Once Upon a Time in Dreamland


Last night I dreamed about Star Trek. There was a big alien who communicated by twiddling his fingers like the Rock does in SOUTHLAND TALES (okay, the Rock doesn’t actually communicate by twiddling but he does twiddle, prodigiously). I think in the end Captain Kirk or whoever shut the alien in a giant pressure cooker, baked him into a pie, and ate him. It was a very unusual episode.

But I still haven’t dreamed up a way of celebrating the one-year anniversary of this blog, which falls due on December first. Suggestions welcome. When the time comes I guess I’ll probably just drink some vodka and write something.

But I do have an idea for next year: the 110th anniversary of Hitchcock’s death. There are 52 surviving Hitchcock feature films (more or less). There are 52 weeks in the year. So I’m going to blog about each film, one a week, for the whole year.

Just putting this idea out in advance in case anyone else thinks of it (and is dumb enough to do it).

Apart from being a chance to catch up on all the early Hitchcocks I haven’t had the pleasure of, it’ll add some much-needed STRUCTURE to this place. Although some weeks my posting might be only tangentially related to the Hitchcock film du semaine. We shall see.

Dreams are also on my mind as I just finished a two-part class on Sergio Leone (it would have been one-part, but the first class was interrupted, DISCRETE CHARM-style, by the arrival of five hundred students demanding the use of the lecture theatre for another subject). And there’s a theory of ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA that sees the entire 1960s section as a dream: Noodles (Robert DeNiro) is lost in an opium haze, having betrayed his friends, and he fantasises a future where his best friend lived, the betrayal didn’t really happen, and everything turns out differently. This is the explanation for the film’s ending, in which Noodles is seen in the opium den again, this time grinning.


This interp kind of bugged me at first — I don’t usually like huge chunks of narrative turning out not to have happened: there’s a sense in which you can feel cheated. But the more I’ve considered it, the more it works for me, and it explains a number of oddities in the 1960s section of the movie.

1) Deborah doesn’t age. Elizabeth McGovern turns up, thirty years on, looking just as she did in the middle section of the film. I thought at first this was because the makeup artist must have thrown down his brushes in despair upon seeing McG’s perfect, smooth countenance. He couldn’t bear to disfigure her with latex wrinkles (Leone’s massive closeups expose the artifice of the prosthetics on Fat Moe in some shots), and the unlined expanse of face gave him nothing to work with anyway. “She looks like a beautiful balloon,” Fiona remarked. But maybe this is a dream, and Noodles simply couldn’t imagine his beloved transfigured by time. “Age cannot wither her.”


2) Forgive and forget. Deborah doesn’t mention the glaring fact that Noodles raped her, twice, at their last meeting. But then, she wouldn’t, because this is part of what Noodles is trying to forget. It would be thoughtless of her to raise the subject during his dream. Fiona gave up the film in anger at that scene, not because of the rape itself, but because DeNiro turns up at the railway station the following day to see her off. This, Fiona contested, was rather tactless of him. I have to admit she’s right. But at least we can see that the strange scene between Noodles and Deborah is how it is due to Leone’s artful evocation of dream-logic, and not because he’s a misogynist boor whose incapable of thinking his way into a female character’s head. Certainly not.

3) Plot nonsense. For DeNiro to be unaware that a friend has risen to high political office while he’s been hiding out “in the asshole of the world”, he would have had to have been quite literally hiding out “in the asshole of the world”. You can’t get a TV signal in there, you know. But this objection ceases to carry any force if we view the whole scenario as dream-hallucinations. Those things never make sense. I mean, Captain Kirk would never eat somebody.

So it’s definitely a way of looking at the film that reveals new possibilities, and so it’s a good tool to have when examining Leone’s vast and shallow epic. There is, however, as Columbo might say, one thing that still kind of bothers me…

If (as in the post-Viet Nam fantasy world of JACOB’S LADDER) the 1960s of OUATIA is a construct of the protagonist’s mind, it should not contain any references that would not be available to a character from that protagonist’s era, the ’30s. The political scandal DeNiro emerges into is explicable enough, since there was at least as much bribery and corruption in ’30s American life as in the ’60s.

