Screamtime (1984): How low budget can tickle

Screamtime (1984)
dir: Michael Armstrong, Stanley A. Long

The straight to video market in the 80s was infamous for having a whole slew of no budget horror movies that were done by amateurs meant to fill up the video shelves. Growing up in the 1980s, you come to know that you might have to dig deep into the wells for the gems that would periodically perk up. These videos disappeared to the annals of time for a good long period of time, until Netflix, criticized for having no selection, picked up a whole bunch of these no budget British films for their streaming service.

The original VHS cover was surprisingly not inaccurate for the movie within the box. This is an anthology movie about Punch and Judy, a mass murderer, and garden gnomes and buried zombie ghosts. Sure, they're all in different stories, but at least they're all in the movie.

While this is a British film, the framing device is in New York City, where two jerks steal three videos from the local store, and then go over to a girl's apartment, eat her food, make her miss her date, and they watch three British horror movies of negligible quality back to back. They are total jerks. I'm really surprised that the girl invites one of them to sleep with her in between the second and third movie.

The first movie they watch is about an old puppeteer who is doing his passion by doing Punch & Judy shows at the waterfront. He lives in a nice house with his wife in England. They have a son who has finished school (high school or college, it doesn't say). They know a couple of people who are successful in Canada. But, his wife hates the puppets and demands that he gives everything up and goes with her to live in Canada with her son. You know, after she rabidly insults him and calls him a loser for following his passion. The son is also bitter and a punk who berates him at the dinner table. When the son burns down the Punch & Judy stand, all hell breaks loose.

The second movie is about a newlywed couple who move into a house given to them by their father who apparently deals in real estate. The wife starts having increasingly crazy visions beginning with a boy on a bicycle in the yard, moving to happy guys bounding around with knives (blink and you'll miss it), and then to the actual recreation of a multiple murder scenario, driving her to insanity, because one doesn't hallucinate murder scenarios without going a wee bit crazy,

The third film regards a kid who wants to buy a car, so gets a second job as a gardener at a old posh house with two old ladies who love telling stories about their garden. They say there are fairies in it, and they take the manifestation of the garden gnomes who protected their previous owner. The previous owner was a woman who loved having affairs with young men, who would then die and their souls would be slaves of the gnomes.

While the movie is most definitely what it is: a no-budget not-that-shocking horror movie which would have a PG rating except for a single shot of gratuitous nudity as the girl in the framing device steps out of the shower. You know, kind of what you expect from straight-to-VHS 80s horror. There's some horrendously unbelievable violence, and my favorite part is that a the gardener kid gets crucifies like Jesus when he dies.

This movie is hilarious at times. The mother of the newlywed tells her daughter-in-law, "I don't even know why I had a son. Take my advice, and stick with girls." The high pitched Punch sounds during the murders of the first movie are hysterical. And, the two old biddies in the final story really make the movie. I'm not even kidding.

Thusly, Screamtime is actually better than its humble origins as a straight-to-video VHS but not by much. There are aspects that make this a cheesetastic success, and it has elements in the camp style. It almost feels like you're not laughing at it, but laughing with it. It knows it can't elevate itself past the no budget, so it spends its time winking at you. Dream House gets in a bit of tension despite its trappings, but the other two are loaded with cheeky jokes and insane storylines.

Which raises the question: when is a bad movie bad enough to be good? If a movie winks at you throughout, is it good enough to be entertaining? These are the types of questions one must ask for themselves. It is a different formula for everybody that tickles you. I am tickled by an old man chasing a girl with a big orange square of wood while shrieking "Beat the Wife!" in a high pitched squeak that is past a falsetto. I'm tickled by two old ladies gleefully talking about souls that become enslaved to the garden gnomes. I'm tickled by a guy eating fried chicken and sitting 3 ft from the tv screen commenting "It's British. I can tell by the way they talk."

Other people, however, may be bored and with good reason. The pacing in the first story is way off, and if you're not into a bit of humor, the third story will be irritating. Still, this one is worth a watch if you're bored and have nothing better to do, are sick and need something easy on the mind, or something. It's not really ultraviolent, though each of the three have slasher elements to it. It's somewhat sexist, but not overly done. I enjoyed myself, but it's not good. And, it's better than just middling. So, if you don't mind being tickled by low budget horror that makes you laugh more than scream and isn't designed for the gore or breast hounds, this is a good choice.

