"Romanticist Art" Is Not The Essence Of The Objectivist Esthetics


Jonathan

Recommended Posts

J. I'm missing something. If Romanticist art is not the essence of O'ist aesthetics, what else is?

Its essence is that it is a simulation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value judgments, with the purpose of model-building something that the artist feels is important or worthy of being experienced and contemplated. It's a means of experiencing a condensed version of complex ideas in a manner which allows perceivers to experience them as if they were real events.

J

Not in my understanding. Could you be mistaking this which is evidently Rand's definition/explication of ALL art - Naturalist, Romanticist et al - as being central to Romanticist art specifically and exclusively?

No. I'm not mistaking anything. The Objectivist Esthetics is a theory of art -- of all art, not just Rand's favorite type of art, or of art that is consistent with the Objectivist Ethics. That's the point of this thread!

"...according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments" is value-neutral. But what sort of m.v-j's the artist holds, is the million dollar question.

Your "million dollar question" is an ethical question, not an aesthetic one.

It goes on to find its match (or doesn't) in the viewer's or reader's own metaphysical value-judgments, as confirmation (or not) of his view of existence.

Confirming one's own view of existence is not a criterion of aesthetic judgment according to Objectivism. Identifying with a work of art and liking its message are ethical judgments. The Objectivist Esthetics is, as you say, "value-neutral." The value judgments and "confirmations" that you're talking about are beyond aesthetics. They are ethical judgments applied to art rather than aesthetic judgments.

Or, as Rand put it:

"...it is not a contradiction to say: 'This is a great work of art, but I don’t like it,' provided one defines the exact meaning of that statement: the first part refers to a purely esthetic appraisal, the second to a deeper philosophical level which includes more than esthetic values."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 488
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

After "The Break" The Objectivist was seriously behind schedule. A few Objectivists wrote articles so Rand could catch up. Sures wasn't a nobody. At least she gave some lectures on esthetics for NBI. I attended one in 1968 and have forgotten it. I don't even know if it was a whole course.t

I meant in the real world. Outside of Objectivist circles. Independent of Rand's coat tails. Sures was and is a nobody.

J

I guess that'd apply to me too then. I think you mean pretentious nobody. In that case the pretentiousness would make her nobody. Take that away and she'd be somebody.

--Brant

I'm somebody

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara, I believe, said she hardly knew [Mary Ann].

Nathaniel said that he hardly knew Mary Ann. I don't recall Barbara's saying one way or the other how well she knew her.

>Once the publication was up to date AR started The Ayn Rand Letter, I guess to get away from the contributer problem, avoid the embarassment of having to disclose the amount of circulation decline for The Objectivist (one more issue away), further separate her from NB, and a lot more money. The only problem I had with it all at the time was I thought twice a month publication was going to be too much for her.

--Brant

The paid subscription figure for 1970 was almost identical to that for 1966. See this post, #17 on the "Calendars" thread, for a breakdown. Scroll down into the post for a chart.

Edit: The link isn't going to the post, only to the bottom of the page, I can't figure out why.

Ellen

The 1971 figure, whatever it was, was never published for The Objectivist ceased publication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you mean pretentious nobody. In that case the pretentiousness would make her nobody. Take that away and she'd be somebody.

Yes. By "Objectivist nobodies stupidly becoming self-important little Ellsworth Tooheys and trying to piss on giants," I meant pretentious nobodies.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1971 figure, whatever it was, was never published for The Objectivist ceased publication.

Right, but your implication that the subscription figures had declined isn't supported by the 1970 figures. If you look at the figures I copied in the linked post, you can see that there was a dip but then circulation numbers returned to the 1966 level. Barbara's report one year of 20 thousand plus had included single-issue sales, which for some reason were high that year. It wasn't the number of paid subscriptions.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A small point about Sures and The Objectivist: her article came straight from the lecture on visual art that she delivered for several years as part of the NBI basic course. She did not write it in a hurry just to provide the magazine with filler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete,

That's a good point.

This not only was what Rand believed, it was what they all believed around NBI. I seriously doubt Nathaniel or Barbara still feel the same.

