Ayn Rand & The Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged soon in theatres?


Selene

Recommended Posts

This looks quite nice.

"We are proud to announce...

We are finalizing a deal for a theatrical release of Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged! More details to come!

As a result, we must postpone our full DVD release until after the theatrical run.

You can still buy our

Preview DVD, the "Sneak Peek," which is an opportunity to see the full documentary, but without the standard DVD packaging and extras. This is the same DVD we send out to reviewers."

"In this documentary, the filmmakers takes the viewer on a biographical journey of Ayn Rand and her quest bringing Atlas Shrugged to the world. She wrote the book to prevent the premise of the novel coming true. Fast forward 50+ years and we are in way over our heads in several of the plot lines from Atlas Shrugged. How did she know?"

http://thereelcritic...d-movie-review/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This looks quite nice.

"We are proud to announce...

We are finalizing a deal for a theatrical release of Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged! More details to come!

As a result, we must postpone our full DVD release until after the theatrical run.

You can still buy our

Preview DVD, the "Sneak Peek," which is an opportunity to see the full documentary, but without the standard DVD packaging and extras. This is the same DVD we send out to reviewers."

"In this documentary, the filmmakers takes the viewer on a biographical journey of Ayn Rand and her quest bringing Atlas Shrugged to the world. She wrote the book to prevent the premise of the novel coming true. Fast forward 50+ years and we are in way over our heads in several of the plot lines from Atlas Shrugged. How did she know?"

http://thereelcritic...d-movie-review/

Ayn Rand had contact with aliens, obviously. There is no other way to explain all this. Maybe she will make the History Channel one day.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I was delighted to see an ad for Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged in this morning's edition of the LA Times. It opens in the LA area (and elsewhere) on January 17. Evidently only two showings of the film are scheduled at this time.

Ayn-Rand-and-the-Prophecy-of-Atlas-Shrugged.jpg

Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged is a feature length documentary film that examines the resurging interest in Ayn Rand’s epic and controversial 1957 novel and the validity of its dire prediction for America.

One caveat: This documentary is obviously branded with the ARI stamp of approval.**

Here's a link to a full listing of all theaters scheduled to show the film:

IN SELECT THEATERS

You can watch a trailer here:

ATLAS SHRUGGED

**So why is biographer Anne Heller featured in the trailer???? Hopefully that is another good sign that ARI is loosening its authoritarian grip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I received an e-mail from ARI today announcing the premiere of the film. Here is an excerpt:

Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged is a feature length documentary film that examines the resurgent interest in Ayn Rand's epic and controversial 1957 novel and the validity of its dire predictions for America.

Note: These events are organized, hosted and sponsored by an organization other than ARI. The Ayn Rand Institute does not necessarily endorse the content of the event offered.

Looks like I was wrong to say that ARI orchestrated the project. On the other hand, it's hard to believe they would be promoting the film unless some prominent ARI brass had seen it and liked it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I received an e-mail from ARI...

These events are organized, hosted and sponsored by an organization other than ARI. The Ayn Rand Institute does not necessarily endorse the content of the event offered.

Dennis,

This is probably for the best in terms of the film's health.

After all, ARI did endorse PARC.

If I were the film maker, I would not find value in the endorsement of an organization that prostitutes its good name (a good name borrowed, I might add, from Ayn Rand) to promote cult-like persecutions.

On the contrary, I would not want my film to be identified with that kind of practice. That would be bad for the box office with the public at large.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not scheduled -anywhere- in my state, Florida, with one of the largest populations in the nation, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I received an e-mail from ARI...

These events are organized, hosted and sponsored by an organization other than ARI. The Ayn Rand Institute does not necessarily endorse the content of the event offered.

Dennis,

This is probably for the best in terms of the film's health.

After all, ARI did endorse PARC.

If I were the film maker, I would not find value in the endorsement of an organization that prostitutes its good name (a good name borrowed, I might add, from Ayn Rand) to promote cult-like persecutions.

On the contrary, I would not want my film to be identified with that kind of practice. That would be bad for the box office with the public at large.

