SEE THIS MOVIE

and I kind of hate to say that 'cause I'd love to say it's In The Mood For Love, The Platform, Friday Night (personal fav), or a bunch of others. (Though if I were to indulge my bias, I'd have Werckmeister and ITMFL tied @ #1.)

I've been mentioning it here and there, posting youtube clips and links to the score hoping somebody would take the bait. (Look elsewhere for rich characterization, tight plotting, dialogue (though the music theory monologue is awesome), and brisk pacing, but look to Werckmeister for audiovisual artistry that'll drug and hypnotize you.)

For my money, Tarr is one of the all-time greats just based on Satantango and Werckmeister alone. He made 2 other great films and his latest seems to be another one based on reviews.

Once again:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VFmu7BYbthY

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-QI1-Lp0f28&mode=related&search=

>I've been mentioning it here and there, posting youtube clips
>and links to the score hoping somebody would take the bait.

The score is one of the best things I've ever heard, plain and simple. Jesus how can a score be so good?

>and
>brisk pacing,

I'll tell you what though, the film moves slow and is 2 1/2 hours long, but it felt like 45 minutes. You can totally, TOTALLY lose yourself in this. It's magical.

>but look to Werckmeister for audiovisual
>artistry that'll drug and hypnotize you.)

my Gawd yes. *****SPOILER******



The whole hospital sequence HAS to be an all time great. Words can't really describe it, it transcends film. How can this movie be so good Sponge?

I even mentioned the movie in your "memorable shots in film" and "...best directors" posts. And linked to the youtube clips in a "What did you watch..." post. Damnit. Read! J/K.

>The score is one of the best things I've ever heard, plain and
>simple. Jesus how can a score be so good?

Unfortunately, the site where you could stream and DL the mp3s of 3 pieces of the score (which I think is all of 'em) is down.

>I'll tell you what though, the film moves slow and is 2 1/2
>hours long, but it felt like 45 minutes. You can totally,
>TOTALLY lose yourself in this. It's magical.

Yup. That's why I love long take directors. I don't have ADD or anything, but when movies are cut w/ a billion shots that are mostly medium-closeups and 1 piece of info per shot, I don't feel immersed in the world and experiencing it. Location, location, location. Atmosphere. Mood.

And Tarr is one of those who makes points or climaxes w/ images and sounds (not w/ dialogue). It's much more powerful that way.

>The whole hospital sequence HAS to be an all time great.

Yup. The long take allows us to feel the rush of countless people. Then, the shot of the old man? Sheeeit. Then the shot of Janos later on off to the side? Huh.

The uncle at the end looking at the "thing" w/ the score and all, made me lose it w/ him just leaving Janos and all. Otherwordly.

>Words can't really describe it, it transcends film.

Word. Even if you don't know w/ certainty what is going on or what is the point immediately, you've know you've been moved.

>I even mentioned the movie in your "memorable shots in film"
>and "...best directors" posts. And linked to the youtube
>clips in a "What did you watch..." post. Damnit. Read!
>J/K.

ohhhhhh my bad lol. Ebert recently added it to his great movies list so that's when I rushed it to the top of my queue.

>>The whole hospital sequence HAS to be an all time great.
>
>Yup. The long take allows us to feel the rush of countless
>people. Then, the shot of the old man? Sheeeit. Then the
>shot of Janos later on off to the side? Huh.

and then they all file out (incredible shots), totally humbled and shocked. POWERFUL

>Word. Even if you don't know w/ certainty what is going on or
>what is the point immediately

this is what helps you stay totally intrigued throughout. There are these serious lookin dudes standing around, then someone tells Janos to be careful on the streets, then a hospital is ransacked, etc.

movies move too fast? (This is building on your comment earlier.)

Or we can just treat different movies' narrative and narration flow (i.e. pace) respectively as we treat a song's tempo. It seems like most people have this expectation of the ideal pace of any movie. I don't know, I mean, most people don't wish a great slow, love song to be more up-tempo, ya know?

>>Word. Even if you don't know w/ certainty what is going on
>or
>>what is the point immediately
>
>this is what helps you stay totally intrigued throughout.
>There are these serious lookin dudes standing around, then
>someone tells Janos to be careful on the streets, then a
>hospital is ransacked, etc.