There was a discussion once on SoloHQ (linked now to RoR) about The Thinker back when I first started posting online (around 2005). which included The Kiss. (Here is the opening article by Michael Marotta,)

I posted the following about The Kiss back then and I'm pleased to say I still feel that way when I see it. Probably without so much blah blah blah now, though. That swirl culminating in the kiss always impressed me and I would probably include it if I wrote about it again, but I'm not sure I would include the other stuff. Maybe... Stories like that help bring the inner eye to life on viewing it and extend it through time. But now I would probably like a story that could change with each viewing.

I have always seen this differently (but also, the angle of the photo in this thread does kind of suggest weird body parts). What I have always seen is that this is not a still kiss, but a fraction of a second during the start of a kiss in motion - the moment between the last vestiges of resistance and doubt to the full giving over to it. The placement of the arms and legs seem to convey an emotional tension to me that both man and woman consider this to be a Very Important Decision and Act, and it is especially powerful to me in suggesting the overcoming of hesitation. I also see a kind of broad swirl starting from the base and ascending to the culminating kiss (the point where my perception of the swirl stops).


Looking back and reading through that thread made me painfully aware of just how much people blindly buy into the tastes of the leader, repeat them as their own and defend them as insiders. I wonder how many would have come to those conclusions if they had not read similar stuff from Rand, Sures, etc.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many self-important little Objectivist Ellsworth Tooheys would have condemned some of Rand's art if they had not read it until after reading her Esthetics, and while being told that someone else was the author. The tragic ending of We The Living? Dominique's horrible attitude and the fact that the novel's hero loves her in spite of it? The hero's anarchist criminal vigilantism?

"These miserable novels sum up the author's view of man's wretched state. They present a disgusting mixture of tragic fate, disillusionment, irrational internal conflict, dishonesty, fraud, immoral destruction..."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I much prefer The Kiss to The Thinker, but if I owned the latter I'd gladly keep it in my private art gallery just below my penthouse--the one with the glass ceiling where I'd put The Kiss after my agents in Europe stole it for me. That statue, a beautiful woman and fornication under the stars--what a combo!

--Brant

my inner Gail (before Roark and I go to hell in a homosexual embrace and the novel goes off the rails)

(I'm a complicated person)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1971 figure, whatever it was, was never published for The Objectivist ceased publication.

Right, but your implication that the subscription figures had declined isn't supported by the 1970 figures. If you look at the figures I copied in the linked post, you can see that there was a dip but then circulation numbers returned to the 1966 level. Barbara's report one year of 20 thousand plus had included single-issue sales, which for some reason were high that year. It wasn't the number of paid subscriptions.

Ellen

I was seduced (back then) by the faux 21,000 1966 figure and never outgrew it.

--Brant

a .01% blemish (I've got hundreds, but a great dermatologist too)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A small point about Sures and The Objectivist: her article came straight from the lecture on visual art that she delivered for several years as part of the NBI basic course. She did not write it in a hurry just to provide the magazine with filler.

Thanks. That must have been the lecture I saw live at NBI in NYC in the summer of 1968.

--Brant

she was a looker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J. I'm missing something. If Romanticist art is not the essence of O'ist aesthetics, what else is?

Its essence is that it is a simulation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value judgments, with the purpose of model-building something that the artist feels is important or worthy of being experienced and contemplated. It's a means of experiencing a condensed version of complex ideas in a manner which allows perceivers to experience them as if they were real events.

J

Not in my understanding. Could you be mistaking this which is evidently Rand's definition/explication of ALL art - Naturalist, Romanticist et al - as being central to Romanticist art specifically and exclusively?

No. I'm not mistaking anything. The Objectivist Esthetics is a theory of art -- of all art, not just Rand's favorite type of art, or of art that is consistent with the Objectivist Ethics. That's the point of this thread!

"...according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments" is value-neutral. But what sort of m.v-j's the artist holds, is the million dollar question.

Your "million dollar question" is an ethical question, not an aesthetic one.

It goes on to find its match (or doesn't) in the viewer's or reader's own metaphysical value-judgments, as confirmation (or not) of his view of existence.

