until the audience member brings his binoculars up and uses them to spot one of the dancers. Then the dancers on stage are clear and in focus.

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock’s 50-year career? 

When I watched this clip from The Pleasure Garden the first time, I thought maybe I had the wrong video! It starts off lighthearted, and the interaction between the man in the audience and the dancer is funny, but then the mood changes when the two pickpockets are at work. Although the sequence is cut off, I get the feeling that the woman in the theater lobby who just had her purse picked is accosted by two men in the lobby who had ulterior motives. Hitchcock’s ability to change mood and maintain some humor in a dark story (I’m assuming the sequence continues on to darker themes) is evident in this short video clip.

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?

I don’t think there are any limitations to the opening scenes as far as narration goes, but I do think that some of Hitchcock’s humor comes from clever dialogue. Hitchcock may have been limited by the technology (that is, the lack of sound/dialogue), but it doesn’t limit the story in any way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Pleasure Garden! So glad you dropped in, guv'nor!

 

The sauciness of British music hall entices us with the bevy of beautiful chorus girls. The scene of them racing down the spiral staircase followed shortly after with the lusty men in the front row seems to fetishize women's bodies....something that Hitchcock did oh so subtly in many of his films with blondes. Especially with the tight scenes with Patsy. We see a lot of legs and feet in Hitchcock films. 

 

(and on a side note, the costumes in the scene have a burlesque look to them. Perhaps the men were hoping that the girls were only wearing those beaded cage tops and nothing else! I imagine the leotard underneath might have been flesh colored if the film was in color and give an illusion of nudity)

 

The careful scenes where we Jill get pickpocketed is another example of the clever touches Hitchcock did. It happens quickly, but the repercussions are swiftly felt. 

 

Indeed this is the beginning of a great career, even though most people saw it AFTER "The Lodger".

 

There are absolutely NO limitations in silent films. We can see what's going on without spoken dialogue and good intertitles. And if there's a good soundtrack, the music further adds to the excitement. (the organ music reminds me of the Barton organ at the Redford Theatre in Detroit where MANY silent films have played with organ accompaniment over the years.) Often the music can make or break a silent film. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. 


Yaaas. I love how Hitchcock always presented the film in ways as if we are seeing through the eyes of the characters- this is most obviously in Rear Window, but it comes in others as well and is used brilliantly in Shadow of a Doubt (my favorite so far. meep) and Psycho. I'm not as familiar with his older films, but I do have a collection of them. If I had the time to binge watch....


 


2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career? 


As stated above, perspective was highly valued in Hitchcock's films to demonstrate the drama between characters, or even following one main individuals. And the girls. Always the girls, lol.


 


3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?


Yes and no. Yes, in the way that Hitchcock used words with such power, and no, as there are many speechless scenes that are so poignant. Having an option can be great, but also mastering the art with what he had still amazes me.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question concerning the dialogue cards.  What were those names at the end supposed to be?  That did throw off my enjoyment of the scene.

 

The names at the end of the dialogue cards threw me off too. So I looked up the film at Wikipedia, and those were the actresses' names. I wonder if that was the norm for intertitle cards showing dialogue in British silent films.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples.

 

Yes, I see beginnings of the Hitchcock style in this clip that was provided. As noted by others the use of voyeurism, the use of overhead shots, the scanning of the young lady from her legs and then to include her whole body. Something else I noticed, which can be related to North by Northwest, is the strong female character in her approach to the older gentleman catching him completely off guard; Hitchcock gave us strong female characters.

 

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career?

 

Yes, I agree that there were elements that we will see develop in his 50-year career.

 

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?

 

No I did not think there were any limitations due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue. Hitchcock used good screen shots to tell the story.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the camera work and sets that I find most reflect motifs that will be seen again and again in Hitchcock's films: the staircase (Notorious, Vertigo, others), the camera shot looking down on the stage from above (and the whole issue, maybe obsession, with heights and looking down from them), the little things in very brief shots that you might totally miss on first viewing, like the woman sleeping at the end of the row of leering and slobbering older men, sets or camera shots that show a very confined space or very tight view of an actor to simulate a tight space(reminding me of later things like the shower space in Psycho or the phone booth in The Birds).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1, I definitely agree with others that you can see touches of Hitchcock in this opening sequence. The first thing that stuck out for me is the focus on the blonde. Though I know he didn't always have a blonde as the main feature in his movies, when he did, they tended to be at the forefront. I also noticed he makes you 'focus' on a specific thing, like the staircase, and it made sense, having listened to the video interview. He'd stated he builds sets according to how he'd film the shot. 

 

2. There are definitely themes that we'll see again throughout his career. The blonde at the forefront, the binoculars, the focal points (observing the observer), the use of light and dark, including that ominous shadow of Mr. Levet in the alley surprising Patsy (which made me think of Hitchcock's tv show opening), and finally the way he relies on the actors to be expressive with the eyes (the ghost's eyes and Mrs. Danvers' a la 'Rebecca')

 

3. I have enjoyed a silent film or two, so I personally didn't think there were limitations. I think the way this was laid out made it clear what was meant to be viewed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...