My Generation (2000): The Kids Aren't Alright

The Other Films (Classic)
original review: 2003

My Generation (2000)
dir: Barbara Kopple

Pre-note: I feel I am a Generation X kid who was born too late...

Film analyzation:
The movie was OK. The director definately felt she was closer to Generation X than Generation Why. This is pointed out by the fact that the first 80 minutes of the movie are dedicated to a comparison of Woodstock 94 and 69. Sure, they were closer to each other than 99 was, but 99 deserves the same amount of treatment. Obviously 99 was an add-on.

Another detraction was the violence of 99 was completely down-played for its size. But, thats the nature of the beast. You have to downplay something.

Cultural analyzation:
Being true to my subculture professor, I am regarding Woodstock 69 as a mainstream event. Moby had no idea what he was talking about when he was quoted in this movie by saying that the hippy subculture had something to rebel against, meaning Vietnam. The hippy culture was a rebellion of disillusionment against the establishment, as all subcultures before and after it should be. (side note: subcultures are now being commercially created, IMO). My professor established a difference between the hippies and the protestors, mainly saying that the hippies were too wasted to care about events.

Either way, Woodstock 69 was a mainstream event in the end. It was a bunch of people perverting and stretching the ideals of hippy culture to fit their own idea of what fun is, and how it relates to them. I'm not saying that hippy culture wasn't there (some of them probably were), but that more than a few were corproate lackeys even at that point. I mean a migration of 500,000 people from San Diego to New York is a bit hard to believe.

Woodstock 94 was played out the same way. The bands, like the ones in 69, were just subculture enough to be counter yet mainstream enough to attract everybody's attention. Perry Ferrell had already started Lollapalooza, and was already in the band Porno For Pyros (to put it in time reference frame). Many of the bands were of the grunge/alternative station. NIN also played.

Woodstock 99 was a completely mainstream event. The only subculture that may have been truely represented was the techno/rave culture. But, nobody cared about the techno tent that was there. The main acts were all the mainstream bullshit that you heard on the radio and turned off faster than you could hit a fly in 99. Some of them you can still turn off today. Green Day, Limp Bizkit, Sheryl Crow, Dave Matthews, etc. To say that corporate sponsorship was revealed in all of its full glory is to put it bluntly.

Basic comparisons:
69 & 94 - Mud people; 99 - sewage people (near the portopotties too, blech)
69 & 94 - Ultra planning gone awry; 99 - Ultra planning succeeding to bad ends
69 - Angry bands like The Who and Hendrix; 94 - NIN, Metallica, Porno for Pyros; 99 - DMX, Limp bizkit;
69, 94, & 99 - kids disillusioned about the societies before them
69 & 99 - Fires set to food vendors;
Major 99 differences - new rules, ATM lines, outrageous prices, sturdy fences, lack of water, air force place (new venue), heat (no storms), Woodstock Visa

Sexism was a major part at all 3 Woodstocks. Woodstock 69 had footage of men asking women to strip, 94 and 99 had all of this too. 99 also had sexual crimes against women.

69 was out for pure fun. They didn't care about the world changers. The people who were there wanted to be a part of something, and that's all. 94 was a bunch of jaded kids looking for something to do. They found a community which they could be a part of, and it promptly self-destructed in a couple of years. The difference being shown in 99 by the completely different line-up, the ultra-commercialism, and the happily stupid people. The riots were a big fuck you to the corporate stooges ripping off the kids of america.

Don't get me wrong 69 and 94 were definitely trying to make a profit (neither did). But, 99 should have been seen as a major difference when a producer guy gets up on stage and says "this is not a free concert like the previous 2 have been. I'm glad word has gotten out that if you don't have a ticket ($150 incidentally) then don't come." GACK. Talk about subverting the whole cultural idea of what Woodstock means. It was INTENDED as a commercial event, but ACTUALLY MEANS a subcultural community.

Whats next? We're in 2003, one year from the next Woodstock anniversary if there will be one. What wil be coming up next? A rap festival since that's what is "in" now. Hippy bands were "in" in 69, alternative was "in" in 94, angry commercial music was "in" in 99, now rap is "in" in 2003. Unless something else makes it big, its going to be another bad music festival.

