"The Dreamer" (Romance / Fantasy) Short Film
from Sagacity PicturesA lonely artist takes hold of a cherished dream when he discovers a magical ability to bring his drawings to life.
Written and Directed by: Jamie Kassler
Starring: Ryan Barrentine and Courtney Alana Ward
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Weeknd’s “Twenty Eight”: Watch The Gloomy, NSFW Video
The Weeknd has dropped the video for “Twenty Eight,” one of the new tracks off his Trilogy compilation, and it so unquestionably not safe for work! Unless you work at, say, a blog where it’s your job to watch a new music video that primarily consists of bare breasts. But even then, you’ll feel like a total skeez watching it next to your colleagues!As with all of The Weeknd’s material, we’re guessing this is some commentary on temptation and the cold transaction that is sex. The video starts with a warning about nudity and graphic imagery, but starts innocuously with Abel Tesfaye on an interview show. And that’s where the topless dancers come in.
To direct the clip, Tesfaye recruited Nabil, who in the past helmed trippy videos for Frank Ocean (“Pyramids,” which also featured topless dancers) and Kanye West (“Mercy”). This one isn’t nearly as much of a mind-melter as those two, but it’s sure to be a bigger hit with teenage boys.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
'Deep Throat Sex Scandal' Heats Up Zephyr Theater With Onstage Sex Scenes, Plenty Of Penis Jokes
 |
| Marc Ginsburg in 'Deep Throat Sex Scandal' (photo by Ed Krieger). |
David Bertolino's smut-chic historical stage biopic, The Deep Throat Sex Scandal, is playing at Zephyr Theatre. Bertolino depicts the Deep Throat epic (the pornographic film, not the Watergate scandal informant) through the eyes of porn star Harry Reems. Brimming with full-frontal nudity, Deep Throat film clips, bad wigs, and crass humor, The Deep Throat Sex Scandal is like watching a Schoolhouse Rock! episode about pornography and First Amendment rights.
 |
| Natasha Charles Parker, Marc Ginsburg, and Herschel Savage in 'Deep Throat Sex Scandal' (photo by Ed Krieger). |
Under the direction of Jerry Douglas, The Deep Throat Sex Scandal is objectively a fast-paced stage piece that takes its audience from moments of hearty laughter to tension-filled sex scenes. Having the actors reenact the iconic scenes from Deep Throat is a clever and engaging touch. The play doesn't always flow well, but the trade off is that you get to bask in the warm glow of gorgeous naked actors.
Unfortunately, despite the play's merits, Bertolino's script is utterly cheap and probably unbearable for anyone desiring a shred of sophistication. His humor is immature and vulgar, without being witty and his characters lack depth. Angeleno audiences are cosmopolitan enough at this stage in our evolution to not be shocked by the use of 70s-style dick jokes, yet they dominate the play. The entire show has the tone of your fifth grade history play (bad acting and uninspired sets and all), albeit this production is about adult-only subject matter. Jokes that made fun of a performer's less-than-perfect body and sexuality left this reviewer a bit disgusted. Generally speaking, The Deep Throat Sex Scandal is fine as a novelty, but it lacks the all of the trappings of real art.
The Deep Throat Sex Scandal is playing through February 17 at Zephyr Theatre. Tickets ($35) are available online or via phone at 800-838-3006
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sports Illustrated Swimsuit ‘13 on sale now
Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2013 takes an unprecedented journey to all seven continents, delivering fashion, beauty and earth’s most exotic destinations across print, tablet, mobile, web and television. Available on newsstands and on digital platforms now, the story of breathtaking SI Swimsuit models in equally beautiful locations around the world, including the red-hot cover shot of Kate Upton in Antarctica, provides fans access to over 650 high resolution images and more than two hours of high definition video.
Surprised Twitter users find out what #BBC stands for
The BBC is commonly known as the British Broadcasting Corporation—but some Twitter users are now discovering the three-letter acronym has an alternate, X-rated definition.PC Pro is exhaustively reporting that searching the #BBC hashtag occasionally brings up explicit pictures of large, dark-skinned penises.
A tipster told the British website that pictures of well-endowed black men are "automatically appearing" when they peruse the hashtag on Twitter. The "problem," as PC Pro labels it, is caused by Twitter's photo preview feature, which links to hardcore imagery without filtering it.
"Such a search throws up graphic images with no warning of adult content, alongside trailers for Radio 1 shows and BBC nature programmes," laments the site.
Indeed, a Twitter search for #BBC reveals a few johnsons scattered in between Sherlock posts and a Radio 1 playlist account. Most are posted by "XXX" usernames—which is usually a big warning that there's porn around.
Twitter told the website it only screens for forbidden material (like pornography) on profile pictures and backgrounds and that tweets are "not mediated." The company encourages users to flag inappropriate content, but doesn't immediately remove it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
January Jones : Mark Abrahams [VS]Spring/Summer 2013
Kate Moss : Tim Walker [Love Magazine #9]2013
A Poem for Alexa Vega
February 13, 2013 by Mooselicker
Dear Alexa Vega,
Those breasts, wow did they become mega.
It’s pretty clear they’re not real so why pretend,
I’ve got no problem with them so to me you don’t have to defend.
Your choices are yours and I’ll accept you for you,
Alexa Vega accept my invitation of love and find out what we’ll do.
I’ll start off by telling you all of your quirks,
We’ll love and we’ll dine, trust me this works.
You’ll fall for my charm or possibly my grace,
At times you may think I’m a bit of a nutcase.
You’re best known for Spy Kids a franchise I never viewed,
But now that your breasts are massive, anything you do my eyes will be glued to.
Most of the stunts in those films were performed by no double,
You clearly like putting your life in peril and trouble.
This is why I believe we’d be perfect as one,
If you want to get real dangerous I can always hit you with a gun.
Your career took you into other ventures that nobody ever cared for,
Those films never made much money, does this mean now you’re poor?
I hope it doesn’t because I want you to provide for me,
I’m a starving artist without a consistent income you see.
But Alexa give me a chance to provide love and support,
I can get my career off the ground then we’ll have enough cocaine to share and snort.
Ask any of my exes, I’m a really great guy,
And I’m great at sex, if they tell you differently it’s a damn lie!
You’re also a singer which gives me butterflies so much more,
For you Alexa unlocked is always my door.