Oh, my bad. In quoting your post and separating them, I didnt' realize your comment, "Words can't really describe it, it transcends film" was about the hospital sequence. I thought it was about the film in general. In response, I meant this in a general sense, "Even if you don't know w/ certainty what is going on or what is the point immediately."

>Oh, my bad. In quoting your post and separating them, I
>didnt' realize your comment, "Words can't really describe it,
>it transcends film" was about the hospital sequence.

true, it was

>I thought it was about the film in general.

well, the film in general is that good too.

>In response, I
>meant this in a general sense, "Even if you don't know w/
>certainty what is going on or what is the point immediately."

wait, I knew you meant this. I was just saying how it's cool that you don't really know exactly what's going on in this town, but you know it's not good, so it keeps you intrigued. And then it builds.

>Or we can just treat different movies' narrative and narration
>flow (i.e. pace) respectively as we treat a song's tempo.

Basically. As long as the movie has substance, and the director knows what he's doing, it doesn't matter how it's paced. Most of my favorite movies would be considered slow. Just look at Ozu's best stuff..

Don't get me wrong, I get ecstatic when a movie clocks in at 72 or 85 minutes. Don't get me started on excellent short films. However, some people complain on the basis that a movie is 3 hours or so. I'm saying if all of that 180 plus minutes is essential not just to plot and character, but to mood and atmosphere then it is what it is. If it's good, it's good. Everything shouldn't be 100 minutes, ya know.

Of course, it's mostly impractical for most to set aside 3 hours of time uninterrupted at the theatre or even at home (which you can break up).

Just sayin.' LOL.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how I'd watch Satantango in the future. I can deal with 3-4 hour movies, I don't know about 7 hourers. I hate watching movies in more than one sitting too.

All theatrical screenings that I knew of had at least 2 intermissions. Sometimes it's only two 15 minute ones. Others were one 15 minute for the 1st 3 hours, then an hour dinner break, then finish off the rest. I'm sure there might be a better option.

Don't know if it's true or not, but I read somwhere that Tarr ideally wants no intermission. LOL.

That's what took me so long to see it. My friend who owns the DVD always works on the weekends so we had to wait for her vacation. Not to mention other coordinating matters.

We went w/ a 15 minute intermission after the first 1.5 hrs or so, watch the next 1.5, 1-hr early dinner break, then the rest.

put it at the top

I am nowhere near a major city so I know I can't just find it.

I had just seen a good but ridiculously long Tarr (Satantango) and a crappy Tarr (Damnation) so I gave this third one a miss. My friends who saw it say it was head-and-shoulders above the other two.

Bad programming. That's my excuse anyway.

--------

hell-below.com

never bothered to post a few thoughts or reply to me asking you what you thought about it. I was thinking, "Wow, if he acknowledged his unfavorable reactions to Damnation, he must really think badly of Werkcmeister to not even say anything." LOL.

>I had just seen a good but ridiculously long Tarr
>(Satantango) and a crappy Tarr (Damnation) so I gave this
>third one a miss. My friends who saw it say it was
>head-and-shoulders above the other two.

Man, I was trying to tell you! I'm sure I offered my 2 cents that you miss Damnation and must see Werckmeister if you could only watch 2 of the 3 'cause you already said Satantango was a guarantee. You even said you were gonna catch Werckmeister 'cause people you know spoke highly of it.

Damnation was good in my view, but certainly several levels below Satantango and Werckmeister. I realize Damnation is pretty tough to like 'cause it's so bleak and meaningless, but that's the character's life. I know I felt like shit watching it and a bit after; so in that sense, it was successful.

It's a priority rental now.

--------

hell-below.com

I rented this cause somebody on here kept subtly writing this movie's title in all caps whenever there was a best movies of the past ___ years post.

I wanted to say thanks. This is why I come here.

You guys have already described the things that make this movie great. I shouldn't have peeked at the imdb boards, it took away from the impact of the end of that mob sequence. Despite the movie's pessimistic tone, that was one of the moments of optimism (even those marauders are still human after all, we do have limits to our depravity, etc). That, and the whale still standing after all the carnage.