Harder to explain is the frisbee that flies over DeNiro’s head at one point. I don’t think they had those in the ’30s, although the aerodynamic principles under which they operate were presumably already in force. Did Noodles, like Norville in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY, invent this hand-held flying saucer before its time? How ironic that he should try to make his way in the world through the dangerous practice of bootlegging, when he could have made a fortune marketing his plastic disk to the children of the Great Depression!

Also, when DeNiro first arrives back in ’60s New York, he hears the Beatles song “Yesterday” playing as muzak. But, unlikely as it seems, there is a reasonable explanation for this. That song, as Paul McCartney has testified, came to him in a dream. So it’s not implausible that, floating around in the dream-stuff waiting to be discovered and jotted down by a receptive songwriter, the melody should insinuate its way into the opium-vision of a fugitive 1930s gangster.


Is it?

37 Responses to “Once Upon a Time in Dreamland”

  1. I’ve always considered the 60s section of ”Once Upon A Time In America” a projection of the 30s Noodles. You are forgetting the scene where Noodles walks out of Bailey’s house and the garbage truck comes along and presumably eats him. And then behind we see a parade of revellers in 30s cars and costumes singing ”God Bless America” which is played over the first scene of the film.

    To me however the entire film is dreamlike. Like consider that scene where Noodles waves Debbie goodbye at the train. Which American train station looks like that? That’s of course in Paris. And then when Noodles decides to take Debbie on a date, he takes her literally to an Italian restaurant. There are many other scenes like that. These aren’t mistakes, they are deliberate devices.

    The entire film is a fairy-tale about America as dreamed by an European who’s seen a lot of American gangster films. Hence the title. So these temporal anachronisms are part of that and work wonderfully with it. It’s not that different from Bertolucci giving a homage to Godard’s ”Le Petit Soldat”(and even using Godard’s then phone number in the conversation) in ”Il Conformista” even if the film takes place in the 30s when Godard was still in his nappies in Switzlerland. Or even more audaciously, Bertolucci’s use of Italian Futurist murals in the Imerial Palace in ”The Last Emperor”. Or Scorsese using the Peter Gabriel rock music in ”Gangs of New York”.

  2. And whole-heartedly support one Hitchcock per week. Only you’ll be neglecting Hitchcock’s TV work.

  3. My plan is that sometimes I might just take a Hitch film as a starting point and springboard onto something else — in this way a piece about Under Capricorn might turn into a meditation of that great TV episode with Joseph Cotten. So the TV work, shorts, unmade films, will at least get a look-in. And some of the features might barely get discussed. It’ll be the usual shambles, rest assured.

    Strangely, none of the obvious violations of time and place in OUATIA bothered me when I viewed the 60s stuff as “real”. But you’re right, of course, they’re pretty striking. When someone asked why Leone was casting so many Italianamericans in Jewish roles he reportedly said, “Jews! Italians! Is-a da same thing!”

    Or words to that effect.

    It means that the genuine Italian characters have to be SUPER-Italian, like Danny Aiello (as “Police Chief Aiello”).

    They looked all over America to find that garbage truck, which Leone had seen in a period photo. In the end they had to BUILD it.

    James Woods says they used his stand-in for that scene, because Leone wanted the maxmum ambiguity, so we’re not even 100% that’s Max. Although… who else is it going to be?

  4. I’ve always felt Once Upon a Time in America would be best understood as a super-ultra-long double feature with McCabe & Mrs. Miller

    If you’re going to do Hitch, might I suggest the two Psychos — which is to say Hitch’s and Gus’. ?Steam comes out of Jonathan Rosenbaum’s head at the mere mention of the Gus, which I believe is a formidable work of conceptual art.

    And speaking of Gus. . .Ta-DAH!