Freshwater fishing is one of your hobbies,
What a coincidence, sometimes I steal the internet from hotel lobbies.
I know it’s not the same but have you ever tried writing a poem?,
It’s not as easy as it looks because Jews are always saying Shabbat Shalom.
Later this year out comes your new movie,
It’s called Machete Kills and on paper it looks groovy.
Although I did see the first and thought it was absolute crap,
To get through this one I may have to take a pre-movie nap.
In the end it doesn’t matter what you do with your career,
All that matters is that you and I remain near.
Let me add it’s more than your breasts that I like,
I also enjoy the way you assemble a bike.
I’m not sure what it would look like exactly but I’m sure it’s great,
Alexa Vega, isn’t it clear you and me need to get together for a date?
I’ll take you wherever you want,
I’ll just be happy to have a nice piece of arm candy to flaunt.
You’ll smile and laugh all night I promise,
I know this for a fact because I’m a descendant of Nostradamus.
Your smile, your cheeks, those hazel eyes so dark,
Do you feel that Alexa Vega, it’s a love spark.
You don’t have to tell me you love me so soon because I know one day you will,
Until you accept my invitation for a date I will remain unloved and still.
February 13, 2013 by Mooselicker
Dear Alexa Vega,
Those breasts, wow did they become mega.
It’s pretty clear they’re not real so why pretend,
I’ve got no problem with them so to me you don’t have to defend.
Your choices are yours and I’ll accept you for you,
Alexa Vega accept my invitation of love and find out what we’ll do.
I’ll start off by telling you all of your quirks,
We’ll love and we’ll dine, trust me this works.
You’ll fall for my charm or possibly my grace,
At times you may think I’m a bit of a nutcase.
You’re best known for Spy Kids a franchise I never viewed,
But now that your breasts are massive, anything you do my eyes will be glued to.
Most of the stunts in those films were performed by no double,
You clearly like putting your life in peril and trouble.
This is why I believe we’d be perfect as one,
If you want to get real dangerous I can always hit you with a gun.
Your career took you into other ventures that nobody ever cared for,
Those films never made much money, does this mean now you’re poor?
I hope it doesn’t because I want you to provide for me,
I’m a starving artist without a consistent income you see.
But Alexa give me a chance to provide love and support,
I can get my career off the ground then we’ll have enough cocaine to share and snort.
Ask any of my exes, I’m a really great guy,
And I’m great at sex, if they tell you differently it’s a damn lie!
You’re also a singer which gives me butterflies so much more,
For you Alexa unlocked is always my door.
Freshwater fishing is one of your hobbies,
What a coincidence, sometimes I steal the internet from hotel lobbies.
I know it’s not the same but have you ever tried writing a poem?,
It’s not as easy as it looks because Jews are always saying Shabbat Shalom.
Later this year out comes your new movie,
It’s called Machete Kills and on paper it looks groovy.
Although I did see the first and thought it was absolute crap,
To get through this one I may have to take a pre-movie nap.
In the end it doesn’t matter what you do with your career,
All that matters is that you and I remain near.
Let me add it’s more than your breasts that I like,
I also enjoy the way you assemble a bike.
I’m not sure what it would look like exactly but I’m sure it’s great,
Alexa Vega, isn’t it clear you and me need to get together for a date?
I’ll take you wherever you want,
I’ll just be happy to have a nice piece of arm candy to flaunt.
You’ll smile and laugh all night I promise,
I know this for a fact because I’m a descendant of Nostradamus.
Your smile, your cheeks, those hazel eyes so dark,
Do you feel that Alexa Vega, it’s a love spark.
You don’t have to tell me you love me so soon because I know one day you will,
Until you accept my invitation for a date I will remain unloved and still.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maryna Linchuk : Victor Demarchelier [25 Magazine] No.2 [Editorial]
OR
Modern appearances make casting of period films tricky
7 Feb 2013 [By REBECCA KEEGAN] Los Angeles Times
LOS ANGELES — With his concave cheekbones, lanky build and grooved brow, Daniel Day- Lewis replicates Abraham Lincoln more accurately than the head of a penny.
His performance in “Lincoln” has earned rousing endorsements from CivilWar historians, but close watchers of the film have spotted one glaring anachronism in this otherwise honest Abe— earring holes.
Day- Lewis, a meticulous actor known for disappearing into his roles, had the tattoos on his hands and forearms covered by wardrobe and makeup. He removed gold hoops from his ears. But despite makeup, the piercings were still visible.
“My Facebook friends were saying, ‘ Gee, I never knew Abraham Lincoln had a pierced ear,’” said Scott Stoddart, a cinema and theater scholar and a dean at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York. “You can see it in this scene and that scene. People are so visually literate now.”
Historical movies such as Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” have placed a greater premium on authenticity in recent years, with on- set researchers ensuring that costumes, production design and language accurately reflect the age. Filmmakers, however, have a more difficult time making sure the contemporary appearance of their casts doesn’t strain a movie’s credibility.
As a poor 19th century French factory worker in “Les Miserables,” Anne Hathaway incongruously shakes out the shiny, flowing tresses of a Pantene commercial. As a hard- drinking 1970s CIA agent in “Argo,” Ben Affleck peels off his shirt to show a torso sculpted enough for a Men’s Health cover. As a cigarette- smoking 1940s “They’ve never been to a doctor and they don’t use moisturizer. If actors look too well fed and comfortable and like they just walked out of their well appointedWinnebago, it just wouldn’t feel right. But to find the people who really are les miserables? There’s not many people in musical theater who look like that.”
Gold, who sifted through rafts of photos and sat through months of auditions, believes she has an advantage being based in London.
“English teeth are famously bad,” she said. “People are less perfect. If I go to lunch in a restaurant in London, there aren’t many people who’ve had their faces reconstructed. In L. A., nearly everybody has. In England, it’s easier to find interesting- looking people.”
While recruiting actors for the post WorldWar II, Paul Thomas Anderson drama, “The Master,” Cassandra Kulukundis had the tricky task of finding women for a nude scene set in the 1950s. She wanted to avoid piercings, plastic surgery and what she called “yoga bodies” for the party sequence, in which women of all ages and body types appear naked to one of the characters.