Since some of you have seen Tarr's other work, does this movie strike you as being political/historical in theme or is it more about humanity and nature (or both)?

not only for watching it, but upping this post as well. I haven't seen any other Tarr's yet..

>Since some of you have seen Tarr's other work, does this
>movie strike you as being political/historical in theme or is
>it more about humanity and nature (or both)?

I read that Tarr made the movie partly in response to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.

With the Aunt Tunde story and Prince figure, it's hard not to see the film about Eastern Europe's socio-political history. Tarr says the movie is not an allegory, but it's just speculation on my part that Tarr just says so to not limit one's engagement w/ the movie.

I think it's also about humanity and nature (social and cosmic order; social and cosmic harmony).

Like you noted, the mob's decision to stop rioting (what an indelible image!) showed that they had an ounce of humanity in them. Janos' zest for life, nature, and God (the classic eclipse scene; his wonderment at the whale) is telling, IMHO.

As for order and harmony, its brought up by the eclipse scene, Uncle Eszter's music theory monologue, and the social unrest.

Masterpiece.

As for Tarr's other films, I think you can call his early social realist/fictional documentary films political.

I'd think Satantango (believe it or not, a just as good as or better film than Werckmeister) is a bit political, but less overt than Werckmeister I think.

I just put it at the top of my queue. There isn't a DVD for Satantango yet

>I just put it at the top of my queue.

Considering the film's title, the main character and his psychology, it's good. Meaning every element of the film works and achieves damnation. I'm not gonna watch this thing 10+ times in my lifetime, but I think Tarr was extremely successful for what I think the film is about. Can't say that I enjoyed it, but I don't think I was supposed to. You'll know what I mean.

Much sparser than Werckmeister. Definitely bleaker. At the same time, nowhere near Werckmeister and Satantango in my book.

> There isn't a DVD for
>Satantango yet

I doubt the upcoming delayed Facets DVD is going to be better than the Artifical Eye R2.

Maybe I didn't fully absorb it on first viewing, I dunno. Just lacked something imo. I loved a couple of the scenes, especially the ending, and the camerawork though.

Yeah, this movie doesn't fit neatly into political or otherwise-themed. Clearly, there are a lot of ideas behind it.

Janos' optimism and love of life makes his downfall all the more tragic.

I don't think I mentioned the score in my other post, so I just wanted to say how amazing it was. What a beautiful piece of music.

In regards to the Prince, I wonder if it was always intended that the viewer doesn't see him or if they just couldn't get the puppet to look right. (I'm glad though, I think it would have been too close to Lynch if they had.)

it spans THREE discs.

I can't wait to watch this.

Can't say I enjoyed much of it this time around. Some stuff I still like very much, though. If the Top 100 thing was still going on, it wouldn't make it if I made a list today.

I don't think I've ever seen a film that dense (I mean it in a good way). At first, I didn't understand what some of the scenes meant but on the second viewing, I understood and it blew me away.
---------------------------------------
http://i31.tinypic.com/4iehdd.jpg

The OKP® King of the Late Pass™
---------------------------------------

I was really excited to see it based on OKP, but was kind of let down.

It had a great score and was visually impressive, but it had way too many long long scenes of walking, walking away, walking...

My wife gave up on it after the scene of Janos tucking his uncle into bed, although it was the very long scene with the truck arriving with the whale that was the first sign she would probably quit the movie. I managed to make it to the end... only by watching numerous parts of the movie in fast forward (until the dialogue started up again). Maybe this was a disservice to the enjoyment of the movie as it was intended, but it was honestly the ONLY way I could have finished it.


Things I liked:
- the score (although I missed some of it while watching in fast-forward)
- the visuals
- the atmosphere created by the above
- the intro scene with the drunks re-enacting the solar system
- the scene when Janos meets the whale and his interpretation of what the whale represents (my favorite scene)
- the music theory monologue

But aside from that, it was hours of nothing happening.

Maybe I simply didn't get it. Some questions maybe someone can kindly answer for me:

- Was the mob targeting the rich, the bourgeois, those with political connections, or what? I don't get why they attacked the hospital, or killed Janos's uncle.

- What was with the brightly-lit, nude, old guy that dispels the mob? Why did he have such an impact on them?

- Why did the man accost Janos when he was passing through the square next to the whale while on his errands? Was he an obvious outsider to the mob?

