Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Is there any vegetarian chili served at Oklahoma? | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 10:25 am EDT 08/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Is there any vegetarian chili served at Oklahoma? - Thom915 11:59 pm EDT 08/26/19 | |
|
|
|
| This seems like poor logic on your part, rather than irony. Everyone in the audience, presumably, can eat meatless chili and, hence, can participate in the experience. As they are the paying customers it seems like good, efficient business. Presumably, at Sweeney Todd, the meat pies didn't include human flesh. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Is there any vegetarian chili served at Oklahoma? | |
| Posted by: Thom915 03:56 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Is there any vegetarian chili served at Oklahoma? - BruceinIthaca 10:25 am EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, a good business decision. Key word was humorously. The chili is presumably what would have been served in the territory ( becoming a state) and ostensibly prepared by the characters in the musical. Is it logical these characters would have prepared what began as a meat dish in only a vegetarian version? Yes a good business decision but ironic in light of the theme of the production. | |
| reply to this message |
| The theme of the production | |
| Posted by: aleck 04:31 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Is there any vegetarian chili served at Oklahoma? - Thom915 03:56 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| I'm going to see this again on Thursday -- for the third time. I think it's (mostly) a well considered interpretation of this classic. Before seeing this production, I had NEVER seen a production of Oklahoma that I thought was any good, including the most recent Trevor Nunn bore. It just never made sense to me why this was greeted with such enthusiasm. The current production is, I think, very exciting. It's particularly wonderful to hear all the lyrics sung in a clear voice. I am going with someone who is 70 and has never seen Oklahoma and knows nothing about it. He has absolutely no preconceptions about this work. It will be very interesting to see what he thinks. (I hope all of the original cast members will be performing.) The one thing that I think is missing in this rather raw look at the emerging state of Oklahoma is the absence of any type of inclusion of Native Americans. After all Oklahoma was originally intended to be a dedicated "Indian Territory" where all the Native Americans would be sent to, well, rot in the most worthless stretch of dust within what was becoming the United States. This is the area where the Cherokees were made to walk to after being thrown out of Georgia when gold was discovered on their lands. Then, when oil was discovered in Oklahoma a new set of justifications were cooked up to let the white people come in to "settle" and then become a state. I think the production would have been made even more raw and dark and the ending more viciously realistic if they had cast a Native American as Jud. Then, we could have fully understood how self-serving and evil Aunt Eller is. By the time of the setting of the musical, Native Americans were being pressed into roles of "assimilation" and would have been hired in a job that Jud fills. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The theme of the production | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 06:10 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 06:09 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| In reply to: The theme of the production - aleck 04:31 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| The absence of any Native Americans in ''Oklahoma!'' is compounded by the fact that the musical is based on ''Green Grow the Lilacs'' by Lynn Riggs, who was part Native American. His mother was one-eighth Cherokee. Wikipedia says that when Riggs was 2, she secured him his Cherokee allotment, and he was able to draw upon it to support his writing. Riggs would pen 21 full-length plays, including ''The Cherokee Night'' (1932), considered the first American Indian drama. In his New York magazine essay, ''Oklahoma Was Never Really O.K.,'' Frank Rich notes: ''Some 4,000 of the 16,000 Cherokees who were forced to migrate to Oklahoma from Georgia along the notorious 1,200-mile-long Trail of Tears in 1838–39 died along the way. You’d never guess from 'Oklahoma!' that its setting, outside the town of Claremore, is just 60 miles from Tahlequah, the capital of the transplanted and decimated Cherokee Nation. Nor would you know that white settlers like Curly were able to grab Indian territory because Congress abolished tribal land ownership in 1887, less than 20 years before we find him singing “Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin’.” There is an itinerant immigrant peddler, Ali Hakim, in 'Oklahoma!,' but not a single Indian.'' |
|
| Link | New York magazine: Oklahoma Was Never Really O.K. by Frank Rich |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| In Green Grow the Lilacs, characters proudly proclaim their Indian background (nm) | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:21 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The theme of the production - WaymanWong 06:09 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Cast a Native American as Jud | |