While recruiting actors for the post WorldWar II, Paul Thomas Anderson drama, “The Master,” Cassandra Kulukundis had the tricky task of finding women for a nude scene set in the 1950s. She wanted to avoid piercings, plastic surgery and what she called “yoga bodies” for the party sequence, in which women of all ages and body types appear naked to one of the characters.
Anderson shot the scene on Mare Island in Northern California— hundreds of miles away from Hollywoodstyle grooming — where Kulukundis recruited average- looking non- actors for some of the roles.
Finding actors who didn’t hit the gym too hard is also a challenge. Meredith Tucker, who cast the musicdriven coming of age story “Not Fade Away,” needed to track down young men sufficiently lithe to play musicians in a 1960s rock band. Tucker ended up casting slender, Dylanesque young actors John Magaro, Will Brill, and Jack Huston ( grandson of director John Huston).
“When you have guys with those thick necks, that definitely takes you out of the story,” Tucker said. “Men did not have bodies like that back then.”
While character actors often better suit the aesthetic of period films, stars sell the movies at the box office.
As director of “Argo,” which is set during the 1979- 81 Iran hostage crisis, Ben Affleck made sure his cast was groomed with sideburns and mustaches, and costumed in over- sized eyeglasses, all of which were popular at the time. But in his own role as CIA agent Tony Mendez, Affleck let slip one historical anomaly when he peeled off his shirt — and revealed his perfectly chiseled chest.
“When you have guys with those thick necks, that definitely takes you out of the story,” Tucker said. “Men did not have bodies like that back then.”
While character actors often better suit the aesthetic of period films, stars sell the movies at the box office.
As director of “Argo,” which is set during the 1979- 81 Iran hostage crisis, Ben Affleck made sure his cast was groomed with sideburns and mustaches, and costumed in over- sized eyeglasses, all of which were popular at the time. But in his own role as CIA agent Tony Mendez, Affleck let slip one historical anomaly when he peeled off his shirt — and revealed his perfectly chiseled chest.
“We are not the people we were in the 1970s,” Affleck said, conceding that his body type was not typical for the era. But he said that detail was one of the less egregious historical imperfections in the film, which included a fabricated car chase on an airport runway.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sex Edition: How our sexpectations compare to those of students in 1975
Written by Nick Stamatakis \ Assistant Opinions Editor
On Oct. 3, 1975, an article titled “Sex on Campus — Rumor versus Fact” appeared in The Pitt News. Reporter Harry Paras stood outside of Hillman Library to ask students about sex and distributed a paper survey. The following is an excerpt of this article.
The college campus at one time had the reputation of being a place where sex was wet and wild. Students, female as well as male, were supposedly uninhibited, lustful, experimentative and active in sexual matters.
Well, as far as Pitt today is concerned, that seemed a somewhat false picture. So, I decided to go to the students — armed with a survey sheet and a notebook — themselves. Some interesting results came up.
Before college, most students said they had the stereotyped image of the college sex scene. A male sophomore said, “I was hoping there would be so much of it at Pitt that I could burn myself out in the first two years and then be able to concentrate more on studying the last two.”
Most males interviewed had high hopes of finding it easily and getting it easily.
Although females thought college was much freer sexually, many admitted to never having thought about it much until after they went out with a few college fellows. One freshwoman said that just recently at a fraternity party, about half a dozen guys approached her, talked for a few minutes, and then asked her if she wanted to go upstairs.
After a few years here, attitudes change. Men and women agreed a lot of talking about sex goes on, but it doesn’t reflect how much is actually going on. Guys generally agreed most males are “big bullsh*tters’” when it comes to sexual exploits. However, there was agreement among those interviewed that if you really want it, you can find it at Pitt. Not as much goes on as is sometimes claimed, but it’s not true, either, that most are abstaining.
If presented with a willing female, most guys would have no qualms or moral constraints about having sex. A junior engineering student said, “If I’m attracted to her, and she’s attracted to me, then I’m ready for action.”
However, these same guys thought sex was much better in the context of some sort of relationship. This relationship did not necessarily have to be love, or one pointing towards marriage, but could be one of friendship.
But all males interviewed said sex and love were separable.
Most females, on the other hand, said they felt sex was right for them only in the context of a serious relationship. Some were quick to add that this didn’t necessarily mean marriage, or a relationship that would eventually be one of marriage. Living together was acceptable to them. However, just as many thought a serious relationship did mean marriage, and this was the only place for a full sexual relationship.
To the question of mutual attraction outside a relationship, a majority of women said even if they were sexually attracted to an unknown guy and he to them, it would not be all right to have sex.
... and 2013
If any story deserves a 38-year follow up, it’s this one. How has the campus sex scene changed since 1975? Is the undergraduate population uninhibited, lustful, experimentative and active in sexual matters, as Paras asked students 38 years ago? Standing outside of Hillman Library armed with questions based on this article, I sought to discover the truth. I posted an online version of the survey on the Pitt News website, as well.
Unlike students from 1975, who felt their pre-college stereotypes of the college sex scene turned out to be wrong, most today believe their pre-college perceptions have been correct. They generally agree that while it’s far “less raunchy than movies portray sex in college to be,” a good amount of sex happens on campus. Only two women, a sophomore and a junior, said there was a lot less than they expected.
However, when it comes to talking about sex, 82 percent of all respondents both online and in-person believe men exaggerate about their sex lives, although one senior man added they don’t exaggerate to good friends. There was far less consensus on women, however: About half of both men and women surveyed believe most women over-exaggerated about their sex lives.
Most people personally expressed that sex was better in the context of a relationship. Many shared the sentiment that an “emotional attraction makes it better” and that “it has more meaning” if there is a relationship. Yet a sizable minority thinks casual friendship is enough to constitute this emotional bond. One senior woman claimed to have “had some of [her] best sex with just a friend.” And about 15 percent think that consent is all that is necessary for great sex. Unlike the results from 1975, in this year’s responses, there was no noticeable difference between the sexes in their answers on this topic.
When people were asked if they would try to talk to a stranger they were sexually attracted to, most people said it would depend on the context, but that in most situations, they would not. Many expressed anxiety or low self-confidence as inhibitors. Others said they would only do so if they had been drinking. Still, a sizable portion of male respondents claimed to have luck with strangers: One junior claimed “usually they approach me first” and another freshman claimed he “spits a good game.”