Michael

I’ll forward this to Yaron, Michael. He seemed a little disappointed about the size of your last donation. :cool:

I agree that the film will be much better because the producers were not beholden to Peikoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We are thrilled to announce that...

Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged will screen in over 60 theaters throughout the United States on January 17th & 26th!

The Los Angeles screening at the ArcLight Hollywood will include a Q&A with Chris Mortensen, director of Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged, and Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute.

There are some more exciting Q&As which will be announced shortly. These include Lisa Wolf, Executive Director, JP Morgan; Cliff Asness, Managing & Founding Principal, AQR; And Andrew Langer, President of the Institute for Liberty.

Buy your tickets now at

http://www.AtlasShrugged-theDoc.com

divider.jpg

The Dennis Miller Show

Director Chris Mortensen was interviewed on The Dennis Miller Show this morning. You can listen to clips from the interview

here.

Here are some highlights from Dennis Miller:

I'm a huge fan. It's my favorite book of all time, Atlas Shrugged.

That book reads like an AP story now.

Chris will also be interviewed by

Butler on Business this Thursday, January 12th. Listen in at 11AM EST / 8AM PST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Director Chris Mortensen was interviewed on The Dennis Miller Show this morning. You can listen to clips from the interview

here.

Here are some highlights from Dennis Miller:

I'm a huge fan. It's my favorite book of all time, Atlas Shrugged.

That book reads like an AP story now.

I heard most of Miller’s interview with Mortenson. I thought it was interesting that both of them criticized Galt’s speech, suggesting that it was burdensome and unneccesary. Miller joked that he only read the Cliff’s Notes version of the speech. Mortensen suggested the speech was extraneous because it merely reiterated what was obvious from the events that had transpired, which is absurd. That makes me skeptical about how insightful his documentary is likely to be.

Both of them said Ayn Rand’s prophetic novel was astounding because it had predicted what would happen if certain destructive causal factors were not corrected.

Neither thought it important that people read and understand Ayn Rand’s comprehensive philosophical statement clarifying the nature of those causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Director Chris Mortensen was interviewed on The Dennis Miller Show this morning. You can listen to clips from the interview

here.

Here are some highlights from Dennis Miller:

I'm a huge fan. It's my favorite book of all time, Atlas Shrugged.

That book reads like an AP story now.

I heard most of Miller’s interview with Mortenson. I thought it was interesting that both of them criticized Galt’s speech, suggesting that it was burdensome and unneccesary. Miller joked that he only read the Cliff’s Notes version of the speech. Mortensen suggested the speech was extraneous because it merely reiterated what was obvious from the events that had transpired, which is absurd. That makes me skeptical about how insightful his documentary is likely to be.

Both of them said Ayn Rand’s prophetic novel was astounding because it had predicted what would happen if certain destructive causal factors were not corrected.

Neither thought it important that people read and understand Ayn Rand’s comprehensive philosophical statement clarifying the nature of those causes.

Most readers of the novel probably take it on the level those did. Millions--if not tens of millions. Better they did than not get anything at all from it. However, the novel should have been warning labelled: "My philosophy will destroy you if you don't accept it hook, line and sinker. And I mean it!" Idiots would have flocked to buy it who otherwise wouldn't and we'd have fewer idiots today than we do.

--Brant

on the front, of course, don't tell them when it's too late; that would be immoral--and the idiots wouldn't see it or buy it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most readers of the novel probably take it on the level those did. Millions--if not tens of millions. Better they did than not get anything at all from it. However, the novel should have been warning labelled: "My philosophy will destroy you if you don't accept it hook, line and sinker. And I mean it!" Idiots would have flocked to buy it who otherwise wouldn't and we'd have fewer idiots today than we do.

--Brant

on the front, of course, don't tell them when it's too late; that would be immoral--and the idiots wouldn't see it or buy it!

Ayn Rand finally issued her warning label—over ten years later:

Bad premises cannot be held still: they must be corrected or they will grow and choke off the good ones. . .