  5. As I read through this, your latest entry, I was thinking, is he going to mention McCartney’s Yesterday, muzak version? And sure enough you did. I was quite taken with this film back in the Eighties. The local art-house cinema (The Detroit Film Theatre, an extension of our art museum) showed it in its grand 3 and a half hour entirety, and I went back the second night and sat through the whole thing all over again. One element you didn’t mention was Morricone’s score, which I immediately went out and bought, I was so taken with it. DeNiro’s half-Jewish on his mother’s side, so he’s not too Italian, but you’d never know it unless you knew it. And about the make-up, I was impressed with how they aged DeNiro at the end of the Sixties, far more convincing than I’d seen done anywhere else up to that point, as opposed to say Johnny Depp in Blow, where he’s an old con in the prison yard at the end, and the old-man make-up on his face really DOES look like an episode of Star Trek. And I agree with Arthur S. that the entire film is dreamlike, except for the wealth of detail involved, of course no dream could contain that. The whole thing with the dump truck is mind-boggling, the way it’s done up to look like some Chariot of Death, and for him to disappear, leading one to believe that he threw himself into the back of it. What a way to end the film, after three and a half hours of all that. Dreamlike yes, but you need to expound on why it’s shallow. I’m not saying it isn’t, but I want to know from your end as to why.

  6. DeNiro is half Irish. Actually DeNiro’s ancestry is quite mixed. His dad Robert DeNiro Sr.(the painter who hung around with the likes of Pollock and Manny Farber) is Italian and his mother Virginia Admiral is Irish with Dutch ancestry. She’s a descendant of the Admiral family, a member of the New York 400 Club in the 19th Century(cf: ”The Age of Innocence” for further information on this period, book and film). So it’s ironic that he’s typecast as a New York mafia guy.

  7. i’m probably talking out of turn here because i’ve only seen the psycho remake once but i don’t think it is a particularly successful piece of conceptual art because there are too many little changes from the original which feel like concessions. any time it deviates from the original, it becomes weaker. i think it would have been much better had these tiny changes been left out and we had simply been given a perfect colour remake.

    however, if gvs were to reunite the cast and crew and make a perfect remake of his original remake, that would cure all my problems with it. maybe he just hasn’t got round to that part yet?

  8. I am not sure I agree with the connection with ”McCabe & Mrs. Miller”, although the opium is key in both films. The main reason is that with Altman, he went out of his way to avoid all references to the Western genre(though he still ended up summoning some points of common interest with Ford and Mann). Leone’s film on the other hand is obviously influenced by 30s gangster films, especially the James Cagney masterpieces – ”The Roaring Twenties”, ”The Public Enemey”, ”Scarface” and some other Raoul Walsh and William Wellman films. Leone probably got the idea of the different timelines from ”The Godfather Part II” which moves back and forth from two parallel timelines(though there it tells two parallel stories unlike here where it’s essentially the same story).

    One important point to note is that Leone added the third section, the “present-day” or near-contemporary ones himself. The book ”The Hoods”(which he had been wanting to make since before ”The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” and which was originally going to be done by John Milius) didn’t have that. That was Leone’s idea.

    ”Once Upon A Time In America” is really a film unlike any other. A near 4hr gangster epic with a quasi-Proustian narrative and unlike Coppola’s films which dealt with the mafia in a fairy-tale style, Leone’s film is down and dirty, a real genre film. Impossible to think that a film like this could get funding today. It’s not arty enough for the arthouse because of it’s very populist genre approach and it’s not fun enough for the mainstream US. And the film is both funny and disturbing. It has a very ugly rape scene and then there’s a horrific scene of baby-swapping that’s played for laughs.

    One another thing, surprised no one’s mentioned Joe Pesci’s cameo. Pesci got it on DeNiro’s suggestion.

    Far and away, Leone’s best film, a real masterpiece.

  9. To me the ”Psycho” remake being such an obvious failure as a remake is why Van Sant’s film is so successful.

    One thing that irritated me was the fact that people kept going about how ”Psycho” should never be remade and were pissed that van Sant did it. But what people don’t get is that “Psycho” spawned hundreds of off-shoots with many successive nice-guy serial killers being drawn from Antony Perkins’ performance. Where would ”Halloween” be without ”Psycho”. Why is all that not considered remakes?

    That said, I have no interest in seeing the ”Psycho” remake again. If it’s function was to show that it’s impossible to really remake a film even if you use practically the same script and the same shots(and the music) than it’s good. But I would have that this was obvious enough. What it shows is that casting is everything. Janet Leigh IS Marion Crane and no one else can ever be. Even Simon Oakland’s controversial performance as the genius shrink is definitive. The surprising thing is that given how flat and stiff their characters were you wouldn’t expect to miss either Vera Miles and John Gavin. Even if Julianne Moore did well with her strange take on Marion’s sister. And the less said about Vince Vaughan the better.