So just as in 1975, people still have sex. Women have adopted many of the beliefs previously held primarily by men but still seem to be more timid about approaching strangers.
When asked to describe sex, there was a wide range of responses, ranging from scientific (“intercourse”) to light-hearted (“the greatest way to have fun for free”) to reflective (“Something I so desperately believe I require, until the rare moment in which I take part in it, in which case I am left unfulfilled”).
None of the 80 people involved, online or offline, mentioned the word “love.” Four, however, did call sex “intimate.” By far, the most popular description was “fun.”
Finally, the same day I was standing outside Hillman Library, a woman was passing out religious pamphlets nearby. In the spirit of investigative journalism, I decided to ask her what she thought about sex among college-aged people.
“I don’t think age has anything to do with it, but until you are married, you shouldn’t do it.”
Add another opinion to the mix.
One thing I noticed during in-person surveying was that far fewer men seemed interested in having this conversation than women. One particular man, when he heard I was asking about sex, simply said “Oh hell no” before storming off. My rejection rate was twice as high for guys; I have to wonder how well a female surveyor would have done.
But when engaged in these conversations, many men and women were very talkative and open. I actually think some of them liked talking about it. Not surprisingly, though, the online responses were significantly more frank, although I suspect a bit less truthful.
The college campus at one time had the reputation of being a place where sex was wet and wild. Students, female as well as male, were supposedly uninhibited, lustful, experimentative and active in sexual matters.
Well, as far as Pitt today is concerned, that seemed a somewhat false picture. So, I decided to go to the students — armed with a survey sheet and a notebook — themselves. Some interesting results came up.
Before college, most students said they had the stereotyped image of the college sex scene. A male sophomore said, “I was hoping there would be so much of it at Pitt that I could burn myself out in the first two years and then be able to concentrate more on studying the last two.”
Most males interviewed had high hopes of finding it easily and getting it easily.
Although females thought college was much freer sexually, many admitted to never having thought about it much until after they went out with a few college fellows. One freshwoman said that just recently at a fraternity party, about half a dozen guys approached her, talked for a few minutes, and then asked her if she wanted to go upstairs.
After a few years here, attitudes change. Men and women agreed a lot of talking about sex goes on, but it doesn’t reflect how much is actually going on. Guys generally agreed most males are “big bullsh*tters’” when it comes to sexual exploits. However, there was agreement among those interviewed that if you really want it, you can find it at Pitt. Not as much goes on as is sometimes claimed, but it’s not true, either, that most are abstaining.
If presented with a willing female, most guys would have no qualms or moral constraints about having sex. A junior engineering student said, “If I’m attracted to her, and she’s attracted to me, then I’m ready for action.”
However, these same guys thought sex was much better in the context of some sort of relationship. This relationship did not necessarily have to be love, or one pointing towards marriage, but could be one of friendship.
But all males interviewed said sex and love were separable.
Most females, on the other hand, said they felt sex was right for them only in the context of a serious relationship. Some were quick to add that this didn’t necessarily mean marriage, or a relationship that would eventually be one of marriage. Living together was acceptable to them. However, just as many thought a serious relationship did mean marriage, and this was the only place for a full sexual relationship.
To the question of mutual attraction outside a relationship, a majority of women said even if they were sexually attracted to an unknown guy and he to them, it would not be all right to have sex.
... and 2013
If any story deserves a 38-year follow up, it’s this one. How has the campus sex scene changed since 1975? Is the undergraduate population uninhibited, lustful, experimentative and active in sexual matters, as Paras asked students 38 years ago? Standing outside of Hillman Library armed with questions based on this article, I sought to discover the truth. I posted an online version of the survey on the Pitt News website, as well.
Unlike students from 1975, who felt their pre-college stereotypes of the college sex scene turned out to be wrong, most today believe their pre-college perceptions have been correct. They generally agree that while it’s far “less raunchy than movies portray sex in college to be,” a good amount of sex happens on campus. Only two women, a sophomore and a junior, said there was a lot less than they expected.
However, when it comes to talking about sex, 82 percent of all respondents both online and in-person believe men exaggerate about their sex lives, although one senior man added they don’t exaggerate to good friends. There was far less consensus on women, however: About half of both men and women surveyed believe most women over-exaggerated about their sex lives.
Most people personally expressed that sex was better in the context of a relationship. Many shared the sentiment that an “emotional attraction makes it better” and that “it has more meaning” if there is a relationship. Yet a sizable minority thinks casual friendship is enough to constitute this emotional bond. One senior woman claimed to have “had some of [her] best sex with just a friend.” And about 15 percent think that consent is all that is necessary for great sex. Unlike the results from 1975, in this year’s responses, there was no noticeable difference between the sexes in their answers on this topic.
When people were asked if they would try to talk to a stranger they were sexually attracted to, most people said it would depend on the context, but that in most situations, they would not. Many expressed anxiety or low self-confidence as inhibitors. Others said they would only do so if they had been drinking. Still, a sizable portion of male respondents claimed to have luck with strangers: One junior claimed “usually they approach me first” and another freshman claimed he “spits a good game.”
So just as in 1975, people still have sex. Women have adopted many of the beliefs previously held primarily by men but still seem to be more timid about approaching strangers.
When asked to describe sex, there was a wide range of responses, ranging from scientific (“intercourse”) to light-hearted (“the greatest way to have fun for free”) to reflective (“Something I so desperately believe I require, until the rare moment in which I take part in it, in which case I am left unfulfilled”).
None of the 80 people involved, online or offline, mentioned the word “love.” Four, however, did call sex “intimate.” By far, the most popular description was “fun.”
Finally, the same day I was standing outside Hillman Library, a woman was passing out religious pamphlets nearby. In the spirit of investigative journalism, I decided to ask her what she thought about sex among college-aged people.
“I don’t think age has anything to do with it, but until you are married, you shouldn’t do it.”
Add another opinion to the mix.
One thing I noticed during in-person surveying was that far fewer men seemed interested in having this conversation than women. One particular man, when he heard I was asking about sex, simply said “Oh hell no” before storming off. My rejection rate was twice as high for guys; I have to wonder how well a female surveyor would have done.
But when engaged in these conversations, many men and women were very talkative and open. I actually think some of them liked talking about it. Not surprisingly, though, the online responses were significantly more frank, although I suspect a bit less truthful.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
‘I’m in two minds’: Sarah Harding caught up between acting and singingThe 31-year-old member of Girls Aloud, will soon be seen in the film Run For Your Wife.
“I’m in two minds about what direction to go - I love music but acting is close behind,” thesun.co.uk quoted Sarah Harding as saying.
“There’s been a lot of talk about me going to Hollywood and I’d really love to do more stuff in America, but it’s good to fly the flag for Britain - hence Run For Your Wife,” she added. However, for Harding, nudity in movies is a big no. “A few extreme scripts have come through and I did go up for one part that asked for nudity but right now, they are not for me,” Harding said.“I’m not really looking for sexy parts - I think if I was ever to do something like that, I would have to be a serious actress and not doing the music side of things,” she added.
* at her age, frankly I don't see how she is going to avoid nudity if she is really serious about acting.
She may well be a talented latecomer to the biz but her options are severely limited after entering third decade of her life. It's her pretty face and bodacious bod that plays a major part in attracting 'sexy' roles and 'extreme' scripts in first place. Unless of course Sarah delivers a Meryl Streep-like performance in the movie..........
“I’m in two minds about what direction to go - I love music but acting is close behind,” thesun.co.uk quoted Sarah Harding as saying.
“There’s been a lot of talk about me going to Hollywood and I’d really love to do more stuff in America, but it’s good to fly the flag for Britain - hence Run For Your Wife,” she added. However, for Harding, nudity in movies is a big no. “A few extreme scripts have come through and I did go up for one part that asked for nudity but right now, they are not for me,” Harding said.“I’m not really looking for sexy parts - I think if I was ever to do something like that, I would have to be a serious actress and not doing the music side of things,” she added.
She may well be a talented latecomer to the biz but her options are severely limited after entering third decade of her life. It's her pretty face and bodacious bod that plays a major part in attracting 'sexy' roles and 'extreme' scripts in first place. Unless of course Sarah delivers a Meryl Streep-like performance in the movie..........
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Where Would the Money Come From? On Film Festivals, Distribution and the Economies of Change
"Fair Trade for Filmmakers," an article by Sean Farnel that we published last week, attracted a lot of attention from filmmakers, festival programmers and other industry members, who carried on an intense debate in the comments about the feasibility of Sean's suggestion that festivals pay filmmakers a percentage of their event's earned revenues. We invited Tom Hall, the Director of the Sarasota Film Festival, to write a response to the piece and offer a perspective from someone currently involved in running a major regional festival.
Last week, Indiewire ran a piece by Sean Farnel, a friend and colleague, asking a vital question about the future of film festivals: with the proliferation of film festivals and the decline in the viability of theatrical distribution for many independent films, what role can festivals play in creating a sustainable economic platform for filmmakers? Sean's conclusion, which argued in favor of film festivals offering cash payments to filmmakers on par with percentages found in traditional distribution models (roughly 35% of gross ticket sales), set off a great deal of debate among festival organizers and in the comments of the article, with opinions deeply divided. Indiewire invited me to respond to Sean's piece, and I am honored to be asked, but I write with some trepidation as the Internet is not a place known for reasonable, measured conversation.As I said, Sean is a friend and colleague, so I want to be clear that the thoughts presented here are not in any way seen to be a judgement on Sean or his experience, but I do think and honest assessment of his ideas, and some of the assumptions behind them, is in order. Instead of responding directly to Sean's argument, I thought it important to instead describe the current reality of film festival organizing in this country and to present a case for transparency and clarity in this environment. I want to use my own experience as Director of the Sarasota Film Festival as a framework for this discussion if only because it allows me to address what I know to be true and because Sarasota is a relatively large, non-profit regional festival of the type that makes up the vast majority of festivals in this country.
In the autumn of 2008, following what seemed to be a very successful festival in April of that year, our festival was forced to undergo a radical transformation in its economic structure. Sarasota, which was at the epicenter of the real estate market collapse, was confronted with significant cuts in sponsorship dollars (which collapsed along with the real estate business), individual giving (which was tied to the stock market crash and real estate values) and state and local funding (while Florida has no state income tax, property taxes are vital to government funding, so that when property values declined, so did revenues).
Working with our management team, our Board of Directors responded to this crisis by making deep cuts across the organization to create both a sustainable economic model for our festival and offset existing expenses we had taken on during better economic times. Like most, our organization was forced to reassess its position and viability in the face of lost revenues and new deficits and we responded by becoming leaner, more efficient and by tightening the margins around the key areas of our festival: staff costs and size, film presentation (projection), guest services (filmmaker travel and hospitality), marketing,
That same year, in addition to my duties with Sarasota, I was hired by The Newport International Film Festival in Newport, RI to program the festival. The organization was carrying a deficit into 2009 and despite the best efforts of management, with Rhode Island having some of the worst unemployment numbers in the country, the festival only broke even on the year. Unable to raise enough money to host the festival and simultaneously pay down previous deficits, the Board of the festival shuttered the organization. And while a group of excellent and dedicated locals have kept film alive in this amazing community by starting newportFILM, a year-round organization that hosts a screening series at various venues around the city, Newport is left without a festival.
Across both of these festivals, every stone was turned to find ways to keep them solvent; nothing was spared and the impacts of the economic downturn remain in place to this day. So does the economic environment for fundraising. As non-profits around the country work harder than ever to secure limited numbers of grants, sponsors and donors, the costs of operating a film festival continue to creep upward; travel costs, new technologies (including the transition to Digital Cinema) and a general decline in sponsor dollars have created a new set of challenges. Thankfully, surviving festivals are working hard to deliver great events to their communities and industry constituencies (filmmakers, distributors, the press), but as these changes require diligent management, an entirely new set of economic pressures are being shifted on to festivals, those of traditional film distribution.
This gets to the real heart of one of Sean’s arguments-- that festivals believe they are “force multipliers” and have a misperception of their role and the real value that they exchange for the “gift” of exhibiting a film. By and large, this is less and less true (although certainly there are those among us with delusions of grandeur). Just look at the situation with premiere status.
When I started programming the Nantucket Film Festival in 2002, we would fight battles to ensure an East Coast Premiere or some other meaningless status, not because it mattered to the film, per se, but because it mattered in the perception of press and sponsors that the festival was seen as a place to premiere work. Today, that argument is pretty much dead; aside from the largest festivals, premiere status is irrelevant for most if not all festivals. 99% of festivals must concentrate on delivering value in a hyper-local world while establishing and maintaining a national presence in other ways.
But Sean is certainly right that the value proposition of film festivals has already shifted and many of us, my own festival included, are going to need to constantly re-examine what that value truly is and can be. This is an area where festivals can and must become better-- by offering support and audience building for filmmakers throughout a film's entire lifecycle. Integrating long tail awareness for films is a big part of the future, and festivals whose organizations can capitalize on social media, local partnerships and integrated support for driving revenue opportunities to VOD and other platforms can play a major role in supporting artists over the long term.
Film festivals, and again I include myself here, have done a lousy job of making this case for value in the face of our economic realities. Assumptions about the submission process and the idea that programmers hold “hoity-toity notions of curatorial independence and prestige” are really just an expression of justifiable frustration that festivals have not been transparent about their processes and their economic realities. I would also suggest that, in a competitive non-profit fundraising environment, projecting uncertainty and economic frailty is a certain way to make your situation worse.
Confidence breeds investment, and negative perceptions have as much to do with the seasonal and regional nature of the organizations as it does with a lack of a national voice that can gather data and create a landscape analysis of the domestic festival world. I, and many colleagues from across the country, have recently begun meeting under the guidance of the IFP in the hopes of creating a national organization of festivals that can help us all get our arms around these new challenges confronting our organizations, information that we hope will create far greater transparency for filmmakers, distributors and festival partners.
And so, instead of questioning the motivations of film festivals, the overwhelming majority of which are run by very good people looking to help connect films with audiences, a reality check seems in order; in almost all cases, there is no profit to share and the loss of revenue from ticketing would create another economic disadvantage in an already difficult environment. That said, festivals must work with filmmakers to help create real value for their films, value that capitalizes on the rapidly changing marketplace without repeating the failed models of the past.
As the economy continues to struggle, the film industry has also felt the effect across the board, from film investment and production to the dramatic cost shift from traditional theatrical distribution (and the marketing dollars required for success) to a diversified approach that has seen a dramatic rise in video on demand (VOD) utilization across a number of platformed distribution strategies. And so, filmmakers and many distributors, facing a new environment where theatrical distribution grows more costly (and therefore unlikely for many) while the marketplace for VOD grows more crowded, are looking for new revenue streams to replace the diminishing likelihood of wider distribution and revenue.
So, why not film festivals? They are, in many cases, the only opportunity for a film to screen in a movie theater in many communities. They appear to be spending money on things that, when seen by a filmmaker struggling to make investors whole, appear relatively superfluous-- parties, hotels and plane tickets, etc. The new thinking is that since the decline of the theatrical market for most independents, film festivals have become a "de facto" distribution strategy unto themselves. So, why not apply the old distribution model to festivals to replace what was lost in the ongoing theatrical decline and transition?
First and foremost, the reason the traditional distribution economy is failing and changing is because it didn't make economic sense for distributors and exhibitors themselves. Why should we be applying a failing and uncertain economic model to any organization at this point? The recent example of Indomina shuttering its theatrical distribution arm in the wake of releasing two of the most acclaimed films of the year is only a small example of how difficult distribution and exhibition of independent, non-fiction and foreign films are today. The theatrical film experience is competing against a dizzying array of choices for the consumer, from home VOD to other forms of entertainment, while consumer dollars remain relatively flat or in, many cases, decline.
And of all the structures in place to generate revenue for films, the least profitable and viable is the film festival. At each screening of a film, my festival loses money. The cost of theater rentals, projection rentals and technical staffing, building and implementing a stand alone ticketing system online and on site, marketing our films and promoting them to the press, staffing the theaters and often traveling filmmakers to the festival means that ticket sales do not cover the cost of any screening. Yes, festivals raise money outside of ticket sales, but they do so in order to not only supplement film exhibition costs, but to create the kind of environment and event that actually drives an audience into the theaters to see films.
Which is to say that yes, you can have a film festival without filmmakers, press and community events that create an environment outside of theatrical norms, but I am not sure how that helps anyone. Without building the event itself, there is no audience. Just take a look at a weekend’s per-screen average for some of the most interesting work that has played the festival circuit. Even with five screenings a day in cities full of millions of people, there are films losing money against the cost of exhibition and P-and-A. Film festivals are not simply exhibitors, generating revenue on concession stands and throwing a print on a screen, they are there to create a living environment where the experience of seeing a film matters. Where there is dialogue and engagement, where word of mouth can be a powerful force for a film’s future. Film festivals are marketing partners and audience builders, platforms from which filmmakers can and should be launching an integrated campaign for their VOD and ancillary distribution strategy. We live in world where, aside from the biggest studio films, theatrical exhibition is a loss leader for the long tail of VOD and home video revenues.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kate Upton’s new Skullcandy episode has been released, so here it is
By
Last week, Skullcandy teased the interwebs with a preview of the second episode of Kate Upton’s “Take A Supermodel To Work” video, and on Wednesday, as the Swimsuit Issue cover model tweeted, the new video has dropped.
In the second episode (first episode here), Upton teams up with Outkast’s Big Boi and Buffalo Bills wide receiver Stevie Johnson, a fellow Skullcandy endorser and hits the recording studio.
The down-low on the video:
Take a Supermodel To Work Day is back. This time around, we partner with EA to take Kate Upton to the recording studio to lay down some tracks with Big Boi from Outkast, and to hang with NFL Wide Receiver Stevie Johnson. While the guys play EA’s new title “Army of TWO: The Devil’s Cartel”, Kate discovers her hidden talent as a music producer.
Take a Supermodel To Work Day is back. This time around, we partner with EA to take Kate Upton to the recording studio to lay down some tracks with Big Boi from Outkast, and to hang with NFL Wide Receiver Stevie Johnson. While the guys play EA's new title "Army of TWO: The Devil's Cartel", Kate discovers her hidden talent as a music producer.
