Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 03, 2021, 04:48:43 PM
:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Films of Sergio Leone
| |-+  Once Upon A Time In America (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Dream Theory IMDB
0 and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
: Dream Theory IMDB  ( 70814 )
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9688

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #30 : July 18, 2012, 02:32:35 AM »

To me it doesn't really matter if half of the movie is a dream. Even though the discussion is interesting, I find it ultimately irrelevant. I guess I could try and babble something fake-poetic about it (cinema is always a dream blah blah blah OUATIA is a film about cinema i.e. dreams blah blah blah) but I refuse to embarrass myself and will only say that I don't find the debate relevant.

well I guess that Sergio Leone and Claudia Cardinale loved to "embarrass themselves," and  "babble something fake-poetic," cuz they are just two of the people that have said basically those same words you are using. Yes, it's true. That's the point. And that was Leone's point. He made it as clear as he possibly could. I knew that, without a doubt, from Frayling's chapter on OUATIA; and reading these translated interviews with Leone that were recently posted on this thread only emphasizes it all, again and again.

You don't seem to mind embarrassing yourself in other instances, but stating the truth about Leone's intent with OUATIA wouldn't be an example of that.  Unless you somehow consider the truth to be embarrassing. All I'm trying to do is understand and discuss the truth about Leone's intentions with OUATIA. Which is sort of the things we do on these boards.


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11454


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


« #31 : July 18, 2012, 03:37:55 AM »

I conceded above that not all of my general arguments apply specifically OUATIA.

woah, I have said very clearly all along that whenever I speak about the "dream theory," I am accepting either the notion that it is clearly meant to be a dream, or the notion that it is meant as a possible dream, as a double meaning; I am only rejecting the notion that it is absolutely meant to be literal with no possibility of a dream interpretation

Who here said there is "absolutely no possibility of a dream interpretation"? Straw man much?

Quote
Leone is the one who directed the scenes, the one who told De Niro to smile at the end, the one who put that scene at the end of the movie, the one who had that surreal scene with the 30's car in 1968, etc. Yeah, absent significant evidence to the contrary, I'd say Leone's view should rule.

As Chris said, Leone made it deliberately ambiguous. If he wanted to make things overtly point to one answer he would have presented the '68 scenes in a fashion to preclude a straight reading. Does Noodles have flashbacks within a dream? I guess it's possible but the fluidity of it suggests cinema not opium.

What does the framing device prove? It could be the basis for a dream. It could also be seen as a turning point in Noodles' life - his friends were just killed, presumably through his treachery, and he'd spend the rest of his life on the lam. Hence its centrality to the story.

The main point I'd say in favor of the Dream Theory is the sparseness of the '68 settings, with relatively few period details filled in. Even there though, a lot of things would raise eyebrows emanating from a 1930s man's imagination, opium or no. Television plays a major role in the '68 scenes - was Noodles psychic? Would he know Yesterday? If we take some scenes on a literal level (eg. the '30s car in '68) rather than cinematic why not others?

I guess we could take your approach, that a director's word is God, but that would turn this board to a recitation of facts, not a discussion. Where's the fun in that? That is a very reductive view of film discussion.

« : July 18, 2012, 03:46:57 AM Groggy »


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9688

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #32 : July 18, 2012, 05:28:16 AM »

I conceded above that not all of my general arguments apply specifically OUATIA.

Who here said there is "absolutely no possibility of a dream interpretation"? Straw man much?

As Chris said, Leone made it deliberately ambiguous. If he wanted to make things overtly point to one answer he would have presented the '68 scenes in a fashion to preclude a straight reading. Does Noodles have flashbacks within a dream? I guess it's possible but the fluidity of it suggests cinema not opium.

What does the framing device prove? It could be the basis for a dream. It could also be seen as a turning point in Noodles' life - his friends were just killed, presumably through his treachery, and he'd spend the rest of his life on the lam. Hence its centrality to the story.