- Similarly, why was his name on the list at the end? Wasn't the army's (?) list supposed to be for people who were in the mob, and not ordinary citizens?

- Why did it end with Janos institutionalized? I was on the verge of falling asleep at that point so I may have missed something important in understanding the ending.


I'm not really knocking it, because clearly this movie has a lot to offer the right audience. Maybe this movie just wasn't for me.

I tried to like it, but I seem to have lost my capacity to enjoy arty concept movies (if I ever had such capacity to begin with).

I really tried to like this movie, so any help answering those questions would be great.

1) I don't remember many plot elements because they weren't very important to me on first viewing

2) If you didn't love the movie based on tone, cinematography, originality alone, there isn't much hope

I always like reading essays/reviews after a flick though, and Ebert's great movies list is usually good:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070908%2FREVIEWS08%2F70909001%2F1023

Normally when I love a movie, I want to discuss it in depth. Even with people who didn't like it, as long as they aren't being dismissive (which I don't think I was).


>1) I don't remember many plot elements because they weren't
>very important to me on first viewing

So the plot is not important, and the movie is all about tone? I care a lot about plot.


>2) If you didn't love the movie based on tone, cinematography,
>originality alone, there isn't much hope

I was impressed with how the tone of the movie was created and maintained, but it was so long and with such a sparse and confusing plot that I didn't thoroughly enjoy the movie.
I am not one who generally cares much about cinematography.
I could give it bonus points to originality, but that only goes so far. It still has to be an entertaining movie.


>I always like reading essays/reviews after a flick though, and
>Ebert's great movies list is usually good:
>
> http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070908%2FREVIEWS08%2F70909001%2F1023

Thanks, I am checking it out...
Good article. And it helps explain why I didn't like it but others loved it.

This quote from Ebert (who quotes Tarr) probably sums up why I DIDN'T like the film:

To know where we stand as the film begins, we should start with these words by the director, Tarr: "I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another ... All that remains is time. This is probably the only thing that's still genuine -- time itself; the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds."

Applying that philosophy to movies doesn't sound very entertaining at all. It's a very interesting concept, but in my opinion, does not make for entertaining movies; rather, I found it boring in its execution.

I love movies because I love stories; it all makes sense now that the point of this film was NOT to tell a story.

Thus, this movie, however brilliant it may be in some circles, was simply not meant/made for me. And that's fine; I am still glad I checked it out.

was BECAUSE I didn't know what was happening exactly, yet most of the events in the movie still had an impact on me (like the truck entering the town, the hospital raid, etc). I thought it was able to maintain its mysterious tone, and I didn't know what would happen next, and I liked Janos alot. The movie worked on me more like music.

I absolutely love some stuff about it, sure. Though, I respect it a great deal obviously enough to say what I said about it previously.

>I managed to make it to the
>end... only by watching numerous parts of the movie in fast
>forward (until the dialogue started up again). Maybe this was
>a disservice to the enjoyment of the movie as it was intended,
>but it was honestly the ONLY way I could have finished it.

Tarr has expressed that he wants time to be a character in his movies. He didn't disagree with the sentiment that this movie felt dreamy. I think watching it on fast-forward lessens and negates the effects of what Tarr was trying to achieve.

>But aside from that, it was hours of nothing happening.

Some plot macro-events: Janos' worldview being destroyed, Auntie Tunde making moves, the riots. Stuff happened. The lack of dialogue and long takes of people eating or walking can mislead one into thinking nothing happened.

>- Was the mob targeting the rich, the bourgeois, those with
>political connections, or what? I don't get why they attacked
>the hospital, or killed Janos's uncle.

They rioted out of desperation as a result of being unemployed and their dire situation. As to their targets, the only thing we know for sure was the hospital assult. What was the explosion in town? I don't know. They attacked who they attacked because of the prince's rhetoric or other related-literature/thought that must've been circulating.

>- What was with the brightly-lit, nude, old guy that dispels
>the mob? Why did he have such an impact on them?

It broke their riot mentality. It made them realize what they were doing. I'm sure they all thought, "What? Jump the old man? Fuck that. Fuck this." They must've been thinking: how is this shit we're doing helping us? These people didn't do anything to us. Also, while it's on the other end of the spectrum, it's like being stopped in your tracks by a kid when you're acting a fool or something. That's what I got out of it. Even more basic than that, though, the image of the old man was a visceral thing. Kind of like the whale or the sun.