| Posted by: aleck 06:31 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The theme of the production - WaymanWong 06:09 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| That would fully bring the whole issue up front and without any particular direct comment. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Arena Stage's 2010 'Oklahoma!' set the benchmark for diversity | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 07:09 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 06:57 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| In reply to: Cast a Native American as Jud - aleck 06:31 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| In her director’s note, Molly Smith asserted that “Arena’s cast is an American tapestry, with all colors and types. African-Americans, Native Americans and Asian-Americans lived in Oklahoma at [the] beginning of the 20th century. They shared a territory but lived in separate communities. . . . Arena’s frontier is a fully cross-cultural one.” In an essay called ''Redefining America, Arena Stage & Territory Folks in a Multiracial 'Oklahoma!,''' Donatella Galella wrote: ''Team members were conscious of the multiracial implications of their [casting] decisions. … They decided that .. Jud should not be played by a black or Native American actor so as to avoid stereotypes of drunk, sexually threatening, working-class male villains of color. The creative team briefly considered casting a Native American actor as Jud because his outsider status and death would resonate with the violent treatment of indigenous peoples by the federal state. The team ultimately claimed that it did not find a suitable singing actor and expressed concerns about offending audiences with such a portrayal.'' By the way, Galella's essay also notes how ''Green Grow the Lilacs'' ends, as opposed to ''Oklahoma!'': White–Native American playwright Riggs was far more attentive to racial specificity and history in 'Green Grow the Lilacs' which has a significantly different ending from the musical version. In the play, after Curly and Jud fight and Jud dies by falling on his own knife, Curly goes to federal prison to await a formal trial. When the territory folks catch him escaping from prison, Aunt Eller persuades everyone to allow him to spend his wedding night with Laurey. She admonishes them, “[w]hy, the way you’re sidin’ with the federal mashal, you’d think us people out here lived in the United States!” They reply, “[n]ow, Aunt Eller, we hain’t furriners. My pappy and mammy was both borned in Indian Territory! Why, I’m jist plumb full of Indian blood myself.” Citing blood, which reduces race to biological essence, they claim to be part Indian and identify as Indian Territory folks, not as Americans, so they are willing to flout US federal law. To then Americanize the musical, Hammerstein erased this indigenous complexity, lightened Curly’s sentence, and celebrated the United States. In the musi- cal, Curly does not go to prison; instead, the ensemble immediately stages an informal trial and exonerates him, and they gleefully sing about the territory becoming a state.'' |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Thanks, Wayman. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:26 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| In reply to: Arena Stage's 2010 'Oklahoma!' set the benchmark for diversity - WaymanWong 06:57 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| I should have read further before posting my nm comment. Indeed, if we look at GGTL, casting a Native American as Jud (Jeeter) would not necessarily be wrong, but doing so in order to make a point that the other characters consider him therefore of lesser value than white people would be going against what GGTL tells us about these people. Since Hammerstein omitted these things from his adaptation, it's reasonable to question whether we should care, but I surely don't think that Hammerstein's intentions would be served by doing this. There are those who would say that those intentions don't especially matter, and that's another argument (one we've had here many times). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Thanks, Wayman. | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:31 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
| In reply to: Thanks, Wayman. - AlanScott 08:26 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| Mindful of the fact that, early on in OKLAHOMA!, Curly describes Jud as a "bullet-colored, growly man," it entered my mind many years ago that the role could be specifically cast with a black actor, but I ultimately decided that would make all of those scenes involving Jud'sotherness and, ultimately, his death too dark (certainly no pun intended here) and painful for the audience. For some reason, It never actually occurred to me until recently that Jud could be Native American, but that might have the same effect. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Within the context of this particular current production | |
| Posted by: aleck 10:00 am EDT 08/28/19 | |
| In reply to: Thanks, Wayman. - AlanScott 08:26 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| There have been many reconsiderations in this production of the text as it has been performed since its original production. However, I don't think that in most cases of these reconsiderations that they are invalid. I think, for example, that the way the final "trial" scene is staged and spoken that ALL of the characters know that what they are doing is wrong. But, other considerations push them to make a decision -- mostly instigated with prodding and illogical justifications by Aunt Eller -- to bring things into an order that benefits the dominant culture -- namely the goals of white people and specifically those of Curly who is beloved by the crowd. Yet not all in the group respond as jubilantly at the end as Curly does when he proclaims "everything's going my way." Just look at the horror on Laurie's blood-splattered face. There have been many provocative things raised in this production. The interracial aspect, with African-Americans represented in the cast, is valid since, as we know, when the Cherokees left Georgia, where they held African-American slaves, they brought their slaves with them to the Indian Territory, which later became Oklahoma. That issue, by the way, still boils today because new restitutions with the Cherokees are complicated by whether or not African-American descendants of the Cherokee slaves should or should not benefit from those restitutions. (Many Cherokees don't want to share with these descendants of their former slaves.) Unlike a cast of color-blind"diversity," I see this a production as one of specific racial diversity. It isn't like it is color blind in the way, for example, the Lincoln Center production of Carousel was in contrast to the most recent Broadway production which had race-specific diversity. If this recent Carousel production had been color-blind, the daughter of Julie and Billy would not have been specifically and pointedly bi-racial. You can be color-blind all you want, but the audience can't help but noticing it and making their personal assessments of it. Thinking about the absence of any type of inclusion of Native Americans in this current reconsidered production of Oklahoma seems to me to be a lost opportunity to inject some type of commentary about the Native American dynamic in the origin story of the state of Oklahoma. Looking for a way of dramatizing this without changing the text of the book, I can see how Jud could be the stand-in for this dynamic. (I don't mean to detract from the fantastic job the actor playing Jud is doing. I had never seen Lonely Room performed with such intensity. He made a buffoonish character into a truly living, breathing person.) With a Native American in that role, the audience could apply their own individual assessments of the role of Native Americans in the history of Oklahoma -- as well as the entire United States. Most, I think, would see the final action as a tragic expression of the complete annihilation of Native American presence to satisfy the colonial interests of white people and a symbolic suicidal surrender by a Native Ameircan Jud. I fear, however, there might be audience members who still think that "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."_ |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Within the context of this particular current production | |
| Posted by: singleticket 10:44 am EDT 08/29/19 | |
| In reply to: Within the context of this particular current production - aleck 10:00 am EDT 08/28/19 | |
|
|
|
| The interracial aspect, with African-Americans represented in the cast, is valid since, as we know, when the Cherokees left Georgia, where they held African-American slaves, they brought their slaves with them to the Indian Territory, which later became Oklahoma. That issue, by the way, still boils today because new restitutions with the Cherokees are complicated by whether or not African-American descendants of the Cherokee slaves should or should not benefit from those restitutions. (Many Cherokees don't want to share with these descendants of their former slaves.) That is fascinating. Thanks. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Within the context of this particular current production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:56 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
| In reply to: Within the context of this particular current production - aleck 10:00 am EDT 08/28/19 | |
|
|
|
| "There have been many reconsiderations in this production of the text as it has been performed since its original production. However, I don't think that in most cases of these reconsiderations that they are invalid. I think, for example, that the way the final 'trial' scene is staged and spoken that ALL of the characters know that what they are doing is wrong." But this is not a good example of your thesis, because while the text of the trial scene remains the same in the current production, both the staging AND the text of the scene of Jud's death -- which is what Curley's on trial for -- has been changed. I think the huge change in the staging has been covered enough that I don't need to detail it again, but the textual changes involve the addition of one line -- right before the murder, Jud hands Curly a gun and says, "You know what you have to do" -- and the cutting of another line or two --in the scene as originally written by Hammerstein, when Jud is killed in the struggle, Curly and or someone else says something like "He fell on his own knife, stuck clean through the ribs." So it may be true that, in the trial scene in THIS production, all of the characters know what they are doing is wrong, but it arguably wouldn't be "wrong" if the staging were the original and Jud fell on his own knife during his struggle with Curly, rather than Curly shooting an unarmed man at point-blank range. "I had never seen Lonely Room performed with such intensity. He made a buffoonish character into a truly living, breathing person." I'm guessing you saw neither Martin Vidnovic nor Shuler Hensley as Jud in the last two Broadway revivals of the show, because I certainly thought both of them made Jud a living, breathing person rather than a buffoon, and I believe most if not all of the critics felt as I did. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Within the context of this particular current production | |
| Posted by: mikem 05:05 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Within the context of this particular current production - Michael_Portantiere 03:56 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
|
|
|
| I did not realize that the "you know what you have to do" line is an addition. IMO, that line completely changes the context of the shooting, making it seem like Jud has some complicity in his death. The line makes it seem almost like a mercy killing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Within the context of this particular current production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:30 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Within the context of this particular current production - mikem 05:05 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
|
|
|
| "I did not realize that the 'you know what you have to do' line is an addition." Probably because the production keeps insisting that there are NO textual changes to the show, which is not true. Also, yes, that line completely changes the context of the shooting -- but further than that, the shooting is not a shooting in the original script, it's a knifing. And it's not even a knifing of one person by another. What happens, again, is that Jud falls on his own knife during a fight with Curly in which Jud is the only one of the two with a knife. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Within the context of this particular current production | |