Confirming one's own view of existence is not a criterion of aesthetic judgment according to Objectivism. Identifying with a work of art and liking its message are ethical judgments. The Objectivist Esthetics is, as you say, "value-neutral." The value judgments and "confirmations" that you're talking about are beyond aesthetics. They are ethical judgments applied to art rather than aesthetic judgments.

Or, as Rand put it:

"...it is not a contradiction to say: 'This is a great work of art, but I dont like it,' provided one defines the exact meaning of that statement: the first part refers to a purely esthetic appraisal, the second to a deeper philosophical level which includes more than esthetic values."

J

Apparently, Rand began with art in its entirety, before getting down to the nitty-gritty. (The core of the onion.) So she first tackled the act of creativity, art's necessity to man,etc., and everything else held in common by all art and artists. We'd think her remiss if she didn't.

One deduces that her purpose all along was to identify and extol one subset of art, Romanticism.

As far as an aesthetic appraisal, basically any art expert could (and many have) written a hypothesis on aesthetics.

Simplistically, aesthetics is the 'style', while metaphysical value-judgments are the 'substance' of an artwork, imo.

As we see, one may be brilliantly achieved, while the other can be terrible.

(Shakespeare always comes to mind - as an awesome aesthetician, but an awful value-judge.)

The two can be separated briefly for reasons of critique, but ultimately are closely bound - as the viewer passes judgment on the aesthetics AND judgement of the art's metaphysical value-judgments, instantaneously. So, we judge the judge,

in a sense, according to our own metaphysical standards.

This judgment is not "ethical" - initially - but as you know, all metaphysical and epistemic roads lead there eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, Rand began with art in its entirety, before getting down to the nitty-gritty. (The core of the onion.) So she first tackled the act of creativity, art's necessity to man,etc., and everything else held in common by all art and artists. We'd think her remiss if she didn't.

Yes, that's what I've been saying! The "core of the onion" -- the essence of the Objectivist Esthetics -- is not "Romanticist art." Romanticism only comes into the discussion when we begin to consider ethical judgments of art.

One deduces that her purpose all along was to identify and extol one subset of art, Romanticism.

I don't agree that that was the purpose of her philosophy of aesthetics. It was only the purpose of her exploring ethical responses to art once she had established the core or essence of her aesthetics.

As far as an aesthetic appraisal, basically any art expert could (and many have) written a hypothesis on aesthetics.

Any expert could not have written Rand's hypothesis on aesthetics. Any actual expert would have recognized the glaring contradictions and double standards in the epistemological aspects of the Objectivist Esthetics (the fact that several art forms which Objectivism accepts as valid don't meet the requirement of objectively re-creating reality, for example).

Simplistically, aesthetics is the 'style', while metaphysical value-judgments are the 'substance' of an artwork, imo.

I disagree. I think that, simply put, aesthetics is a combination of style/substance/experience, where the "metaphysical value-judgments" are mere background inspiration upon which the experience is based. The "metaphysical value-judgments" are a part of the artist's intentions and creative influence, where the aesthetic aspects are the results.

As we see, one may be brilliantly achieved, while the other can be terrible.

(Shakespeare always comes to mind - as an awesome aesthetician, but an awful value-judge.)

I think your Objecti-goggles are distorting your view of Shakespeare. Any artist and his or her work could be judged with the same hostility, including Rand. You seem to want to judge Shakespeare as an awful value-judge, and to judge Rand as a great value-judge, and therefore that's what you do, despite the fact that there is equal evidence to support the opposite conclusions. You're doing the same thing that Sures did with Rodin -- seeing what you want to see, selectively interpreting it how you want to, and ignoring all other possible interpretations.

The two can be separated briefly for reasons of critique, but ultimately are closely bound - as the viewer passes judgment on the aesthetics AND judgement of the art's metaphysical value-judgments, instantaneously.

I agree that people make aesthetic and ethical judgments of art. They do so all the time. The point is that, no matter how frequently both types of judgments are made simultaneously, ethical judgments are ethical judgments, and aesthetic ones are aesthetic ones. The ethical judgments are not the essence of the aesthetics. They are the essence of the ethics.