>- Why did the man accost Janos when he was passing through the
>square next to the whale while on his errands? Was he an
>obvious outsider to the mob?

I don't remember what the man said to him.

>- Similarly, why was his name on the list at the end? Wasn't
>the army's (?) list supposed to be for people who were in the
>mob, and not ordinary citizens?

Don't know. Aunt Tunde and the police captain were shady to me. I think they were taking preemptive measures for any possible resistance. Janos and Gyuri weren't necessarily eager to help Tunde in the beginning. Or, there's something obvious that I'm missing.

>- Why did it end with Janos institutionalized? I was on the
>verge of falling asleep at that point so I may have missed
>something important in understanding the ending.

This isn't the kind of movie to watch before bed! Seriously, though, Janos was innocent, naive, or whatever in the beginning. Happy-go-lucky. The hospital assault, eavesdropping on the prince, the explosion, Uncle Lajos' murder, and going on the run (helicopter) messed him up bad. Not to mention we don't know if the guys who caught him did anything to him.

>>I managed to make it to the
>>end... only by watching numerous parts of the movie in fast
>>forward (until the dialogue started up again). Maybe this
>was
>>a disservice to the enjoyment of the movie as it was
>intended,
>>but it was honestly the ONLY way I could have finished it.
>
>Tarr has expressed that he wants time to be a character in his
>movies. He didn't disagree with the sentiment that this movie
>felt dreamy. I think watching it on fast-forward lessens and
>negates the effects of what Tarr was trying to achieve.

I understand that. I knew when I was doing it that it was taking away from the "artistry" of the movie as a whole, but I just couldn't bear to watch a long take of people walking for that long.


>>But aside from that, it was hours of nothing happening.
>
>Some plot macro-events: Janos' worldview being destroyed,
>Auntie Tunde making moves, the riots. Stuff happened. The
>lack of dialogue and long takes of people eating or walking
>can mislead one into thinking nothing happened.

True, that was an exaggeration. But you have to admit, for a relatively long movie, there was not a lot of plot development. And the plot that was there was a bit obtuse... thus, my questions.


>>- Was the mob targeting the rich, the bourgeois, those with
>>political connections, or what? I don't get why they
>attacked
>>the hospital, or killed Janos's uncle.
>
>They rioted out of desperation as a result of being unemployed
>and their dire situation. As to their targets, the only thing
>we know for sure was the hospital assult. What was the
>explosion in town? I don't know. They attacked who they
>attacked because of the prince's rhetoric or other
>related-literature/thought that must've been circulating.

Cool, thanks. I didn't know if I missed some sort of rationale behind who they targeted. I understood that they were poor and frustrated with the direness of their reality, but I didn't know if there was more to it. I guess the prince's rhetoric was important as well, although we never see him incite the crowd.

And I was surprised that no one besides Janos actually went in to see the whale (that we observed). There's this huge group of people - a mob - but they aren't talking, they don't go see the whale (no money to spare perhaps?)... it didn't FEEL like an angry mob to me. More like people waiting for something to happen... which was perhaps fertile ground for the prince's rhetoric, which I clearly underestimated.


>>- What was with the brightly-lit, nude, old guy that dispels
>>the mob? Why did he have such an impact on them?
>
>It broke their riot mentality. It made them realize what they
>were doing. I'm sure they all thought, "What? Jump the old
>man? Fuck that. Fuck this." They must've been thinking: how
>is this shit we're doing helping us? These people didn't do
>anything to us. Also, while it's on the other end of the
>spectrum, it's like being stopped in your tracks by a kid when
>you're acting a fool or something. That's what I got out of
>it. Even more basic than that, though, the image of the old
>man was a visceral thing. Kind of like the whale or the sun.

Cool, thanks. Again, I figured it was mostly visceral, but I wondered if I was missing something symbolic - aside from the helplessness of an elderly naked guy. Still not sure why he was so brightly lit - or perhaps that's just the way they saw him?