    One thing that really made me scratch my head. What was with all that shots of the sky and other surreal images during the shower scene and other murder scenes?

  10. I stand corrected, but I read some time ago that he was half-Jewish, and never questioned the source. I knew his father was (is?) a painter, and a highly regarded one, I’ve even seen his name in ads for galleries in art magazines. David and I mentioned Burt Young’s appearance in the film not too long back in another post, and Pesci’s name was brought up as well. Richard Bright’s in the film also, as one of the hoods dousing gas on Treat Williams. Bright was Michael’s right-hand man in Godfather II, the one who kills Fredo out on the water. and his gangster parts go back to 1959, he plays an ostentatiously gay hood named Coco in Robert Wise’s Odds Against Tomorrow.

  11. >>It has a very ugly rape scene

    I’ve always said that the concluding slogan of IRREVERSIBLE is dealt with in a far more complex manner in OUATIA, that is: “time destroys all things.”

  12. DeNiro Sr. died in 1993. Here’s a link:
    It’s brief, but there’s more links below.

    I always wondered if DeNiro Sr. was a source for Scorsese’s ”Life Lessons” which dealt with the New York art scene.

    Robert DeNiro was close to his father as a kid and hung around with his dad’s friends, including Jackson Pollock. DeNiro wanted to do a film about Pollock, either direct or star in it. But he couldn’t get to do it. Ed Harris eventually made that film of his.

  13. The shots of the sky are a Gus trademark for his conceptual art movies — and My Own Private Idaho

  14. “One thing that really made me scratch my head. What was with all that shots of the sky and other surreal images during the shower scene and other murder scenes?”

    it’s weakness! van sant is chickening out! he can’t stay faithful when it comes to the crunch! he’s panicking!

    i might be wrong though

  15. Well you are wrong.

    The Gus Psycho was designed for a viewer extremely familiar wit the original. Watching the Gus is playing the Hitch back in your head at the same time.

    It’s an ,i>almost shoit-by-shot given that the shots of the clouds are additions, as is the paper umbrella Anne Hech’s Marion carries to shield her from the sun in the used car lot scene (obviously provided by DP Chris Doyle.)

    Vince Vaughan in NOT Tony Perkins. Likewise Heche is not Janet Leigh. And instead of a Vera Miles clone, Julianne Moore plays the sister as a rather butch lesbian.

  16. i don’t have a problem so much with it being different actors and different performances – i’d rather have that than some sort of actors acting out other actors’ acting scenario, like kenneth branagh in celebrity

    i just think that if you’re going to do a shot-for-shot remake as a piece of conceptual art, the coolest thing you can do is to do it as exactly and faithfully as you can. the more of yourself you put in it, the weaker the concept gets

    i’m pretty familiar with the original but i probably wasn’t when i saw the VVV (vince vaughn version). i will watch them both soon and then i suppose i will have to come back on here and admit i was wrong

  17. I suspect the differing views of D-Eh and J-Ro depend on how seriously they take GVS’s description of his motives for making the film. I’ve read interviews where he doesn’t talk about the film as an artistic experiment so much as a means for studios to release more money from their back catalogues, remaking films in colour rather than simply colorizing them.

    It’s quite likely this is just GVS trying to sound like a commercially responsible guy while he embarks on his mad experiment, but Rosenbaum obviously takes him at his word.

    I’m kind of agnostic on the subject but I do think Alex is onto something when he suggests that departing from the original weakens the project by making it less redundant. The film should be entirely pointless in conventional terms to succeed as conceptual art.

    The most interesting bit for me was the stuff with the other secretary, which sounds absolutely INSANE coming from modern a character. And the weirdly pointless “He must have seen my wedding ring,” which is a mean ironic joke in the original (the guy never looked twice at her because she’s no Janet Leigh) but can’t be anything other that a statement of fact in the remake, since the secretary is more glamorous than Anne Heche.

  18. 52 weeks of hitchcock ain’t a bad idea. I might follow along some weeks… good excuse to watch the remaining unseen titles.

    I don’t know about G. Van Sant’s Psycho – it was the end of a triple-feature a decade ago, and I was tired and angry – but I’m looking forward to Milk this weekend. Although it’s gonna have to be the greatest bio-pic in the history of cinema to dethrone Paranoid Park, my so-far favorite film of the year.