The main point I'd say in favor of the Dream Theory is the sparseness of the '68 settings, with relatively few period details filled in. Even there though, a lot of things would raise eyebrows emanating from a 1930s man's imagination, opium or no. Television plays a major role in the '68 scenes - was Noodles psychic? Would he know Yesterday? If we take some scenes on a literal level (eg. the '30s car in '68) rather than cinematic why not others?

I guess we could take your approach, that a director's word is God, but that would turn this board to a recitation of facts, not a discussion. Where's the fun in that? That is a very reductive view of film discussion.

I'm sorry to deny you your beloved "straw man much?" but there's no straw man here. Chris said accused me of being willing to accept Leone's statement that it's a dream, but not willing to accept Leone's statement that there is a double meaning, a possibility of a dream. And my response was that I have clearly said all along that I am willing to accept the notion that there's a double meaning, or that the dream is intended as merely a possibility. The only position I am arguing against is those who say that the movie is not intended to have any element of fantasy. You may not be arguing in favor of that position, but if you read through these dream theory threads, there are those who do.

The song "Yesterday" is not diegetic. It is playing OVER the scene, as part of the film score; it's not playing IN the scene. So the question of how it could be playing in a 1968 scene is about as legitimate as the question of how music composed by Ennio Morricone in the 1960's could be playing in GBU, which takes place in the 1860's.

yes, a tv plays over the bar in Fat Moe's, and Bailey has closed-circuit tv's (although I wouldn't call tv "playing a major role in the '68 scenes) but on some level, there has to be dramatic license to show us 1968. If everything in 1968 looked exactly as it did in the 30's, then we would know instantly that it's all a dream, and the '68 section of the movie would be rather silly. So the movie appropriately takes some sort of license in showing us 1968 as it would look, but still drops some clues along the way, letting us know that it's a dream. Yeah, you can ask, well, how far does the "dramatic license" go? Well, I don't think you can really expect that even in a dream, 1968 would look like 1933. That would be silly.

As for your final paragraph, you seem not to have read my previous posts. You seem to be repeating your earlier comments about my views on the director's view, without reading my responses to your comments. As I said, a director is not God. However, when the director who is involved heavily in a project throughout, clearly states that the later scenes of the movie are intended to be portrayed as a possibility of  a dream, then I think we have to accept it, unless some other people who were involved in then project disagree. I mean, if you find some opposing quotes by some writers or a producer or someone like that who says that this project was not intended as a dream, well that would be fine. But as it is now, you have Leone saying it is a dream and so far as i've seen, nobody who was involved with the project saying anything to the contrary. So yes, I think we should accept that the movie means what Leone says it means. I think there is much to discuss about OUATIA even if it were accepted as a given that it's a dream. We have pages and pages of discussion about other topics. Just like we have pages and pages of discussion about many other movies that don't involve a major disagreement about a basic element of the story. I'm sorry if you think there is no fun in those discussions.


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9688

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #33 : July 18, 2012, 05:33:13 AM »

It seems to me that we're essentially not arguing, but just going in circles about subjects we don't give a damn about.

In a nutshell: We agree that Leone intended it as a possibility of a dream (unless you believe he didn't agree with his own numerous statements to that effect, in which case I can't help you). We also agree that some people don't care about what Leone intended.

So, I am interested in what Leone intended, and you don't care much about that.

And you are interested in your own interpretation which is contradictory to Leone's, and I don't care much about that.

Well, it seems like we essentially agree in principle, but have no interest in the stuff we disagree about.

So that's that.


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11454


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


« #34 : July 18, 2012, 06:01:13 AM »

Quote
So, I am interested in what Leone intended, and you don't care much about that.

Um, that's not what I or anyone else said at all. My argument is that Leone's intentions in presenting the film do not preclude alternate readings. Nor, as you seem to suggest, are said alternate analyses inherently inferior to authorial intent. The Dream Theory is a valid approach to the movie, but it's not the only one.

Again, if you're going to approach art as something objective, that can be proven with facts, then you're going about it completely the wrong way. But then you are studying law, so…



Saturday nights with Groggy
moviesceleton
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3938


The glance that makes holes in the silver screen


« #35 : July 18, 2012, 08:37:29 AM »

well I guess that Sergio Leone and Claudia Cardinale loved to "embarrass themselves," and  "babble something fake-poetic," cuz they are just two of the people that have said basically those same words you are using. Yes, it's true. That's the point. And that was Leone's point. He made it as clear as he possibly could. I knew that, without a doubt, from Frayling's chapter on OUATIA; and reading these translated interviews with Leone that were recently posted on this thread only emphasizes it all, again and again.

You don't seem to mind embarrassing yourself in other instances, but stating the truth about Leone's intent with OUATIA wouldn't be an example of that.  Unless you somehow consider the truth to be embarrassing. All I'm trying to do is understand and discuss the truth about Leone's intentions with OUATIA. Which is sort of the things we do on these boards.
What I meant, was: I think the complex relationship of dream and reality in the movie is a subject that can't be satisfyingly addressed with words. I do believe that "cinema is always a dream and OUATIA is a film about cinema i.e. dreams" but that's about everything I can say about it - and I don't think that fully explains the dream vs. reality issue, so the truth of it (the truth of the film, not the truth about it's director's intentions) is beyond words, at least beyond my words.

The intentions of a director are interesting to discuss (and yes, sometimes my knowledge of them changes my interpretation of a film, I want it or not) but ultimately they don't change what the movie actually is. A film is not a film before it's seen by the audience, it doesn't mean anything before the audience has give meaning to the images on the screen - and I'm quite sure that's something that Leone would agree on.


"Once Upon a Time in America gets ten-minute ovation at Cannes"
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3414



« #36 : July 19, 2012, 04:40:21 AM »

If you accept Sergio Leone's statement that the movie was edited intentionally and carefully to provide a double reading, it follows that the views of those who believe that it is all reality are equally as important, valid and correct as those who believe that part of the movie may be a dream.

A question for the dream believers.  When you first watched the movie, did you think that part of it was a dream?  Or did you find out about the dream theory subsequently, consider that it explained some of the puzzling and unrealistic events and then choose that option?

The shooting script contains lots of additional information apart from the dialogue but there's nothing in there to suggest that part of the movie is intended as a dream.  In Oreste de Fornari's book, Sergio Leone's comment that "it is probably the first time ever that a film ends with a flashback" fits better with the reality theory.  In the same book Sergio Leone gives further details on how originally he had intended the movie to be more of a myth and fable, but with Robert De Niro playing the part of Noodles, he was able to go for a more realistic feel.


That's the point. I actually never had the slightest feeling that it could be only a dream. And actually nothing in it looks like a dream. Even if I ignore the simple logical argument that Noodles can't imagine in 1933 a future which looks similar to how 1968 actually looked.
The style of the 68 scenes differs not from the 33 scenes or the childhood parts.

I'm quite surprised how much Leone seems to have favoured such a dream theory, but there's nothing in the film to support it. Not even the last shot, which has a different meaning for me.

And btw OUTA is of course not the first film which ends with a flashback.


Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11454


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


« #37 : July 19, 2012, 05:44:03 AM »

Good points. A valid question too: if it weren't for the last scene, would anyone think of the movie as a dream? What else about the movie is "dreamlike"?



Saturday nights with Groggy
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11454


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


« #38 : July 19, 2012, 05:52:38 AM »

The only strong textual elements supporting this theory are the scene with the car (already mentioned) and the very end. Neither of which, to my way of thinking, preclude ordinary stylization. I've even heard Deborah still looking young produced as evidence, too. Can't that be put down to a bad makeup job?

The read of the car scene is simple. Some kids dressed up for a party and it reminded Noodles of the '30s. Not as interesting as a dream but more logical. If we're going to claim Yesterday is non-diegetic why assume God Bless America is? Noodles wasn't there when Eve was killed so what significance did the song have to anyone but the audience?

I've already stated my view on the ending and I'll stand by it.

Textually, the evidence for a dream is rather sparse. Certainly they're ambiguous enough to preclude a "definite" reading either way. Leone's comments are hardly irrelevant, but we have to judge the film based on what the product is, not what Leone's intentions were.

EDIT: I forgot Deborah's son being played by the same actor as Young Max. IMO that's just as worthless an argument as Deborah's makeup. Is Life and Death of Colonel Blimp a dream because Deborah Kerr plays three different characters, all the protagonist's dream girl? Or is it a way to signal to the audience (and in this case Noodles as well) what's going on without reams of exposition?

« : July 19, 2012, 08:49:48 AM Groggy »


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9688

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #39 : July 19, 2012, 08:48:11 AM »

God Bless America is playing on the radio as Eve walks into the hotel room. In the scene with the car, it is non-diegetic. (But once we realize it is all a dream, it's possible that Noodles was dreaming of that song all along, the dream has come full circle).

There's another point you need to explain, Groggy: the significance of the pagoda on Long Island. If Noodles's opium smoking is just one element of the movie, but not the source of the dream that is the movie, then why should there be any hint in 1968 to the fact that Noodles smoked opium in the 30's? And finally, whatever alternative reasons for the smile you wanna give, and I've seen your responses to that in another thread, that doesn't really explain why the movie ends on that smile. And that's the key. Yeah, you can say he's smiling cuz he's doped out and is finally free of the burden of his betrayal, etc., but why end the movie on that smile? With the dream theory, there is real significance to it: the smile is actually the last thing that really occurs; everything afterward is a dream, beginning with the opening scene of the gangsters killing Eve and then coming after Noodles. The other explanations for the smile do not justify its placement at the end of the movie, and holding it in freeze-frame over the final credits. Something very, very important has to be happening during that smile.

RE: your question of whether there is anything to indicate that it's a dream besides for the final smile, whether there is anything else that is dream-like: Well, I do think that any time a movie plays a trick on us, it has to drop hints so that the viewer can't say, "wait a minute, you pulled a fast one on us." And OUATIA drops other hints to the dream, which we've discussed: the surreal car scene and the pagoda on Long Island. Setting aside the normative argument about whether or not it's a dream, I think you can say for certain that assuming it's a dream, the references were there. It's not simply an unjustified  "And Then I Woke Up" moment.


Back to the issue of director's intent: If da Vinci said something about the Mona Lisa being a picture of a pizza pie and not a woman, then no, I wouldn't say that it's a pizza pie. I'd say da Vinci was full of shit. The Mona Lisa is unambiguously, undoubtedly a woman. However, if the meaning behind a movie is ambiguous and could be interpreted in various ways, and then the director explains how he intended it (which works perfectly as one of the options), then yeah, I think that should be accepted, barring any argument to the contrary from someone else who worked on the movie. So I agree that if there was nothing in the movie to justify it being a dream, then that's that. But when you consider that A) the meaning is ambiguous; B) the dream is a very possible interpretation; and C) the director explains that he intended it to be read as a possible dream; then yeah, absent any contrary statement by a writer or producer or someone else who worked on the movie, I think we should accept the director's statement.

-------------

p.s. I was never all that concerned with the issue of Deborah looking young in 1968 (heck, some very beautiful women don't look like they age; I have a 45 year-old aunt who has 11 children and she is still skinnier, younger-looking, (and cuter!) than some of her teenaged daughters; I think of her like  like my baby sister!) But once you mention it: as Leone said, Deborah looks so young in 1968 is cuz we are seeing er through Noodles eyes; in his eyes, she has not aged. You can choose to accept or reject that interpretation, but please, with respect, the  "bad makeup job"  comment sounds silly, like you're grasping at straws. Come on, man. You can do better than that. I am not saying that makeup artists can't screw up a job; they could screw up in a Leone movie just as they could in any other movie. But the makeup artists did such an amazing job with Noodles, Max, Carol, and Fat Moe (whether or not you think they look convincing as old people, there is no doubt whatsoever that these people are meant to look as if they've aged; and I think the makeup job is one of the most amazing in the history of cinema; heck, I've never noticed makeup in a movie before this! ); so to explain away a potential problem with your theory by saying, well maybe Deborah looks young cuz it's a bad makeup job, even when Leone clearly explained that her character was specifically supposed to look young, is simply grasping at straws.

« : July 19, 2012, 09:14:36 AM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11454


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


« #40 : July 19, 2012, 09:04:23 AM »

Quote
God Bless America is playing on the radio as Eve walks into the hotel room. In the scene with the car, it is non-diegetic.

How do you know?

Quote
(But once we realize it is all a dream, it's possible that Noodles was dreaming of that song all along, the dream has come full circle).

Yeah, if we advance from an assumption we can prove anything we want.

Quote
There's another point you need to explain, Groggy: the significance of the pagoda on Long Island.

I don't even know what pagoda you're talking about.

Quote
If Noodles's opium smoking is just one element of the movie, but not the source of the dream that is the movie, then why should there be any hint in 1968 to the face that Noodles smoked opium in the 30's?

What are you trying to say? Rephrase the question.

Quote
And finally, whatever alternative reasons for the smile you wanna give, and I've seen your responses to that in another thread, that doesn't really explain why the movie ends on that smile.

Because it was his last moment of happiness before a lifetime of misery.  

Quote
With the dream theory, there is real significance to it: the smile is actually the last thing that really occurs… Something very, very important has to be happening during that smile.

This assumes that the above explanation does not mean anything "very important." His dreams at a happy life are crushed, he will have to spend the rest of his life as a hunted man. This is the last chance he has at any satisfaction, however fleeting or drug induced

Quote
However, if the meaning behind a movie is ambiguous and could be interpreted in various ways, and then the director explains how he intended it (which works perfectly as one of the options), then yeah, I think that should be accepted, barring any argument to the contrary from someone else who worked on the movie.

You again miss the point. Leone intended for there to be ambiguity regarding this. If he'd wanted it to be explicitly a dream he would have closed off other possible readings. He did not, so other interpretations are possible. He intended for other interpretations to be possible. Why is this hard to grasp? Fact-based approach to film analysis is a fallacy.

Quote
You can choose to accept or reject that interpretation, but please, with respect, the  "bad makeup job"  comment sounds silly, like you're grasping at straws.

The idea is Deborah will appear ageless while made up as Cleopatra and then reveals herself as middle aged when she rubs it off. This unfortunately does not work in practice as even her "old age" makeup is poor.

More generally, yes, I think the Dream Theory turns the movie into a pointless charade. At a straight level, Noodles has spent 35 years trying to escape his past, only to be confronted with it in a most shocking manner. It's a story with pathos and real depth of feeling, elegantly presented. Making the audience sit through a four hour movie only to say it's a dream is a contemptible cop-out worthy of a bad soap opera.

« : July 19, 2012, 11:26:58 AM Groggy »


Saturday nights with Groggy
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13905


easy come easy go


« #41 : July 19, 2012, 01:33:52 PM »

When I first watched it the appearance of Debora without age and the appearance of the look a like son of Max had me questioning reality a bit.


"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15684

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


« #42 : July 20, 2012, 03:56:54 PM »

Something very, very important has to be happening during that smile.
True, but why assume that it is anything more than Leone commenting on Noodle's existence? The "dream" is just the lie that Noodles believes and will continue to believe for 35 years, and perhaps even after that. Max constructed the lie and got Noodles to bite and afterwards Noodles could never let it go. Even when Max summoned him back after the 35 years to reveal the truth, Noodles rejected the truth and chose to continue to believe in the lie. The lie is what makes him happy--ironically, because it requires Noodles to be cast as Judas. But Noodles would rather believe that he is Judas than that Max is.

Recall that when Leone encountered Harry Grey he was struck by the fact that the stories he told about himself as an adult were obviously cribbed from motion pictures. Also note that the opium den does more than sell opium--it's also a magic lantern theater, an obvious metaphor for the cinema. Hollywood was once called the Dream Factory, and perhaps we can say that there are certain affinities between the dreams it produced and the dreams, presumably, one can have under opium. Hollywood had a famous master of illusion called Max, too--Max Factor. There are always Maxes ready to create lies for people to believe, and there are always those with "noodles" who are willing to accept those lies. And it's never a question of not knowing the difference between reality and illusion. It's just that the illusion is what some people prefer.

Grey's adult life, as he related it to others, was a lie. Noodles adult life was another kind of lie. At the end of his picture Leone offered us a metaphor for that lie, the beautiful opium dream.



"McFilms are commodities and, as such, must be QA'd according to industry standards."
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9688

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #43 : July 20, 2012, 04:34:00 PM »

Groggy: your previous post has 8 "sections," each consisting of a quote of mine plus your comment; I will refer to the sections I am responding to by number:

RE: SECTION 1: I believe I read in STDWD that the song God Bless America is playing on the radio in the hotel room in the beginning of the movie, but I just looked at the scene again after reading your post, and I can't be sure about that. RE: whether it's diegetic in the final scene, I am not certain either (did cars have radios in 1933?) So I have to say now that I am not certain about the source of that music, and whether it's intended to be diegetic.

But with Yesterday, it seems pretty certain to me that it is not diegetic. Of course, it's hard to prove that something is NOT diegetic. Unless you see some specific source for it in the scene, I assume it's not diegetic.

RE: SECTION 2: All I'm saying is that the playing of that song fits very well with the dream theory; it is certainly not a proof of that theory


RE: SECTION 3: When Noodles is watching the garbage truck and then the 30's cars go by, there is a pagoda, a Chinese structure,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagoda     in the background, across the street from the Bailey estate. No reason why there'd be a pagoda there on Long Island; but it's a reference to the fact that this is all an opium dream taking place in Chinatown

RE: SECTION 4: Sorry, there was a typo; I meant to say "fact," not "face." (I corrected my initial post). My point is that, as I mentioned above with the pagoda, what's the point of having the pagoda as a 1968 reference to Noodles's opium smoking if you don't believe this is all an opium dream?

RE: SECTION SEVEN: Yes, Leone intended there to be a double meaning, ie. that viewers should say that it could be viewed as a dream. But I don't think the intent was that some will say that it was not intended to be a dream

RE: SECTION EIGHT: Even with the dream, it doesn't mean that the 1968 scenes are pointless! It's not like a kid is dreaming about being chased by monsters, and when he is aroused in a cold sweat, his father says, "It's okay, it never really happened!" Of course there are very important themes in the movie that are important despite the fact that it turns out that it "didn't really happen" cuz it's a dream. The point of the dream theory is not to say that "oh, the 1968 stuff never really happened." (The point is what we've discussed previously, Leone's feelings about the mixture of fantasy/reality, and the dream of cinema, etc. which were also heavily influenced by Leone's meetings with Grey.) But the point is not to say "haha it never really happened." That would be silly.

« : July 21, 2012, 08:56:25 PM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9688

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #44 : July 20, 2012, 04:49:23 PM »

chris: i did not think of the dream theory when I first watched it.  I had no idea about opium and the fact that smokers have dreams about the future. But once I was alerted to the idea that it was  dream, it all made perfect sense, and I now believe 100% that it's a dream

« : July 20, 2012, 04:57:17 PM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8  
« previous next »
:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
0.063165