>>- Why did the man accost Janos when he was passing through
>the
>>square next to the whale while on his errands? Was he an
>>obvious outsider to the mob?
>
>I don't remember what the man said to him.

I don't either, but Janos was just walking by and the man grabbed the collar of his shirt and starting shaking him or intimidating him.

I didn't know if maybe Janos was a target because he had a job, was connected to a well-known figure (his uncle), and/or because he had money to spare to see the whale on a previous occasion. Maybe it doesn't matter WHY, but just the fact that he was an outsider and not part of the desperate mob.


>>- Similarly, why was his name on the list at the end? Wasn't
>>the army's (?) list supposed to be for people who were in
>the
>>mob, and not ordinary citizens?
>
>Don't know. Aunt Tunde and the police captain were shady to
>me. I think they were taking preemptive measures for any
>possible resistance. Janos and Gyuri weren't necessarily
>eager to help Tunde in the beginning. Or, there's something
>obvious that I'm missing.

Yeah, I figured Tunde was up to shady shit, but you'd think since Janos helped her (albeit not all that willingly), she'd help him out. Unless she's that conniving of a bitch. I wish there had been more about this - the political maneuvering - but again, I like a bit more plot in my movies, whereas it seems this movie was mostly about tone and atmosphere.


>>- Why did it end with Janos institutionalized? I was on the
>>verge of falling asleep at that point so I may have missed
>>something important in understanding the ending.
>
>This isn't the kind of movie to watch before bed!

Yeah, that probably affected my enjoyment a bit.


>Seriously,
>though, Janos was innocent, naive, or whatever in the
>beginning. Happy-go-lucky. The hospital assault,
>eavesdropping on the prince, the explosion, Uncle Lajos'
>murder, and going on the run (helicopter) messed him up bad.
>Not to mention we don't know if the guys who caught him did
>anything to him.

Great points. THANKS!

This movie is basically all about tone and atmosphere. It's purpose is not really in telling a story. Here's a quote to keep in mind:

This quote from Ebert (who quotes Tarr) probably sums up why I DIDN'T like the film:

To know where we stand as the film begins, we should start with these words by the director, Tarr: "I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another ... All that remains is time. This is probably the only thing that's still genuine -- time itself; the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds."


Thus, do not expect a tight plot or brisk pacing. The plot is pretty sparse; the movie runs a bit long and does seem to drag, but what it's doing is creating atmosphere.

Do not expect much action. There isn't much. If you love plot and action, you may be disappointed.

Do not expect great, fully-developed characters.

Do not expect great dialogue (though there are a couple really cool monologues).


DO expect audio-visual artistry, impressive cinematography (if you're into that), a cool dream-like atmosphere, and some very cool scenes that have a visceral impact.

It's an original and very artistic movie that is worth watching, but I think it helps your enjoyment if you know what you're in for...

I am glad I saw it even though I didn't really enjoy it. This movie has a lot to offer the right audience, and I think I probably would have enjoyed it more if I had the right expectations and knew enough about it.

of Satantango, then wait like a week for the last disc? Or will I lose too much impact?

I'm only getting 1 disc at a time right now, cuz that's all I have time for. And my burner is malfunctioning.

Very little happens narrative-wise and the film is so atmospheric that you'd have no trouble getting back into it. Not to mention the possibility that scenes may linger in your head for days while you wait for that 3rd disc. Thought at least once in your life you should definitely watch that bad boy in one night with at least 2 breaks (one 15-minute, one 60-minute).

hope to finally get to it in the next couple days

I watched the first 4 hours. There are certain scenes/qualities that I like--the doctor's diaries (just ran out of fruit brandy...it appears I have to leave the house, LOL), the money stalk, the cat wrestling, etc.--but if the last couple hours don't end BRILLIANTLY, I'm afraid I won't like the final product much.

Tarr definitely hammers the hopelessness of the setting & characters in your head..that is for sure. But there's only so much I can take of really long cuts of one person walking from point A to point B, pausing for 3 minutes, etc. before I say, "this shit is boring."

_________________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/punannydiaries

http://thepunannydiaries.com

also on Facebook

"yeah, I had to see that."

or maybe it'll end up on your decade list.

-------------------------------
If life is stupendous one cannot also demand that it should be easy. - Robert Musil

let me know what you think of it, even if you hate it.