  19. Yes, you’ve correctly figured out this is a way to compel myself to watch all the unwatched Hitchcocks I’ve got. And to get anything I haven’t got.

    Milk is one to look forward to. Obviously it’s going to be more narratively conventional that GVS’s most innovative films, but it’s a fantastic piece of history which fiction film has ignored until now.

  20. Re New York Stories: since DeNiro’s folks were abstract expressionists, same as Nolte’s character, there’s likely to be some influence. On the other hand I think Scorsese and Richard Price cited a couple of other sources that inspired them.

  21. harvey milk is todays wikipedia article of the day!

    sometimes the world is amazing

    by world, i mean internet

  22. Here’s my interview with Gus about Milk.

    Life Lessons, like After Hours dealt with the SoHo scene before the rents skyrocketed. He’s known a lot of artists, and the Nick Nolte character (it’s one of Nolte’s very best performances) is in many ways a partial Marty self-portrait. I doubt it has much to do with DeNiro senior.

  23. Shane MacGowan of the Pogues has watched OUATIA more than a hundred times, according to legend. I believe it. I spent an evening with him once and I think he’s read every science fiction novel ever written too (and is a huge Isaac Asimov fan).

    I’ve never thought the film was anything other than Noodles’ opium dream, but then I’m always on the lookout for films that can be interpreted as weird nightmares/hallucinations/deathdreams…

    As conceptual art, GVS’s is decisively trumped by 24 Hour Psycho, which I watched a chunk of when it was screened on the South Bank – basically, the entirety of Psycho slowed down so that it takes place over a 24-hour period…. I’m agnostic about the GVS but like the end credit that thanks John Woo for lending them his kitchen knife.

  24. Terrific piece, David.

    “When it comes to movies, you never know.” ~ great line. We should hve it engraved above our department at college.

    “Shane MacGowan of the Pogues has watched OUATIA more than a hundred times.” Sober?

    Before the GVS Psycho, the Coens had spoken jokingly of a shot for shot remake of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? The beauty of that would have been the complete pointlessness of recreating that movie outwith the social context that produced it: the film was redundant almost as soon as it was made anyway. But the Coens would never have the cojones to actually do something like that.

    Douglas Gordon, the 24 hr guy, has now made a feature, Zidane. Football fans tend to hate it.

  25. i’m remaking 24 hour psycho with the gvs version

  26. That’s an excellent idea. TWICE as conceptual!

  27. The subliminal shots will last for ten minutes! Brilliant. The Turner Prize is yours.

    I heard about Zidane but it sounds like torture to a spherical-object-centric-activities-phobe like myself.

  28. Weirdly, I think the people who have dug Zidane most have little interest in football. They then recommend it to football-crazy pals, who loathe it.

    Like yourself, I have such an antipathy to “the beautiful game” that I can’t even bring myself to look.

  29. Godard is a huge football buff and knows the 50s Hungarian World Cup Squad back and centre. Where is he when you need his one-sentence, aphoristic put-downs.

  30. I don’t know what it is but most cinephiles don’t seem to get sports. Like ordinary-joes talk of Marilyn Monroe’s marriage to Joe DiMaggio but movie buffs tend to sideline that and even dare to say, “who’s Joe?” in Hawks style. Martin Scorsese once asked about sports said, “Anything with a ball…no good!” Buster Keaton on the other hand was a huge sports fan and loved baseball(his haunting lovely scene playing alone in ”The Cameraman” is a tribute to that love) and Pasolini loved football a lot.

    I grew up in a huge sports-crazy family and the interest was in Tennis and Cricket. Tennis I still like when something interesting happens. Cricket too occassionally but as such you don’t get as involved as you do in such things. Football occassionally got me interested but not much else.

  31. Herzog likes his kickabouts too.

    To be in a Keaton movie you needed to be a good actor and also good at baseball. That’s me out on both counts.

    Truffaut couldn’t understand how anybody who loved movies could find room for another obsession.

    Some lies: Hitchcock was enthusiastic about ping-pong, Vera Chytilova was a boxing champ in her youth, and Bresson once contemplated a career as a hockey commentator.