Consistency is one of the cardinal requirements of Objectivism, both philosophically and psychologically. It is a dangerous philosophy to play with or to accept half-way: it will stifle the mind that attempts to do so. In this respect, Objectivism, like reality, is its own avenger.

I regret that the demonstration of this fact had to come in so tragic and ugly a form.

Ayn Rand, To Whom It May Concern (1968)

The context in which she offered that caveat probably diluted its impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who are in a state of angst because the film is not being screened in your location take note.

On the site www.atlasshruggeddocumentary.com there is a window which reads: REQUEST A SCREENING IN YOUR TOWN and CLICK HERE

If you do want to suggest a place you may send an email to : atlas@DandEentertainment.com with the Subject to read: REQUESTING SCREENING - 'AYN RAND & THE PROPHECY OF ATLAS SHRUGGED'

Provide them with contact information about your local theater. Once you do you will receive a thank you from them. No telling yet just when they will schedule another screening. But I imagine that if enough of us request a local theater in places where it isn't screening this time, that next time it will be all over and no one will have to travel hundreds of miles to see it as they do now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: getting out of the passive armchair observer state and being constructive

Thanks gulch, that is very good advice if people would get off their butts and do it.

For my part: I just took your advice, looked up the contact info, sent them a two-paragraph email, included the fact that my area has a large metropolitan area around it and my state is one of the largest in the nation and it's not playing anywhere in my state, and mentioned I'd want to bring my friends.

Again, just like my recent comments in the online NYT (and unlike my past work starting campus and community clubs), the amount of work is constructive and only takes minutes. A lot less time than it takes ninth doctor, say, to look up a satirical video and post it to make fun of his inside-the-movement opponents.

(I wonder if *a single person on OL* has done either of the two examples I mentioned or their equivalent? Pretty much 'passive armchair intellectual' types, I get the feeling. Talkers more than doers.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fully being a man or woman of reason means that you are not just a talker but a doer. (It doesn't mean that you are a 'doer' in every area though. There are too many things to do to do them all.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: getting out of the passive armchair observer state and being constructive

Thanks gulch, that is very good advice if people would get off their butts and do it.

For my part: I just took your advice, looked up the contact info, sent them a two-paragraph email, included the fact that my area has a large metropolitan area around it and my state is one of the largest in the nation and it's not playing anywhere in my state, and mentioned I'd want to bring my friends.

Again, just like my recent comments in the online NYT (and unlike my past work starting campus and community clubs), the amount of work is constructive and only takes minutes. A lot less time than it takes ninth doctor, say, to look up a satirical video and post it to make fun of his inside-the-movement opponents.

(I wonder if *a single person on OL* has done either of the two examples I mentioned or their equivalent? Pretty much 'passive armchair intellectual' types, I get the feeling. Talkers more than doers.)

Phil, I admit I haven't done as you have so insightfully suggested in your pithy parting parenthetical.

Instead, so far at least, I have merely made another payroll for 18 employees today, it being a "payday" and all. Have you met a payroll today?

Ever? Just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PDS, no, I've never been an employer and had to pay people. That's also something rare among the Objectivish. They are more likely to be employees (unless they are doctors or lawyers with a small practice). And in many fields they sometimes seem to be too ornery or to lack "group project skills" even for that . . . or to feel more comfortable being free-lancers or contractors or independent consultants as opposed to employees, especially for large corporations. "Would Roark or Rearden work for someone else?" is one excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Side note: I've known well or had extended conversations with hundreds of Oists in college, grad school, on both coasts and in the middle of the country and at a dozen conferences, and in clubs I've launched or been an officer or or just a member. I'm often highly critical of them or of the 'movement' - whether ortho, conservative, or reform. Part of it is I feel Oists are often too smug, too proud of reading and accepting the system of ideas and people are often hesitant to puncture that -- with the important exception of one-sided or "factional puncturing":

1) The reform wing and tassy-heads and quasi-Oists are very often unrestrained in criticizing Peikoff and the other side. Often unwilling to see any virtues in the other 'clan'.