Present Day Note:
This little social commentary is highly amusing in the present day with $300 festivals, and incidents like the gate trampling at <a href="http://www.fuse.tv/2014/03/miami-mayor-ban-ultra-music-festival">Ultra Music Festival</a>

Showgirls (1995): A Movie of Two Extremes: Pure Ambition and Pure Crap

Showgirls (1995)
dir: Paul Verhoeven

[taken and slightly expanded from my comments originally posted at The Dissolve]

[Trigger Warning]

Showgirls is a special failure. Very special. Verhoeven has the highest aspirations and, with Joe Esterhasz, created a plot that drives home his points about the sordid underbelly of Las Vegas. Yes, it uses the framework of All About Eve, but Showgirls isn't All About Eve, and Elizabeth Berkeley is no Anne Baxter.

There are two major faults with Showgirls that no movie can overcome: a terrible actress, and a terrible screenplay. In other words, Elizabeth Berkeley and Joe Esterhasz. Berkeley cannot act. That's a statement of fact. She never could. Growing up with Saved By the Bell, none of those kids could really act. None of them realized it. And, sadly, none of them ever would learn. Which was sad for those of us who hoped for more speedo clad movies with Mario Lopez going further down the gay movie pole. But, I digress. Berkeley's shining moment of Saved by the Bell was Jessie's Song, which had the era-defining "I'm So Excited...I'm So Scared" moment after a whole episode dedicated to caffeine pills. That one scene would define her whole acting presence in Showgirls.

Most reclamations gloss over most of the offensively bad parts that feature Berkeley and Esterhasz. Where she pulls out a switchblade on the driver, then stabs the radio playing Garth Brooks. The driver then swerves the truck to the shoulder, almost hitting a semi, then swerves back to the road once she puts it away, almost hitting the semi again. These people are histrionic.

Even when the terrible parts are mentioned by these revisionists, they gloss over Nomi's inexplicable attitude problems. How, in the initial meeting with Molly, Nomi goes from attacking a car, the pavement, soda, ketchup, and then the fries themselves...to suddenly moving into seductress mode without even a pause. And, Molly who sees a girl who is as violent as she is scared and refuses to answer her questions about identity and even mindless chit-chat, after knowing this girl for 10 minutes, offers her a place to live in her trailer. WHAT THE HELL?! This offer wasn't just unexpected to Nomi Malone, it was unbelievable to the audience.

The screenplay continues on with passages of dialogue that is frequently bad, but sometimes transcends to truly awful. The primary example of this would be:

"You fucked him AND her."
"Were you following me?! I didn't fuck anybody!!"
"I saw you! Man everybody got AIDS and shit. You know, what is it that you think you do? You fuck 'em without fucking them, that's what you do!" 

There's all kinds of wrong in this dialogue, not even talking about the logistics of getting AIDS without having sex. This dialogue isn't about a threesome, or even oral sex. This is about the infamous lap dance sequence where Nomi Malone gives Kyle MacLachlan a lapdance. This terrible dialogue would frequently transcend the realm of awful into the realm of ridiculous.

Somewhere in Showgirls is a morality movie that is essential and needed to be made. A story of power struggles, exploitation, and the perception of dancing vs stripping. Plus, who holds the money, money as power, and what money, power, and success can buy you. Unfortunately, that got piled full of shit like Edna Bazoom and her honking dress as a mother figure, or Nomi's washing machine antics of sex.

Verhoeven doesn't realize how terrible it is. Because, he tries. And he succeeds in polishing the turd. There is some amazing cinematography, set ups, themes, and everything technical. It's an astounding movie in terms of its visuals and its pacing. Even as an unintentional comedy. Verhoeven isn't really to fault...except he chose the actress and helped write the script.

[More after Jump, including discussion and image of the rape scene and its presence in the film]

The Punk Singer (2013): A Woman in the Open Wild

The Punk Singer (2013)
dir: Sini Anderson

If you grew up in the 90s, there was an air of women standing up for themselves...again. There was a vague feeling that this stemmed from the late 60s and into the 70s search for equality, but never had there been such a command of male techniques as what started forming in the late 1980s and into the 90s.

In the 90s, grunge became a thing, and punk moved into the mainstream. Almost all of the music was male dominated music that had to do with general teen angst and blah blah blah. But, then there was the riot grrrl movement, which had caught the attention of even many of the male adolescents in my generation. These were some seriously commanding female presences fighting for their right to be heard.