  32. Oh, why did I call OUATIA a shallow masterpiece? I guess I was thinking of Mickey Knox’s line “Leone was shallow as hell, but he understood movies.” I think he’s weak on politics (“Keep your head down” was his philosophy), bad on sexual politics (I don’t think the misogyny in his films is being examined or critiqued by the filmmaker) and only sort-of-deep metaphysically (time & destiny etc are themes, but treated in a brash, operatic way). None of which is entirely meant as a knock, just a way of positioning what he does.

  33. Leone IS shallow. That’s part of the charm of his Westerns. Not one bit of depth in his films. It’s entirely iconic – posture, movement, stares. He’d be a great photographer for fashion models. OUTIA is different because there he has a real story and a great cast and he wedded his fixations with iconography to the right content. Mr. Form meets Miss. Content.

    Leone wasn’t a woman’s director. Like Claudia Cardinale, who’s great just floats through the film. I can’t understand why people have overrated her role in that film. It’s good but it’s totally shallow. Nowhere near Stanwyck in ”40 Guns” or Joan Crawford in ”Johnny Guitar” as far as great ladies of the west go. So I would say he is misogynist but there’s misogynists and then there are misogynists.

    In OUTIA showing that ugly rape scene is conveying the true danger that women of that neighbourhood faced. Bear in mind that for the first 50 or 60 years of the 20th Century, rape was almost never treated as seriously except as an extension of sullied macho pride. In this film it’s clear that what Noodles does is disgusting and IS meant to disgust and Leone has the audience identify with the rapist not have it done by a second-party intermediary. So that’s responsible certainly.

    In Vidor’s ”Love Me or Leave Me”, the original cut had a rape scene with Cagney and Doris Day that Doris considered very rough and nasty but the censors refused to allow that. Leone is certainly more courageous than that. Although present day political correctness would jump on anything that’s potentially disturbing and say so-and-so has a dirty mind. Hitchcock got complaints regarding that rape scene in ‘”Frenzy” that said that Hitchcock was dirty and sick for showing that and even something as horrid as saying that Hitchcock well, got off that. Hitchcock angrily pointed out that the scene required many close-ups and camera set-ups and that shooting it was too difficult to get any fun of off it and the actress Barbara Leigh was a sport about it.

    ”Once Upon A Time In America” was described be Leone as being about dreams and myths which is the only way Leone could touch depth. On that level it’s a thorough and detailed treatment of that. About the allure and magic of the dream and the brutal reality of failed hopes, failed futures, failed loves all going up in smoke.

  34. The on-set footage of Hitch directing that scene, sat in his chair directly over the “action”, talking them through it with what sounds rather like relish, is VERY creepy.

    The camera operator passed on a story that when Barry Foster tackles the woman, Hitch said “Make sure you get a shot of her knickers.”

    And I think some of that prurience certainly comes across in the scene/film. Hitch may not have gotten a sexual kick out of shooting, but remember that for AH it was all about planning. In the book about his last project, The Long Night, the author talks about Hitch describing explicit sex scenes purely for his own amusement, without really intending to shoot them.

    The rape at the start of Duck You Sucker is infinitely more problematic than that in America, since it’s played for laughs, and shown as a legitimate act of class warfare. Highly dubious, to say the least.

  35. Hitchcock was likely messing with that guy’s mind. Hitchcock certainly had a bawdy sense of humour and loved fucking with people’s minds. And playing the devil and going into details is just Hitchcock’s way of lightening a heavy scene so that it creates a better work environment. People think that scenes of violence and rape have to be shot seriously. It ain’t necessarily so. It should be serious on-screen in the end.

    Like the finale of ”Taxi Driver” is bloody and shocking. But during the shoot, creating the fake blood, the blown up bits of bones that is supposed to spurt out after Travis shoots of a guy’s fingers and also shooting in a real-life condemned building created an atmosphere of fun and DeNiro said that the scene took time because of the horseplay and jokes.

  36. I think that’s a very good point about Deborah. I thought it was very strange that she didn’t seem to harbor any resentment towards him and found it odd that the rape was never brought up, there seemed to be no tension about it at all.

  37. I think it’s a combination of the actor’s inexperience and Leone’s disinterest in female psychology. But it does kind of work in the dream interp.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: