Perverted Nihilism: Crash

For some completely inexplicable reason I’ve now seen this film four times, and I can’t say any one of those times could remotely be called enjoyable. Crash is, unquestionably, one of the most viscerally unpleasant films that it has been my misfortune to sit through. It’s an exercise in nihilistic misery and an examination of perversion with absolutely nothing insightful to say about the subject.

Crash was a bit of a cause  célèbre in Britain. It was instantly banned in an enormous overreaction, and as such garnered “unmissable” status that the film simply doesn’t warrant. The “official” history of the Crash fiasco can only be described as disingenuous revisionist bullshit. The BBFC, on the back of the Cannes Award, bottled an outright ban. Instead, and I can’t prove this, the various councils that films have to get by were instead pressured into withholding release. Notably, Westminster (and if you can’t get it released in London, you can’t get it anywhere) actually did apply the ban hammer. It eventually received a full cinema release in 1997, over a year later.

None of this was remotely on my radar.  I was living in South Africa at the time, and I misguidedly took a girl to see it, based entirely on the fact that it won a prize. And I was driving. Needless to say, this was not a lasting relationship, and to this day, I’m convinced that she thinks I had some kind of sick plan for the evening. I probably did, in hindsight, but not one involving me totalling my only mode of transport for jollies. I then saw it in the cinema on its UK release after being overruled by the group who were all going for some kind of endurance “shock me” challenge.

All digressions aside, the BBFC actually went through quite an interesting process before granting it’s certificate- they actually consulted with shrinks and amputees. The public outcry that greeted their decision to pass it uncut, could only be described as a furore, and in the fading days of the last Tory government, the headline chasing scum that masquerade as politicians managed to squeeze a fair amount of “ban this filth” mileage out of it. Incidentally, the lying bastards could (under the Video Nasties Act of 1984) have actually banned it themselves, but that would be far too much effort for too little gain. Furthermore, Crash attracted a ridiculously pompous critical reaction here, with Alexander Walker in particular calling it “beyond the bounds of depravity”.

So, is Crash that bad? This is the only real question that I’ll attempt to answer here, and it’s the only one that matters. Crash is a narratively straightforward film. James Spader plays James Ballard, a desensitised film producer who is sucked into the sordid world of auto-erotica. That’s it- the whole plot, which I’m convinced only exists to set up the various sexual shenanigans.

The acting in Crash is, for the most part, fine. Elias Koteas as the “enigmatic” (read: fucked up) Vaughan is a marvelously oily presence, and Debra Kara Unger is suitably frantic as Ballard’s wife. Rosanna Arquette gives memorable support in a smashed and twisted frame and Holly Hunter is a shining example of mental illness on film. The only weak link is Spader himself. I’ve never liked him as a leading man, I always find him to be a cypher on the screen, just lacking presence. However, here, it is, while not a particularly good performance, quite effective. Spader is the “straight” man to the others mania, and his blandness serves as a nice counter to the other characters.

The writing and score (again by Howard Shore) are fine. This is a perfectly acceptable attempt at translating Ballard (possibly the 20th Century’s most overrated author) to the big screen. Crash is typical Ballard material, who (with the exception of Empire of the Sun) cannot resist putting something in the way of fetish sex into a novel (The Kindness of Women features the line “Bugger me Daddy! Pixie wants to be buggered!”). Personally, I don’t like Ballard’s novels. His alleged masterpieces Cocaine Nights and Supercannes leave me cold, and I think he’s quite often shocking for the sake of it, and disguises an absence of anything to say behind narrative pyrotechnics. I’ll happily debate this for hours, if I’m honest, but he really isn’t one of my favourite authors.

Cronenberg, however, is stylistically perfect for Ballard’s material. He has a coldness, an almost surgical style that allows the depravity present in the source to play out almost without comment on the screen. Sex in Crash isn’t remotely pleasurable, instead it is a driving compulsion, an absolute and all-consuming mania that the characters are powerless against. Not to mention that as they succumb to temptation the densistisation process accelerates and the film ends with the conclusion that death is inevitably for these people. It’s pretty nihilistic stuff.