So, we judge the judge, in a sense, according to our own metaphysical standards.

This judgment is not "ethical" - initially - but as you know, all metaphysical and epistemic roads lead there eventually.

Judging an artwork by whether or not it appeals to your own views is an ethical judgment.

Judging an artwork by how well the artist presented his views is an aesthetic judgment.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.(Shakespeare always comes to mind - as an awesome aesthetician, but an awful value-judge.)

Sez who, re the latter?Ellen

Sez me. Who else?

Rand did, in that she called Shakespeare the father of Naturalism in the modern world and talked of his having the idea of a fatal flaw. I wasn't sure if you were stating your opinion or synopsizing Rand.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.(Shakespeare always comes to mind - as an awesome aesthetician, but an awful value-judge.)

Sez who, re the latter?Ellen

Sez me. Who else?

Rand did, in that she called Shakespeare the father of Naturalism in the modern world and talked of his having the idea of a fatal flaw. I wasn't sure if you were stating your opinion or synopsizing Rand.

Ellen

Yes, I knew of her critique though I'd forgotten the "father of Naturalism" bit.

Despite my "Objecti-goggles", I had of course studied his plays well before coming across Rand. In hindsight, armed with "metaphysical value-judgments" I recognized why I had, at the time, both appreciated Shakespeare (for his insight into - mostly flawed - human nature, and of course his poetic grasp of language) and loathed him for his view of existence and man's uselessness. Still, I gladly admit I quote him regularly.

(Another bout of synchronicity I found with AR was one of my favorite authors back then, John O'Hara: one of the best naturalists, she said, roughly.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is way counterfactual, since I couldn't guess how my life would have been if I hadn't read Rand, since I wouldn't have met Larry if I hadn't read Rand and his and my lives have been entwined for almost 45 years. But just in terms of artistic meaningfulness to me, suppose I were asked, if I could only have encountered one of the two, Shakespeare or Rand, which would I take? Shakespeare. The "insight" you (Tony) mention, I value greatly, and I don't see Shakespeare as presenting an image of "man's uselessness," despite certain speeches, such as the "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" speech. I memorized that when I was in high school and to this day I love reciting it, though I don't think it's true. But, oh, the rich feel of it, and the way the words flow.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, I've been reading all around this topic and the only conclusion I can come to is that Shakespeare's art is a direct outgrowth of Aristotle's Poetics.

In his tragedies, Shakespeare really pours on the fear and pity, then takes everything to a proper catharsis.

Actually, Rand does, too. I don't recall Rand talking much about Aristotle's Poetics. It's a pretty good assumption she read the work.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reverting to post #21....

At the moment just continuing with the point I was trying to make and leaving off the particulars of your discussion with OO people.

What were the OO people, and what were you, taking to be the meaning of "Man" in Rand's "Man's Life"?

In O-land discussions on "man's life", I generally assume that we're using Rand's definition of "man":

"[The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankinds knowledge to-date [is]: 'A rational animal.' (Rational, in this context, does not mean 'acting invariably in accordance with reason'; it means 'possessing the faculty of reason.' A full biological definition of man would include many subcategories of 'animal,' but the general category and the ultimate definition remain the same.)"

That definition is her definition of the concept, from ITOE, and it pertains to the biological classification.

However, when Rand talks of "Man" with capitalized effect (and sometimes written capitalized) in "Man's Life," as I said

I take her meaning to be an entity which I consider imaginary - "a being of volitional consciousness" - which being doesn't include all humans but only those who have activated a particular form of consciousness.

She says that the human, man in the biological sense, has no guarantee of remaining conscious in the sense proper to man, that, unlike any other creature, he has to actuate his essential characteristic (rationality) by choice.

She also often talked (and so did Branden) using a tripartite classification, viz., a rational person, an irrational person, and a mixed case. In regard to esthetic response, she claimed that the three types respond to different types of art, each type seeking the experience of his respective type of functioning. (place-holder for link - see following post)

I agree with you about the next part: Her standard of esthetic judgment is not based on personal "preferences or premises," even those of the being I consider imaginary.