The four strongest female bands that I remembered from my misspent youth were L7, Hole, PJ Harvey, and Bikini Kill. All four of these bands landed in my worldview in the midwest within a year of each other, and all four kind of rocked my world.

The Punk Singer is about one of those bands...or more precisely, the lead singer of one of those bands.

To say that The Punk Singer is about the Riot Grrrl scene is overselling the movie. Yet, it is about a key component of that scene. To say that The Punk Singer is only about Kathleen Hanna is to undersell the movie because it also explains what she stood for and puts her in the very specific scene which she helped create. Sini Anderson has created a documentary that serves as a standalone footnote to other movies which were directly about the Riot Grrrl scene.

Kathleen Hanna is the lead singer of Bikini Kill, the creator of Julie Ruin, and later would lead Le Tigre before she disappeared from the spotlight for years. She would also marry Adam Horovitz of the Beastie Boys. The Punk Singer follows Hanna from her youth as an art student through her life and into a where is she now, punctuated by home video, concert footage and interviews primarily with Hanna herself.

Anderson has constructed the movie so that you not only get a sense of who Hanna was, but why she was important. If Anderson oversells Hanna's role in creating the Riot Grrrl scene, it is primarily because she is singularly focused on Hanna due to the movie's nature as a portrait. Anderson uses footage from other films that are solely about the Riot Grrrl scene and includes those titles as a "If you want to learn more, here are some movies which dive deeper."

The Punk Singer is an essential footnote to the Riot Grrrl documentaries, especially because it wraps up the mysterious reason that Hanna disappeared from public life in 2005, stating that she was done and had said all that she had to say (spoiler: it was as false as it felt when she disappeared). It may even draw the new kids into seeing what their elders were up to, and how it paved the way for the 3rd wave of feminists.

Anderson keeps it personal, and includes some righteous concert footage. If it gets a bit rough it is only because some of this was homemade footage. But, it is an expertly assembled story of a girl who had something to say and demanded to be heard.

General Orders No 9 (2011): A General Lament

Actual V.O.: My buns are vexed, and my soul is pure trouble.

General Orders No 9 (2011)
dir: Robert Persons

"This is some pretentious shit here." - Robert Persons

Take the -Qatsi trilogy. Now remove Philip Glass, and replace him with looooong droning chords. Now remove the global view and localize it to Georgia.  Add in some ruin porn and After Effects filters. And add in a really basic gravelly voice over that acts like a depressed lament for the past, present, and future by a semi-coherent luddite (think Terrance Malick but stupid). Now you have an idea of what General Order No 9 is as an experience.

General Order No 9 is a semi-gorgeous documentary about the progress in Georgia, and how terrible it is for everything. Not that anything was perfect before. There had been war and fires. Generally, progress sucks. Why can't we just live in our log cabins and forget that anybody else exists? Why can't we get back to nature? Look at these random objects I found. Like a railroad tie. Or a fly. Or a plastic die. Yes, I know the plastic die is the result of progress. Yes, I know it wouldn't have existed without cities. But, you're missing the point. Everything is shit.

Look at this nature. This used to be a deer trail. Then it became an Indian trail (dude...Native Americans, please). Then it became a county road. Man, it was good when it was a deer trail. And then there's this house which looks like it burned down. And there's a library full of books that never got cleaned up. This must have been awesome. Maybe it was Sherman that burned down this random-ass building in the middle of the forest. Or, perhaps by accident.

But, look at this small town. It used to be the center of it all. By "it all," of course, I mean Georgia. Because, really, isn't Georgia the center of the universe? There was a bell tower and a weather vane. There were perfect roads that went in cardinal directions. Everything was built around it. Wasn't that great? No cows ever escaped the farms. Too bad it turned to shit.

Progress really screwed things over. Look at these soulless buildings. Man, it really sucks here. Why can't we all spread out and return to nature? Why are we all so sprawling. I mean, it can't be because people keep having multiple kids can it? We don't need to put them anywhere, do we? Bah. Anyways, there's a freeway now too. But, it was made to bypass nature. Here's a Waffle House. Don't those places suck?