2)The ortho wing and randroids and ari-heads [not all the same group!] are very often unrestrained in criticizing anyone of the other side, or the non-Oist like libertarians. Often unwilling to see any virtues in the other 'clan'.

3) Both sides are often strangely reluctant to strongly criticize prominent thinkers or tendencies on ~their own side~ (or resentful and suspicious of the motives of "schoomarms" and "attention-seekers" like me who tend to find equal or at least highly fundamental shortcomings on each side.)

On the other hand: I'd like to "balance" or put in proportion all my criticism. The Oists (or largely Objectivish) I've met over the years -- whether ARI-leaning or TAS-leaning or pre "schism" or regardless of what side they take on the earlier Rand/Branden issues -- while each has or her own limitations, have usually been morally and intellectually admirable people in the following respects: Highly intelligent. Honest and resourceful and clear-sighted and courageous enough to accept a highly unpopular worldview, knowing full well it would make them pariahs, might kill or hamper some personal or professional relationships. Possessing on the whole, good moral character. And a high degree of idealism in the best sense (not cynics or nihilists).

And a subset of them have included many of the most wonderful people I've met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such recreation to be had at OL. We have on one side the rapier of PDS, uniting the theme of the OT and unknotting pretensions in one sweep.

On the other hand, the same game but played with polishers, grinders, rivets.

I have noticed Phil's incredible use of pronouns. Phil's favourite pronoun of course is I, but strangely he uses They more often. In most heated exchanges, if you look, you will see that Phil rarely gets a sentence going without Them and They. This I might call Otherizing.

Otherizing is an odd thing, and a bit tough to explain (as all neologisms should be, I think). We all use constructions like I think or I believe. This usually introduces that we are 'winging it,' and are ready for discussion. Discussants are invited to probe our thoughts or beliefs for reality.

In contrast, an assertion drops the "I believe" or "I think."

Frankly, I add back in the "I believe" and "I think" in my mind when I re-read an assertion. It doesn't make much difference in my probing questions, but, it makes me more prone to be kind to the person behind the assertion.

How does this relate to Otherizing? Well, this is a case in which several things are dropped entirely beyond "I think" and "I believe". No longer do we have a thought, summary, conclusion, assertion presented plainly. No longer do we have a statement like "(I think) most people are stupid and/or degenerate," which is a good start to a discussion. We don't get "(I think) Evil people always do evil to themselves first." Instead we get things like "The bad things about Them are listed in the following List." If the word "I" comes in, it is just to introduce a bill of charges againsts Them.

So, what was all that blather for?

Well, I am going to de-Otherize Phil's post in which he goes on and on about Them.

I have had a lot of conversations with Objectivists and students of Objectivism and the Objectivish over the years, ever since I went to New York in the fateful year 19XX (the same year in which I met Miss X)

I have had conversations in college and in grad school. I have had conversations on the east coast and the west coast, in the fly-over states, I have spoken at conferences and attended a dozen and have had conversations at each.

I have also had conversations in clubs I have started (these were mainly Objectivish clubs), and finally I have had conversations while I have been an Officer in clubs. I should also mention that I have had conversations when I have been just a member of a club.

So, what I am stressing is that I Have Had Conversations With Objective-ish Folks. Lots of them, lots and lots and lots.

Am I about to tell you about those folks' sides of the conversations? No -- why should I? This is a thread about me. I want to tell you what I discovered in those conversations (In fact, my Next Book will be called "Conversations with O"). I want to tell you about myself, mostly, my wisdom, my acuity of vision, my prophecy and so on.

I'm often highly critical of them or of the 'movement' -- whether ortho, conservative, or reform, but I realize that I am sometimes guilty of that which I critique. I feel Oists are often too smug, too proud of reading and accepting the system of ideas, and then I note that I can be too,.

I am restrained in criticizing Peikoff compared to most folks here on OL, but at the same time I am often unwilling to see virtue in people who disagree with me. I have a hard time reconciling this in my mind. Once I put someone on a 'side' of me, I am often unrestrained in criticizing anyone of that side. Viz maggots, cunts ... (but I have a hard time keeping consistent on this point, I think).