Even if "man" is defined as a being of volitional consciousness, it doesn't change anything when it comes to aesthetic judgment and the fact that "Romanticist art" is not the essence of the Objectivist Esthetics. According to Objectivism, an aesthetic appraisal isn't based on one's own preferences or premises, no matter how volitionally and rationally they were chosen, but on how well the artist presented his theme and his views in his work. He can be a naturalist/determinist who presents anti-man, anti-life themes and views in his art which could nevertheless qualify as being aesthetically great according to Objectivism.

However, I don't follow what you say next, because you now bring in "judgments of beauty."

But, having said that, I have addressed the issue of the Objectivist concept of volition in judgments of beauty by challenging those at OO the with same challenge that I later presented to Roger: "Objectivism's notion of objectivity is that it is the act of volitionally applying clearly identified objective standards of judgment by means of logic and reason, so, please identify the objective standard of judging beauty, and demonstrate how judgments of beauty employ logic and reason."

No one -- including those who believe that they've activated that particular form of consciousness which you consider imaginary -- has answered the challenge. That's because they, and everyone else, are not judging beauty by volitionally applying clearly identified objective standards of judgment by means of logic and reason. Instead, they're attempting to rate their own subjective pleasure responses to visual phenomena.

That's why I asked if you're equating esthetic merit with beauty. You said, no, but then I don't understand bringing beauty into it. Beauty is a personal-preference response, just as pleasure is.

Which is why I think:

So possibly "Man's Life" would be considered the correct standard of beauty...

Analogously to "a rational person" liking (according to Rand) a certain kind of art, "an irrational person" another kind, "a mixed person" a mixed kind.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of linking in the placeholder slot of the post above, I'll just re-post:

The Function of Art according to Rand

I opened a copy of The Romantic Manifesto intending to re-read in context Rand's discussion of the difference between aesthetic judgment and sense-of-life response. I haven't gotten to that part yet. The pages I opened to -- pp. 38-39 in the 1971 Signet paperback -- contain a succinct delineation of Rand's view of art's function, the view which I said in post #5 "I might loosely call 'utilitarian.'" I hope that people following the thread will take careful note of what she says here. The passage is from "Art and Sense of Life," originally published in The Objectivist in March 1966.

It is not journalistic information or scientific education or moral guidance that man seeks from a work of art (though these may be involved as secondary consequences), but the fulfillment of a more profound need: a confirmation of his view of existence--a confirmation, not in the sense of resolving cognitive doubts, but in the sense of permitting him to contemplate his abstractions outside his own mind, in the form of existential concretes.

Since man lives by reshaping his physical background to serve his purposes, since he must first define and then create his values--a rational man needs a concretized projection of these values, an image in whose likeness he will re-shape the world and himself. Art gives him that image; it gives him the experience of seeing the full, immediate, concrete reality of his distant goals.

Since a rational man's ambition is unlimited, since his pursuit and achievement of values is a lifelong process--and the higher the values, the harder the struggle--he needs a moment, an hour or some period of time in which he can experience the sense of his completed task, the sense of living in a universe where his values have been successfully achieved. It is like a moment of rest, a moment to gain fuel to move farther. Art gives him that fuel; the pleasure of contemplating the objectified reality of one's own sense of life is the pleasure of feeling what it would be like to live in one's ideal world.

"The importance of that experience is not in what man learns from it, but in that he experiences it. The fuel is not a theoretical principle, not a didactic 'message,' but the life-giving fact of experiencing a moment of metaphysical joy--a moment of love for existence." (See Chapter 10 ["The Goal of My Writing," October-November 1963].

The same principle applies to an irrational man, though in different terms, according to his different views and responses. For an irrational man, the concretized projection of his malevolent sense of life serves, not as fuel and inspiration to move forward, but as permission to stand still: it declares that values are unattainable, that the struggle is futile, that fear, guilt, pain and failure are mankind's predestined end--and that he couldn't help it. Or, on a lower level of irrationality, the concretized projection of a malignant sense of life provides a man with an image of triumphant malice, of hatred for existence, of vengeance against life's best exponents, of the defeat and destruction of all human values; his kind of art gives him a moment's illusion that he is right--that evil is metaphysically potent.