The present sucks. It's too crowded and we forgot who we are. But, the past sucked too. When we pushed out the Native Americans. I think that sucked. Well, at least it sucked for them. But, let's not dwell on them too much lest we get even more depressed that we took the land over from them. And then there was war. People burned down our shit. Yeah, sure, we started the war and it was about owning people, but look at what it did to the nature. You fuckers!

I guess I'm just depressed. I don't know what I want. Maybe I just want to go off the grid. But, I like progress too much. Aren't movie theaters soulless now? Why am I making movies? Maybe I'm a bit shiftless myself. I always have been. But, I don't know what to do. I don't want to work in a boring office building of droning CGI white walls. That would suck. It's not an exit.

What do I do? How do I end this? I guess it's over. Fin.

Jesus Camp (2006): Fear of the Other

Jesus Camp (2006)
dir: Rachel Grady, Heidi Ewing

In 2001, the horrifying documentary Hell House landed on the scene, showing how much the Evangelical system manipulated the emotions of damaged people. George Ratliff documented the making of a religious house of social horrors that was used as a recruiting tool. Ratliff took the time to go into the background of the adults and the teenage youth in the scene to humanize their worries and to try to find out what their fears actually were.

A lot changed in the ensuing 5 years. When Hell House was made, Bill Clinton was in office, and George W. Bush was campaigning to be president (he was elected by the time Hell House was released), and 9/11 wasn't even a thing. By the time Jesus Camp was made, George W. Bush won a re-election, 9/11 had united a nation then divided it, and the national dialogue was reaching a fevered pitch of desperation and anger with the only targets being the opposite ideological stance.

You can feel it in the different tonalities of the nation in these two movies. Jesus Camp, is a movie made to demonize the religious right. It's purely a rant that others an ideology that others an ideology. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

Jesus Camp documents the lives of a couple homeschooled Evangelical Christian kids who are sent off to the Kids on Fire summer camp, where a hellfire and brimstone preacher lady trains them to be warriors of God. The home life that Grady and Ewing document is of the usual "science lies to you" brand that also has the regular factually questionable parroting of the usual right wing talking points. There's a minor sense of their back story, but Grady and Ewing cut out most of their humanity in favor of their fearful talking points, and also to give way too much time to some bullshit left-wing radio host and, in the movie's most ironic scene, a megachurch led by Ted Haggard.

It's obvious coming out of the gate that Grady and Ewing aren't here to understand the natives. They don't want to know what makes the evangelicals tick. They're obviously afraid of the natives. And the natives are just as afraid of what these documentarians stand for: that is the liberal left wing political parties. The choices that Grady and Ewing highlights in the lives of the evangelical families are quotes by the mothers like "Did you get to the part where science doesn't prove anything?" Or, they have little girl Rachael, on a bowling outing, try to convert an innocent young woman bowling in the alley next to her. And the camera lingers on the young woman to show her awkwardness from the interaction.

We're meant to relate to the young woman as the camera lingers. We're meant to think "these are freaks, and why would this girl invade my privacy like that?" After the interaction, Rachael says that God told her to try to convert the woman to save her. It was a feeling inside her.

All documentaries are built by their directors in post more so than even in the actual documenting. There are probably a million different ways one could build a documentary from the various footage. But, Grady and Ewing capture the freak nature of the families, Becky Fischer, who leads the camp, and the reverence of the kids that we're meant to be scared for American society and feel sad for the brainwashing the kids without understanding why anybody is the way they are.

Who is Becky Fischer? What makes her tick? Why is she the way she is? Does she truly believe her mission comes from a pure place? Was she always such a devout Christian? Did she come back to the flock and decide that she needed to preach to everybody? Is she really somebody who is uncomfortable with letting others live in the way they want to live? Did she come out of an abusive relationship with an agnostic or atheist?

These questions are left relatively unanswered. In fact, there is only one hint of a variety of lives left in the film. After Fischer preaches against Harry Potter, one boy says "My mom won't let me watch the films, so I watch them at my dad's house." Hinting that he comes from a broken home, and that his mom is an evangelical devout, while his father is not nearly as devout. There is no hint at the source of the problem that led to the divorce or anything.

Grady and Ewing mostly highlight the craziest parts of Fischer and the camp. They highlight Fischer praying to God that their sound system works before speaking in tongues. They highlight Fischer berating the kids that they have to work to reach divinity. They highlight the youth protesting somewhere against abortion with red tape over their mouth, a look that was adopted from the AIDS crisis and then from Rage Against the Machine's censorship. And, we're meant to be fearful of this oncoming warrior with a "Look what they're doing to their kids."