Crash is also harrowing. There are many, many sequences of this film that are simply squirm/ vomit inducing stuff. Cronenberg knows damned well what he’s doing here, and there is an overwhelming sense of cynicism and weariness to the film. The camera isn’t commenting on what we can see, but there are several touches of unsubtlety that leave it in no doubt what we are watching. The sequences that leap to mind are the notorious scar-fucking scene (about as sexy as an ugly chick with a turd on her face), Elias Koteas beating and shagging Ballard’s wife while he watches then wiping vaginal fluid on the front seat of the car, and the utterly gratuitous breast shot of Holly Hunter during the initial crash.

So, is it actually that bad? Well, frankly, yes. There’s been a ludicrous comparison to soft porn made here, and Crash is in no way Pornographic. The sex here is a visible manifestation of underlying mental issues, and not only is it (as a direct result) incredibly difficult to watch, it’s also damned explicit. I know that since Crash was released there has been a rising tide of erect cock and penetration on-screen that has blurred the boundaries between hard and soft core (Sex and Lucia, Romance, Baise Moi, Intimacy, 9 Songs) but at the time, this was as hard-core as it was possible to get. The sequence on the back seat, in particular, looks like full-blown digital penetration (and the wiped hand confirms that). Crash is an explicit and unenjoyable film, the visible manifestation of an obsession and an all round unpleasant cinema experience.

It’s also clearly an extremely good film. I know this sounds oxymoronic given what I’ve just written, but it makes you think, provides a talking point and exudes a real sense of quality. However, having said that, I don’t think it’s worth the furore, and I also do not consider it to be a film I’d ever return to. But I would say that, seeing as I did last time.

To conclude, Crash is an obviously well made film. It’s also a shocking and extreme work. However, it’s a harrowing and unpleasant ride and not one that I would willingly recommend. It’s Cronenberg, in some ways, at his finest, a superb marriage of a director’s style to the most apt material and is a fitting work in his canon. It is also, however, a revolting and distressing time, that reeks of cynicism and nihilism. As a result, I give it 2 Changs.

It is, however, infinitely better than Paul “Rich white guy so clearly knows a lot about racism” Haggis’ loathsome and disgraceful Oscar winner.

Next up is the colossal failure of Existenz- like Videodrome, but for pussies.

Until then,

Jarv

The order so far

  1. Dead Ringers (4 Changs)
  2. The Fly (4 Changs)
  3. Videodrome (4 Changs)
  4. Scanners (3.5 Changs)
  5. The Brood (3 Changs)
  6. The Dead Zone (3 Changs)
  7. Shivers (2 Changs)
  8. Crash (2 Changs)
  9. M. Butterfly (1.5 Changs)
  10. Naked Lunch (1.5 Changs)
  11. Rabid (1 Changs)
  12. Fast Company (Orangutan of Doom)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About Jarv

Workshy cynic, given to posting reams of nonsense on the internet and watching films that have inexplicably got a piss poor reputation.

52 responses to “Perverted Nihilism: Crash”

  1. Jarv says :

    The boob covering is an attempt to introduce some levity into an otherwise extremely dry review.

    Sorry if it’s boring.

  2. Franklin Thomas Marmoset says :

    It’s a good review, Jarv. Not boring at all.

    I must admit, I flat out didn’t understand this film. It was never clear to me whether it was trying to say something, whether there really are people who get turned on by car crashes, or whether the whole thing was supposed to be some sort of metaphor. And, like you say, it’s a very cold film, so I was never too keen on taking the time to figure it out. There have been times when I’ve been baffled by a film – Mulholland Drive is a good example – but something about it grabs me and I’ll go back to watch it again and try to make sense of it. But not with this one, it just didn’t seem worth the effort.

    I’m not a huge fan of this period in Cronenberg’s career at all. From Naked Lunch until Spider he left me pretty cold, and I think the only thing he did that I liked during that time was get killed in Jason X. It wasn’t until A History Of Violence that I warmed up to him as a director again.

    • Jarv says :

      Cheers frank,

      This period of Cronenberg’s career has been a fucking trial to get through. I’ve seen Spider and Existenz so only the two good ones left. I think I’m going to be the first one of us that actually finishes a series.

      Did you like the boob coverings?

  3. Franklin Thomas Marmoset says :

    One film I like with James Spader is The Music Of Chance, an adaptation of a Paul Auster book I really like. He’s good in that, I think, because he’s playing against type – kind of a sleazy con-man instead of the usual bland yuppies he always plays.

    Also, it was pretty funny when he wouldn’t apologise to George Constanza for implying George’s fat head would stretch out his jumper.