| Posted by: mikem 11:09 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Within the context of this particular current production - Michael_Portantiere 05:30 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
|
|
|
| Has Daniel Fish ever said anything about why it's a gun and not a knife? I guess he couldn't have the blood shooting onto Curly and Laurey if it were a knife. And the displayed rifles on the walls of the theater are echoed by the use of a gun. I agree it's odd that they keep saying that there are no textual changes when one of the most important segments of the show is changed in a meaningful way. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| What Fish told Deadline.com about the shooting in 'Oklahoma!' (spoiler) | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 04:53 pm EDT 08/29/19 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 04:51 pm EDT 08/29/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Within the context of this particular current production - mikem 11:09 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
|
|
|
| Fish: When we did it at Bard in 2015, Ted [Chapin] felt it seemed a little bit too much like cold-blooded murder, and that was not how I intended it to be, and it’s not what I thought it was. I thought it was more a kind of almost-suicide in which everybody is made complicit. So we worked very hard at St. Ann’s to make a few adjustments to make it clear that Jud had agency in that action. Ultimately he’s not the person who pulls the trigger. In this version, Jud hands him the gun. Jud cocks the gun. Those two gestures were not there in 2015. Jud brought the gun, but he didn’t hand it to him, and he didn’t cock it, and it didn’t take quite as long. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Within the context of this particular current production | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 05:03 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Within the context of this particular current production - Michael_Portantiere 03:56 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
|
|
|
| Neither Rod Steiger as Jud in the movie version nor Howard Da Silva in the original version could be described as buffoons. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The theme of the production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:12 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| In reply to: The theme of the production - aleck 04:31 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| "It's particularly wonderful to hear all the lyrics sung in a clear voice." Does this mean that, in previous productions of OKLAHOMA! that you have seen, you did not feel that the lyrics were sung in "a clear voice?" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The theme of the production | |
| Posted by: aleck 05:46 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The theme of the production - Michael_Portantiere 05:12 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| Yes. In this production, it was the first time I felt I heard all of the lyrics in a clearly interpreted, properly phrased and enunciated manner -- even though sometimes the interpretation was not conventional. Previously, I knew the lyrics primarily from memory. In contrast, I thought the most recent production of Carousel did NOT give the lyrics their proper due. But what total disappointment that production was. For decades I would claim that Carousel was the best musical ever written and that it was actor proof. I had seen elaborate productions, bare bone productions and even high school productions. But the power of the writing was evident because all the audience always laughed at the same time and cried at the same time. Not so this last time around and I had to change my mind after witnessing it. But all has been better than the other day at Bat Out of Hell when I couldn't understand 90 percent of the lyrics. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The theme of the production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:24 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The theme of the production - aleck 05:46 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| I completely agree with you about the recent production of CAROUSEL, but I didn't think we were discussing CAROUSEL. I'm also with you in not having loved the Trevor Nunn production of OKLAHOMA! I was just surprised that you didn't feel you had heard the lyrics sung clearly in previous productions. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The theme of the production | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 03:08 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The theme of the production - Michael_Portantiere 11:24 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| The Trevor Nunn production of OKLAHOMA! seemed to have gotten a rapturous reception in London, but, by the time the production had made its way to New York, something got lost in translation. Maybe it was the hype, which would have been difficult for any production to live up to, or maybe it was because New York saw almost an entirely new cast that was minus Hugh Jackman, who'd become a movie star in the interim. Could it be that the largely British cast in London found something in this material that really made it soar in a way that their American successors were not? My parents happened to catch the show in London and loved it...aside from some issues with accents, which they found amusing. They enjoyed it in New York, but weren't raving about it the way they had before. That much delayed and much anticipated OKLAHOMA! finally came and everyone sort of collectively shrugged their shoulders. That was a sharp contrast to the Nicholas Hytner production of CAROUSEL in the mid-90's, which was able to replicate its London acclaim in New York and perhaps even surpass it, while also launching a brand new star in Audra McDonald. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The theme of the production | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:37 am EDT 08/29/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The theme of the production - JereNYC 03:08 pm EDT 08/28/19 | |