I am not reluctant to strongly criticize prominent thinkers or tendencies, but I do not actually understand why this angers anyone. I seem to have a side, but everyone else is on the wrong side, somehow. I criticize everyone but myself, mostly, maybe.

When folks get tired of my posts they often use the term " "schoomarm." I still don't quite get this. What is wrong with a Schoolmarm, after all? I am a teacher by profession, and that is what Schoolmarms do, so what is the freaking problem?!

Sometimes the owner of a website on which I post tries to prove that I am an "attention-seeker," playing the same Me Me Me game over and over with the same dire results. I do not accept this, or even, really, understand it. Some listers point out that I have called people names and stormed off this site several times never to return, as if it meant anything to me. I ignore this kind of thing, usually. I evade the implications of my own actions and statements, sometimes. But isn't that what self-preservation and amour-propre does for everyone? Am I like everyone I criticize? I would be hard pressed to accept that in my heart. That would be devastating. I cannot be a hypocrite. That would puncture my self-esteem, I think.

But, I soldier on. I ask myself questions, the same questions I put to others. I test my own premises, do I not?

Do I use proportion in all my criticisms?

Well, the largely Objectivish folk I have met over the years -- whether ARI-leaning or TAS-leaning or pre "schism" or regardless of what side they take on the earlier Rand/Branden issues, have usually been morally and intellectually admirable people -- highly intelligent, honest, resourceful, clear-sighted. In all these conversations across the years, the Objectivish have largely reflected what I think about myself. I think of myself as possessing, on the whole, a good moral character. I think I have a high degree of idealism. I am not nihilistic or cynical. I could be wrong, but I strongly identify with these qualities and I want to be like my heros.

I think these folk are courageous, because they accept and practice a worldview that might make them pariahs (like Mr X) , might kill or hamper some personal (Miss Y) or professional relationships (Dr J).

[The variously named people such as Misses X, Y, Z and Mssrs P, R, U, X, W, Z and Y and Drs P, L and P were some of the most wonderful people I've met.

I want to be like them, accomplished, caring, wise, fully human. I sometimes fall short, but I hope I learn. I hope I learn to trust criticism of myself as much as I trust my criticism of others, even if only in a small way. It would help me be more satisfied in life, less lonely, less thwarted and less frustrated. I am sorry for all the terrible things I have done and said over the years.

Thanks, everyone who has cared enough about Reason and Reality (and little old me!) to critique me. I wouldn't be the man I am without it. I realize that I myself gain when I criticize myself first, and hold myself to the same standard I hold to others, that I gain respect and credibility as a thoughtful participant in debate, that I display integrity. I think I am not just a crank, after all -- and I can give you evidence that people on this very list, people like Michael who harshly criticize me, and people like WSS and Ghs -- they LIKE me still, and so does Carol and so do several others who said so out loud here! If I fix mistakes in presentation, I can still make a Large Mark On The World, and be more like my heroes.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, I'm not sure I understand the point of your post. Did you get *absolutely nothing* out of the points I took the trouble to make in post 19?

I took some trouble to develop those points - and the ideas that there is both a critical and a supportive way to look at OIsts, a positive and a negative side -- and that both movement "factions" tend to err in their critical slant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Otherizing" (post #20). I like that a lot, WSS. With the Number One Other being Kant, the Absolute Dark contraposed to the Absolute Light. (The Jungian allusion might resonate with PDS, who has read some Jung.)

Here's something I've thought about over and over in my years of being a sort-of fellow traveler to "Objectivish-ism": the contrast between Galt's statement of the purpose of his morality -- to teach you (generically) to live and to enjoy your life -- and the Fundamental Imperative -- to Judge ("judge and expect to be judged," but isn't it primarily the judging which is adopted as the foremost requirement?).

I think I've said before, people get drawn in by the first, the promise of a morality which will bring a life of happiness, but then they become focused on the fear of being "irrational" and the concern not to have any consort with the irrational, lest they be contaminated.