Art is man's metaphysical mirror; what a rational man seeks to see in that mirror is a salute; what an irrational man seeks to see is a justification--even if only a justification of his depravity, as a last convulsion of his betrayed self-esteem.

Between these two extremes, there lies the immense continuum of men of mixed premises--whose sense of life holds unresolved, precariously balanced or openly contradictory elements of reason and unreason--and works of art that reflect these mixtures. Since art is the product of philosophy (and mankind's philosophy is tragically mixed), most of the world's art, including some of its greatest examples, falls into this category.

Ellen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About #70:

The APA Ayn Rand Society had an inconclusive discussion at one of its meetings as to whether Rand had read the Poetics. Her marginal notes establish that she first came across the can-and-ought-to-be remark secondhand in Albert J. Nock, and nobody had hard evidence that she'd read the original. A point worth noting is that for all the times she cites the remark she never mentions the book it came from. Another is that elsewhere in it Aristotle states that likelihood in a character is not a matter of what anybody or most people would do but of what this particular character would do. It fits her art quite aptly, and I can't help thinking that she would have appreciated it and quoted it, too, if she'd read it.

Scholars have been wrangling for centuries about how well Shakespeare knew the Greek and Latin classics. A teacher of mine once told us that Shakespeare's familiarity with Aristotle's theory is the kind you'd pick up in bar, talking to somebody who knew it well. The fact that his plays fit Aristotle's description doesn't prove that he knew the theory. It could just as easily mean that Aristotle was right about what makes a certain kind of story good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete,

I'm not a scholar on Aristotle and the different disagreements on who read him. However, given his general influence on the culture, it seems to me to be reasonable that even if someone like Shakespeare did not read The Poetics, he still learned the principles from his teachers.

As to Rand, I recall reading in Barbara's biography (I think) that Rand had received a copy of all of Aristotle's works as a present (if I remember correctly). I find it inconceivable that she would take him to the apex of reason, but not read a short work like Poetics that she had at hand. Especially as she was a novelist and screenwriter. Also, she studied Greek philosophers in college, so it's reasonable to assume she at least knew of this work back then.

In fact, I suspect Aristotle's idea that pity is one of the main dramatic emotions bothered her and this accounts for Roark's revulsion at feeling pity for Peter Keating in a climactic moment. I can't prove it, but I suspect it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is way counterfactual, since I couldn't guess how my life would have been if I hadn't read Rand, since I wouldn't have met Larry if I hadn't read Rand and his and my lives have been entwined for almost 45 years. But just in terms of artistic meaningfulness to me, suppose I were asked, if I could only have encountered one of the two, Shakespeare or Rand, which would I take? Shakespeare. The "insight" you (Tony) mention, I value greatly, and I don't see Shakespeare as presenting an image of "man's uselessness," despite certain speeches, such as the "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" speech. I memorized that when I was in high school and to this day I love reciting it, though I don't think it's true. But, oh, the rich feel of it, and the way the words flow.

Ellen

Well, yeah. I believe I've been through similar doubts. As a semi-conclusion, I don't think a choice is needed. Basically, I take from Shakespeare, or whoever, that which is his - the things that are valuable - and leave the rest. Isn't that the rational and selfish thing to do?

His words and insights stay with me - the speeches, monologues and off-the-cuff remarks. After all, his plays were meant to enthrall audiences with the settings and action, as well as spoken words; not for dry and dusty porings over in a classroom.

So what filled me with dread every time I had to open Hamlet, Macbeth, A and C, M-SND? Now, I realise that the background of the tragedies (and 'comedies') was one (in theme, plot and character) of helplessness in the face of powers beyond man's control: monarchs, spirits and goblins, the alignment of the stars, bad fortune, and weak and evil men.

This was WS's "metaphysical value-judgement"- to say nothing of his 'sense of life'! - but I agree, the "rich feel of it" never leaves.

(By coincidence, a few nights ago I caught some of Hamlet (the film) on TV. Set in modern times, with original dialogue, it seemed an excellent production. But the funky characters and street/nightclub scenes couldn't disguise the same dark premises.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now