  4. koutchboom says :

    Hrmmmm so the beating up his wife while he’s in the front scene driving is in the movie? I read that in the book but I didn’t remember it in the movie. I’ve seen this movie like 3 times and everytime I just zone out during it and totally don’t remember shit about it. I’ll watch it tonight. Fuck I even watched it after I read the book and I hardly remember much about either. I do remember in the book though that after the sex scene with his wife in the back seat there’s like a page description of the glistining jiz all over the head rest. So you think it was vaginal fluids in the movie? FUCK i hate it when directors just change shit to change shit from the books to the movie!!!

    • Jarv says :

      It takes place in a car wash.

      I go with vaginal fluid in the film- it takes place before he fucks her. However, it does look a lot like jizz.

      I tried to find a still of it. Could be a cinematic version of either- but on the basis that he was handing out a rough finger fucking, I’m going with Vag fluid.

      It’s pretty filthy either way.

  5. Jarv says :

    Also on that note, I saw many stills of A serbian film while looking for stills of this.

    How the fuck did you endure it.

  6. Bartleby says :

    Good review Jarv. You have been more than fair. I’d have gone with a one star, or at least a one and a half, but that’s me. I think it’s hard to be objective about this movie, and since film critique exists somewhere in the land of subjectivity and objectivity, I’m fine going with a pure ‘it’s a bad movie’ moniker.

    It was a bad book and its a bad movie, but you are right about the emotions it elicits, what its going for, how it fits into the Cronenberg cannon. And yet, I have to say its a bad movie because of what its about and how its about it. The content here is the key, and its grotesque, needlessly nasty and not really interesting unless you actualy happen to get turned on by car crashes or wierd fetishes in general (I think this explains Ebert’s rating of 3 and a half stars)

    I think Cronenberg made this one because he could, and because if he did make it, he wouldn’t necessarily have to make another weird body-horror again and his status would be forever sealed. You’d not have to reach all the way back to Videodrome, because Crash would have the final word.

    And in a way, that’s what he’s done. Existenz had elements, but was mostly milquetoast scifi, Spider was like tranquilizers, and Eastern and History, while good movies, are relatively mainstream and plausible for the man. Once he got Crash out of the system, I think he could finally move away from the ‘body horror’.

    Still, what a vile movie.

    • Jarv says :

      It’s truly repellent stuff, but I think the blame lies with Ballard not Cronenberg. Having said that, he did pick this of all Ballard novels to adapt.

      Existenz is terrible, and is getting a damning review. Spider is Valium on film.

      AHOV & EP are mainstream, but excellent.

      I do take the point that this is the final word in on body horror, there’s lots of it that’s about the marriage between man and machine.

      Also at the same time, it’s clearly well made, and clearly well put together. I certainly don’t go with Mark Cousins description of it as “a masterpiece”, but no do I go with more extreme negative reviews.

      It’s a film I actually don’t like, and can’t believe that I’ve seen it 4 fucking times now.

  7. Bartleby says :

    I also don’t see Existenz as the supreme failure you did (I think it’s a better movie than Crash, Spider, M Butterfly, and Naked Lunch. To me, it’s a 2.5 star movie and has plenty I like, but absolutely not one really new idea to the Cronenberg cannon.

    Still, Videodrome, but for pussies… is the perfect summation.

    • Jarv says :

      I was actually pretty ambivalent until starting this series, but having seen it so (relatively) soon after Videodrome it’s a colossal failure.

      Not to mention that it’s riddled with plot holes, the end is predictable, it’s crushingly dull, Jude Law fucking stinks up the screen in it, it’s painfully convoluted without any resolution and the end is a fucking loathsome “it’s all a dream” cop out.

      Existenz is actually one of his worst films, and I’m going to slaughter it.

  8. Tom_Bando says :

    Don’t think I could sit thru this one. Neither Giant Robots nor Dub Taylor make an appearence, and (sadly) at least the Other Crash has Bullock and a Cheadle mixed into the Haggis for your viewing (dis)pleasure. I would say here-Jarv, as always, took one for the team.

    Had forgotten about Ms Unger by the way. Hmmmm.

  9. Barney says :

    Man, you brits are prudish. Crash is considered a great movie by everyone who isn’t afraid of sex. How typical that you guys don’t like it. Grow up, then you might enjoy movies for a mature audience.