The result doesn't entice Others who, attracted by something in Rand's novels, then take a closer look. On another thread (the "Scientific Certainty" thread), the question why there are so few Objectivists came up. Seems to me that the tension between the purported purpose of the ethics and the actual result has a lot to do with the answer.

Additional factors, too, but closely related ones. The quote Dennis posted from TWIMC (post #13) is indicative. The lack of willingness to engage in critical examination. The lack of understanding of the actual course of the history of ideas, of what the issues were which led to Kant's atempt at resolution. The non-appeal to scientists -- which The Logical Leap I think can only strengthen in persons scientifically knowledgeable who take a glance at that book. It's like a hermetically-sealed package which says "only Correct Thinkers are welcome." Where does that leave Others who have questions?

Phil, of course, has a way of announcing with his subject heads that he's about to tell Others what they're doing wrong. See, e.g., post #15. But I think WSS has touched on something much more basic than Phil's efforts to shape all the Others to his specs.

Ellen

PS: Sorry I haven't had time to get back to the "Scientific Certainty" thread. A lot of the "doing" which Phil opines posters here don't engage in going on. I read this thread out of curiosity to find out any background people might know about the film. Hartford, why I don't know, happens to be one of the places it's scheduled to show -- one showing only at one theater only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Phil, of course, has a way of announcing with his subject heads that he's about to tell Others what they're doing wrong. [Ellen]

Which is exactly what you just did in your post: "The lack of understanding of the actual course of the history of ideas...non-appeal to scientists...like a hermetically-sealed package". And what most people do in their posts. And most intellectuals do when they write critically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something I've thought about over and over in my years of being a sort-of fellow traveler to "Objectivish-ism": the contrast between Galt's statement of the purpose of his morality -- to teach you (generically) to live and to enjoy your life -- and the Fundamental Imperative -- to Judge ("judge and expect to be judged," but isn't it primarily the judging which is adopted as the foremost requirement?). I think I've said before, people get drawn in by the first, the promise of a morality which will bring a life of happiness, but then they become focused on the fear of being "irrational" and the concern not to have any consort with the irrational, lest they be contaminated. The result doesn't entice Others .

Ellen,

I think you make a critical point. The "life of happiness" is by far the primary goal. Moral judgment is only one means to that end.

This judgment can save one a lot of unnecessary pain, it can identify the source of great pleasure, and when firmly stood up for, socially and politically, may influence opinion in favor of better ideas.

I do believe Rand, for one, was highly aware of the horse before the cart, though one could believe otherwise.

"Judge, and be prepared...etc" is at one and the same time, a brilliant dictum, and a brutal master.

A rational individualist should not be spending his time searching for targets to "judge".

He would be more concerned, anyway, with judging his own premises and actions.

Whatever apparent immorality he comes across, I think he would delay judgment (benefit of doubt and good-will) since he knows how confused are most people's premises.

Lastly, most judgments can be made privately, acted upon, and with no need to be made public, I believe. One may simply walk away from people and situations without making explicit moral assessment, in many cases.

Therefore, gratuitous moral judgment actually contradicts rational egoism, I think.

I still agree with your basic critique, but will add that the possibilty arises of 'over-kill': that mature Objectivists - weary of excess moralizing - may tend to the extreme of "Judge not!" Ever. Here lies the greater harm, (to one's happiness) in relativism and constipated inaction. One may just as well state "Choose not!"

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks just received this e-mail, take advantage of the offer...

Want FREE tickets to the screening of the new documentary film "Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged" in your city next Tuesday, January 17th?

Next week the documentary will be shown in theaters in over 30 cities across more than 25 states. Best of all, the movie’s publicists are offering complimentary tickets to Atlasphere members. Learn more about this fascinating movie and see the updated list of theaters here:

http://www.atlasshrugged-thedoc.com

Get instructions for claiming your free tickets here:

http://www.theatlasphere.com/account/prophecy-tickets

This offer is available to all Atlasphere members (both free members and paid subscribers).

Enjoy!

The Atlasphere Team

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