And the photo gallery:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
'Scandal' Star Bellamy Young Dishes On Upcoming Nude Scene
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
House of Cards predictions: 10 things that might happen in season two (SPOILERS!)
 |
| Unrepentant bastard |
So Russo ended up being the dog from the first scene - who will be next?!
by Gemma Exley
We think we did pretty well to spread out House of Cards with one episode a night after Netflix dropped the entire 13 episode series on 1 Feb - not quite the same binge as everyone else but still enough of a gorge to leave a large gaping hole on the 14th night ("oh crap, now we'll have to think of something else to do on Valentine's night"). Whether viewers have the restraint to regulate their viewing or not, the 'help yourself to the lot' strategy is clearly the future of drama programming - Netflix reckons they took the approach after 73 per cent of members who started streaming season one of Breaking Bad finished all seven episode (because it's awesome!), whereas, as generally happens, there was a much more significant drop when it went out on AMC (because people are silly).
Back to House of Cards, if you haven't seen it (which you really should've if you're reading this because there are spoilers, spoilers everywhere), the show stars Kevin Spacey, Robin Wright and Kate Mara, and was developed by David Fincher, who also directed the first two episodes. Netflix reportedly outbid HBO, AMC, and Showtime for the show, and paid $100 million to produce two seasons of it without having seen even a pilot episode.
We've just had the first season - it was chilling, featured the most uncomfortable handjob scene ever screened and concluded in much the same way as Willy Wonka (if Charlie had secretly completely shafted Willy and Slugworth).
So, while it's all still fresh, what do you think is going to happen next? Here are our predictions...
1) They will stop with the Frank monologues - like they did after series one of Sex and the City - because they ended up being a bit distracting2) Slugline will go bust because it's a ridiculous model of an online business ('just shove some people sat on beanbags using laptops in an empty office space') - Fincher and Netflix should know better
3) Doug Stamper will fall on his sword so Underwood can deny any knowledge to the President...
4) But not before he gets embroiled in some dilemma involving the prozzie and the other girl he's clearly emotionally attached to
5) The whole Gillian pregnancy court case will have to be hushed up somehow with Claire being particularly chilling
6) Zoe's new boyfriend has GOT to be toast - so wet
7) Those nudie pics Frank took of her will be leaked
8) It will make us all hungry for Freddy's ribs again
9) Something to do with those past homosexual affairs?
10) Peter Russo's old apartment block will decide to install cameras in the parking lot
Until then, we've got new Arrested Development, Mad Men and Breaking Bad. It'll be alright, don't worry.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
'Murder 3' Star Sara Loren Loves Sex Scenes
Mumbai: 'Murder 3' starrer Pakistani beauty Sara Loren feels that Bollywood is much more open when it comes to exposing sensuality and portraying scorching sex scenes on screen. She says intimate chemistry essayed between stars on-screen always lure her.
She also feels that she comes from a different culture and community where such things are a matter of concern.
Sara Loren will be seen essaying the lead female character in Vishesh Films' 'Murder 3' along with Randeep Hooda nad Aditi Rao Hydari. The much awaited film is scheduled to hit the big screens on Friday. It is the third installment of the much popular Murder series which is known for its bold and erotic theme.
Pakistan, she says, has a "different culture".
"India is open about their ideas and sensuality of women. Lovemaking scenes over here are not such a big deal, and this has been there from the beginning in Bollywood," Sara told the reporters in an interview.
"People are liberal and here you can work the way you want to. I think I am bold and I like the scenes in 'Murder 3'... you are doing a role at the end of the day," she added.
The actor, who has also featured in Pakistani TV shows and films, made her Bollywood debut with 2010 movie "Kajraare". Even though "Murder 3" is laden with bold content, the 27-year-old is sure that a film like "Murder 3" will work in Pakistan.
"Everyone is waiting for 'Murder 3'. I guess people want to see the film there. They have seen 'Jism 2' too. People watch the films which they want to watch. I am connected with both the countries. I think people know how I am. They know I will go for roles that excite me," she said.
As an actor, Sara follows her heart.
"I am not hurting anyone. I am just doing films. It's not that now I will do only sensuous films. If there is a good film and the character has one or two scenes like this, I will do it," she said.
She feels "Murder 3" will be her "official launch" in Bollywood, even while she admits "Kajraare", directed by Pooja Bhatt, was a great learning experience for her.
"That was an experience for me. God has different plans for us I guess. 'Murder 3' will be my official launch."
"Pooja Bhatt worked a lot (on me). She used to really get angry with me. In fact, I even cried. The way Pooja treats you, it is very different and difficult at the same time. I had a great bonding with her. She is aggressive, but is clear about her work. But what Pooja taught me helped me a lot, specially in sensuous scenes (in 'Murder 3')," she said.
Bollywood was never really on the charts for the actress. But she admits she was always drawn towards Hindi cinema's romantic scenes.
"I had no plans to come into Bollywood but like all other young girls, I also love it a lot. There is one thing I would like to tell that I always get attracted to the bold and sensuous scenes." said the stunning Pakistani beauty.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Christina Patterson [Tuesday 12 February 2013]Yes, Page 3 is bad for women. But so are the photos in OK! magazine
Naked breasts in ‘The Sun’ have made Rupert Murdoch an awful lot of money in 42 years
Four and a half million is about two-thirds of the daily readership of a newspaper which is still the tenth most popular newspaper in the world. Four and a half million is quite a lot more than the 64,305 people who signed a petition for a group called “No More Page 3”. But the 64,305 people who did sign it may well have cheered up. On Sunday night, a woman who sounds like an American teenager, but may well not be, sent Rupert Murdoch a tweet saying: “we are all so over Page 3”. And Rupert Murdoch, who’s 81, and who, in spite of the dementia that seemed to hit him when he talked to Parliament, wants to pretend he isn’t, sent a (not very grammatical) tweet back. “Page three so last century!” he said, also sounding like an American teenager. “You maybe right.”
What he didn’t say is that naked breasts are in The Sun for the same reason they’re in any magazine, or on any website, or in any club (apart from a gym) that has women anywhere near poles. Naked breasts are in The Sun because they’re an easy way to make cash. Naked breasts are in The Sun because men like naked breasts. Men like naked breasts more, unfortunately, than columns in The Independent.