This is all accented by overly dramatic cinematography during the more evangelical scenes. Dutch angles, low angles of girls with tears in their eyes, or high angles of boys falling to the ground in religious ecstasy highlight just how distanced Grady and Ewing are from their subjects. They don't want to know these people. They just want to exploit them.

And then there is Ted Haggard. He, inexplicably, takes up the 10-15 minutes towards the end of the movie in order to preach about the evil of Homosexuals (LOLOLOL) and to point out the ubiquity of megachurches. They bring Levi to meet with Haggard, but it's all a silly endeavor that takes time away from any understanding of the people in the movie.

Ewing and Grady close out the film with a phone interview between the left wing radio host and Becky Fischer which hints at the host trumping Fischer with his questions. But, it isn't a discussion. It's two just two closed-minded blowhards who don't listen to each other. Maybe Ewing and Grady are hinting that neither the left nor the right are listen to each other, but it doesn't seem like it, especially with their editing. Instead, they set out to make a monster movie from a section of our culture, and never come to an understanding with the people they're exploiting.

The City Dark (2010): This American Life Goes Cinematic

The City Dark (2010)
dir: Ian Cheney

NPR's This American Life has been on the air for YEARS. It's been going on since 1995, and caught fire by the late 90s when my mother used to rave about it. For those of you who don't know the program, it is an hour long radio show hosted by Ira Glass, which generally assembles 2-6 stories centered around a theme of the week. These stories are generally sociological in nature, sometimes they're fictions and sometimes they're scientific stories. But, they're told with a rather calming pace frequently interspersed with calming music and sometimes containing interviews. There is a very specific pattern to This American Life, which becomes immediately apparent after just one of the episodes.

The City Dark is not unlike the radio show of This American Life. The theme is the lights in the city, and how they create light pollution. The City Dark is narrated by Ian Cheney, with a calming peaceful tonality.  It is divided into 6 different sections, each with a different angle on the night sky and the city lights. It frequently intersperses generic calming music in the pauses. It has interviews with people to relay information regarding each section. But, the main difference is that The City Dark is a film with some periodically gorgeous imagery.

Ian Cheney grew up in Maine, and moved to New York City. In his small town in Maine, the night sky was lit up like a Christmas tree, with thousands upon thousands of stars. But, in New York City, he noticed that there were maybe tens upon tens of stars if you strained your eyes enough. This difference was caused by the light pollution in New York City. This disturbed him because, as a kid, he had fancied himself to be an amateur astronomer who drew up star maps and recreated his own constellations.

The City Dark is Cheney's meditation on the importance of the night sky, where he interviews different scientific figures and visits various locations which have to do with the topic. He visits a light store in New Jersey where the owner comments on the increasing brightness of the bulbs. He also visits Sky Village, an astronomer's paradise in between Arizona and New Mexico. He starts to dive into topics like cancer, sleep deprivation, crime prevention, and animal migration patterns.

Cheney doesn't form a conclusive statement saying that city lights are bad. He merely presents some of the cases that city light might be affecting us negatively, but concludes that he kind of likes the big city and all that the light can offer. Much like most episodes of This American Life, Cheney's intent isn't to make a de facto statement and conclusion on a topic, but merely to relate how one topic can relate to various people's lives.

While worries about Light Pollution have been around for years, Cheney still finds new angles to explore. Such as when he goes on a hatching quest for the sea turtles, who have developed in such a way that the light was what guided them to the water. But, now that the brightest light source is the city the turtles generally head in the wrong direction (though he says that they saved all of the turtles they recorded). Or, the studies that have proven that non daytime workers have a much higher rate of breast cancer than daytime workers.

Cheney's use of stunning nighttime imagery elevates The City Dark above its This American Life style narrative. It's a meditative poetic film that can be looked at or can be listened to, but it is gorgeous in either way you watch it. The open ended nature of the documentary may be frustrating to some who want their documentaries to have a bit more of a conclusive and decisive tone. If you can handle information dealt to you in non-confrontational methods that ponder the positive and negative effects that city light and the disappearance of the stars means to city dwellers, you may enjoy this. I did.