|
|
|
| The video of the production makes me think that the production was better in New York, not worse. It is perhaps unfair to judge a production from a video, and the video of the London version of the Nunn Oklahoma! suffers from the same problems as some other videos of Nunn stage productions because of his own preferences in how they should be done. Still, it seems to me that the New York cast was better overall than the London cast. A friend who saw the production in London told me at that time that he thought it would be a mistake to bring the production to New York. He felt that it would not go over here as it had in the London. He thought Trevor Nunn fundamentally did not understand American musicals, and that it was just the kind of production that would be a big hit in London but would be rejected by audiences in New York. Personally, I thought the Broadway production, which I saw before I saw the video of the London production, was filled with problematic and even nonsensical choices (not to mention textual changes). Still, I preferred it to the Hytner Carousel, which I could not stand. And despite the critical acclaim, the production was something of a disappointment at the box office. It did then go on a longish tour, but the tour did very mixed business (good in some cities, not so good in others). Truth is that as far as I can tell neither production was really all that successful in London, at least not after they moved to open-ended runs. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The theme of the production | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:05 am EDT 08/29/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The theme of the production - AlanScott 12:37 am EDT 08/29/19 | |
|
|
|
| "A friend who saw the production in London told me at that time that he thought it would be a mistake to bring the production to New York. He felt that it would not go over here as it had in the London. He thought Trevor Nunn fundamentally did not understand American musicals," Truer words were never spoken :-( Did you all SEE what he did to A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The theme of the production | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 02:27 am EDT 08/29/19 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 02:26 am EDT 08/29/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The theme of the production - AlanScott 12:37 am EDT 08/29/19 | |
|
|
|
| Alan, I've never seen the video of the London ''Oklahoma!,'' but could it have been a bigger hit there because Hugh Jackman played Curly? (And did a film commitment keep Jackman from reprising his role on Broadway?) And did Jackman have better chemistry with its British Laurey, Josefina Gabrielle? One of her selling points, I believe, was that she could dance the role of Laurey; however, critics here seemed less enthused about her acting and singing. At Tony nomination time, Gabrielle got shut out, but her American co-stars (Patrick Wilson, Andrea Martin and Justin Bohon) all got nominated. And Shuler Hensley reprised his Olivier Award-winning role as Jud and became the only ''Oklahoma!'' nominee to win a Tony. (Speaking of Wilson, I wish he'd come back to Broadway to do musicals with that glorious voice of his.) |
|
| Link | Patrick Wilson and 2002 cast of 'Oklahoma!' on David Letterman show |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The theme of the production | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:14 am EDT 08/30/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The theme of the production - WaymanWong 02:26 am EDT 08/29/19 | |
|
|
|
| I'm surprised you've never seen the video. It used to get shown on PBS and it's available now on Blu-Ray (having been available in the past on both VHS and DVD). But I can't say it makes a great case for the production (not that I'm sure a great case could be made for it but I think a better one could be made than is made by the video). I can't remember exactly why Jackman wasn't available for Broadway. People say that Jackman and Gabrielle had better chemistry than Wilson and Gabrielle. I have no opinion. It was at first being claimed that Gabrielle was the first actress ever to play Laurey and dance the dream ballet. I pointed out here that was not correct, that Susan Watson had done that in a City Center revival and that I also bet that this had happened in various other productions. I think that I later learned that Karen Ziemba had done that in her high school production. Eventually, they changed Gabrielle's bio to say that she was the first person to do this both on the West End and Broadway. Gabrielle is very talented — I thought she was quite good in that London Merrily we saw here in the movies — but there was a wide feeling that she was not wonderful vocally as Laurey, that she was really more of a belter and her upper register was not very appealing. I've heard much worse, but I think it was clear that she was not among the most vocally appealing Laureys ever. Again, she is very talented. I'll just say again that the London production did not have a super-long run after it left the National. I can't remember if it closed because some cast members (perhaps including Jackman) had to leave and they decided to close rather than replace them or if it just wasn't doing great business (or perhaps both because I would think that they would have found new people if it had been doing really well). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The theme of the production | |
| Posted by: Thom915 05:05 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
| In reply to: The theme of the production - aleck 04:31 pm EDT 08/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| That is quite an interesting observation and idea. Please let us know what your friend thinks of the production (and the chili -Okay I am kidding about the second part) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.082457 seconds.