Rich people don’t get rich by being nice. Starbucks didn’t suddenly decide to pay more corporation tax because it thought Margaret Hodge had made a good point. Rupert Murdoch has put naked breasts in The Sun for 42 years because they have made him an awful lot of money. He’ll only take them out if he thinks taking them out will make him more. He might, he said, consider a “halfway house” with “glamorous fashionistas”. He might, in other words, think about swapping one kind of porn for another: the porn of nearly naked bodies that’s aimed as much at women as men.
Before, we hadn’t really bothered to look at photos of women in their bikinis, and wonder if they might be a little bit fat, or a little bit short, or a little bit thin. Now we could do it for quite big chunks of our time. We could, in fact, do it for so much of our time that the newspaper websites which published a lot of these photos, and wrote “stories” underneath them that weren’t really stories, got more readers (if you can call people who look at pictures “readers”) than any other newspaper websites in the world. These newspaper websites, unlike most newspaper websites, even made money. They made this money by making sure a woman’s body wasn’t just something to stir an appetite, or cheer a bloke up. They made this money by making sure a woman’s body was something for another woman to judge.
The editor of The Sun was, at least in one way, right. There is something “innocuous” about the Page 3 breasts. They make you think of a more innocent world: of saucy seaside humour and camp Carry On. They make you think of a world before mass plastic surgery, and internet porn. Those breasts bounce because they’re made of real flesh. Those breasts are about lust, and sex.
Some of us would be quite a lot happier if newspapers made money without selling sex. But sex, like women’s breasts, will always be with us. Vivamus et amemus. Let us live, as Catullus said, and let us love, but please let’s not feed any more orgies of self-hatred. And particularly when the profits of those orgies go to men.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wingnut PAC Used Female Interns For Simulated Sex Video With Hillary, Panda Bear
By Susie Madrak
Too bad no one's leaked the video (yet), but I suppose you would want to hang onto it for the lawsuits those interns will probably bring. And they think liberals are the strange ones, huh? What brilliant young staffer came up with the bright idea of showing this to Christian conservatives?I have to say, this sounds like it was planted by Dick Armey to blow things up now that he got his payday. But still entertaining, nonetheless! Via Raw Story:
The controversial conservative super PAC FreedomWorks created a promotional video that depicted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton having oral sex with a woman in a giant panda suit, according to a report published on Thursday.Oopsy! Slip of the tongue, so to speak. There are so many wingnuts in the closet, I guess they forgot that you don't "fellate" women.
Former FreedomWorks officials told Mother Jones‘ David Corn that an internal investigation was focusing on the group’s president, Matt Kibbe, and a possible area of inquiry was the video in question.
“The video included a scene in which a female intern wearing a panda suit simulates performing oral sex on Hillary Clinton,” Corn reported, noting that the film had been created to play on large screens the FreePAC conference in July 2012.
Sources told Corn that the premise of the video was a dream sequence, where Executive Vice President Adam Brandon voyeuristically observes “a giant panda on its knees with its head in the lap of a seated Hillary Clinton and apparently fellating the then-secretary of state.”
FreedomWorks tasked two female interns with the roles of Hillary Clinton and the giant panda. The panda suit was an “inside joke” used at rallies to mock Democrats for pandering to special interests.
“Yes, this video was created,” a FreedomWorks staffer confirmed to Mother Jones.
Another group official recalled that his “mouth was wide open” when the film was first screened to staff: “What the hell is this?”
“How was that not some form of sexual harassment?” a FreedomWorks officials said of the two female interns who had been coerced into performing simulated sex acts. “And there were going to be thousands of Christian conservatives at this thing. This was a terrible lack of judgment.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just How Many Women Are Naked On The Internet? A Back-Of-The-Envelope Calculation
Oh, hello! And welcome to the now-weekly LIVE edition of the Deadspin Funbag. We'll do this every Thursday right around 1 p.m. and go until 3pm. To submit a question to the live Funbag, you gotta post down in the bowels of the discussion section below. It is there, and only there, where your questions about grandparents 69ing and murderous paralympians will be answered.To get things going every week, I'll post one question up here before diving into the comments. So let's get on with it ...
Mark:
I follow several naked women posters on Twitter like ‘iLikeGirlsDaily' and the like and I am amazed at the number of unique women that have naked pictures of themselves on-line. What's the over/under on the number of American women with at least a bare breast shot of themselves out there? Consider that there are probably 90 – 100 million adult women in the U.S., I'm going with around 800,000.It really is remarkable how many of them are out there. If you're a single man, this is obviously a thrilling development. OH MY GOD, SO MANY WOMEN. But if you're a father, this is obviously the most horrifying thing ever. OH MY GOD, SO MANY WOMEN.
First off, we should acknowledge that there are a great many women who are naked on the Internet who NEVER intended to be naked on the Internet. I'd wager that at least 10 percent of those photos were intended for private audiences (you can go ahead and increase the amount for people who got naked while under the influence of alcohol and/or heavy narcotics). So I don't know if we should count them because I think we're trying to ascertain the number of willing participants. But even if you discount those fine upstanding ladies, the number remains STAGGERING.
A two-year-old leak of porn-star medical records included more than 15,000 people. But that's just in California, and that only accounts for paid sexual performers in one state. The number of amateur performers almost certainly dwarfs that number. And then we have to account for magazine centerfolds, legitimate actresses in nude roles, the thriving market in illegal Czech and Russian immigrants who are sent here in shipping containers specifically to star in Brazzers videos for your merriment. Even if the number of women who are naked online (and I count thong shots in this guesstimate, because thong shots) is a small percentage of the overall American population, you're still talking about potentially tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people. I say it's lower than 800,000 here in America alone. Maybe 400,000. But still, that's terrifying. YOU STAY AWAY FROM MY KID.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Short Film: Summer of the Zombies
What happens when a 20-something vegetarian gets turned into a zombie? In the award-winning comedy short Summer of the Zombies, vegetables, not people are the victims — at least for zombie protagonist Summer.
The idea of a zombie eating veggies is visually comic, but it’s the storyline that makes Summer fun. After attacking her housemate for the ingredients of his healthy power shake, Summer sets out into the world, only to find herself ostracized by more traditional flesh-eating zombies. Will Summer ever fit in? Stick with it, the payoff is hilarious.
Summer of the Zombies was written and directed by Ashleigh Nichols and Eddie Beasley, featuring original music by Brock Frye.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