    • xiphos0311 says :

      Barney you’re a fucking retard. Who is the one launching preemptive strikes about sex mongoloid? feeling threatened that your pet perversion isn’t given a ringing endorsement? and for christ sakes you douchetard Crash is actually an infantile fear response ABOUT sex. Let me guess you’re a scar fucker right?

    • Tom_Bando says :

      It is wise to not provoke the Xiphos. Back away and find your copy of Barney BJ’s Baby Bop that wayy>>>>>. If you want a friend, might I suggest going over to AICN and looking up one Asimovlives, who can satisfy your inbred Portuguese Goat humping fantasies w/ one fell swoop. In Spock ears, no less sirrah.

    • Jarv says :

      Barney,

      I don’t think I’m particularly prudish, and I’m certainly not afraid of either sex or grubby sex. I certainly do enjoy “adult” films (My top 5 of the last decade was This is England, Requiem for a Dream, Battle Royale, The Lives of Others and City of God- none of which could be remotely described as family).

      This is a film that I don’t like, but not for that reason. It’s nihilistic and cynical.

      Everyone has their own personal sexual demon, this isn’t mine. However, I’d just like to ask what do you actually “enjoy” about Crash? Even it’s most strident defenders don’t pretend it’s enjoyable.

  10. xiphos0311 says :

    Saw Crash once that was more then enough. Like you said it was competently made and acted but it is beyond cold in my opinion so blatantly cynical for manipulative purposes it shut me down and made me entirely unengaged with the plot and the characters.
    If I never see Crash again I will consider my life a success. This movie also wrecks my cherished idea that nudity makes movies better, in this case it doesn’t. There is a ton of full frontal in Crash and it’s doesn’t even rise to the level of ho hum.

    Where did you live in South Africa? I know you mentioned it before but I don’t remember and I’m the nosy type. SA is on my list of place I never want to go again if it can be helped.

  11. tdsmart says :

    I have seen Cronenberg’s Crash several times and find the movie to be intriguing. To me the film is about man’s loss of feeling and compassion due to technology. The film shows us that even man’s most intimate and loving gesture, sexual intercourse, has been reduced to an almost mechanical nature. The participants achieve no pleasure or intimacy from the act; James and Catherine try very hard to achieve emotional and physical satisfaction within their marriage, but fail. Even sexual encounters outside of their marriage are marked by the same lack of visceral pleasure. The only time the act has any passion and true sense of urgent need is when James and Dr. Remington have intercourse in the car after they nearly had a car wreck. The adrenaline is flowing and they feel alive. The next time they have sex in the same car…nothing. It is not the people they are having sex with that is important for them to feel, but rather the situation and the adrenaline brought about by being near killed or maimed.

    The tenor of the movie was to be cold and distant, that is what Cronenberg wanted. The actors were supposed to be emotionally dead; even when they were excited the deadness was still present. All of the sexual acts were to be cold and clinical, in fact one scene did not make it into the movie. James Spader and an actress who played one of his employees did a sex scene that was cut from the movie. When Cronenberg told the actress that her scene was being cut the reason was because she and Spader had too much chemistry. He wanted all of those scenes to be cold and distant. (The actress said she didn’t mind because she had fun doing the scene with Spader.) So often I read folks saying that the acting was poor because they didn’t show any emotion, well that is what the director wanted from his actors for this movie.

    I thought the whole cast was wonderful and presented on screen Cronenberg’s vision for this film. Elias Koteas was scary as Vaughen. I would have avoided that dude like the plague. Unlike you I thought James Spader was perfect in the role of James and definitely was not a weak link, but I must confess that I admire James Spader as an actor. Deborah Kara Unger was as cold as steel; how fitting a performance for an emotionally vacant character.

    This is not an easy movie to watch, but it points out that technology is not necessarily our friend. I wonder if James Ballard had had the opportunity to write a companion piece in 2010 what it might have been. Todays technological marvels are more and more disassociating individuals one from the other. Young people today do not gather and talk, instead they text, email, tweet, or visit on a social network. Rather than being aware of all that is going on around them they walk with their heads down texting instead of seeing the world around them. In days gone by you met face to face as often as possible…now it seems as though no one actually talks to each other. Ballard’s world is now upon us more than ever before.

    • Jarv says :

      Thanks for the thoughtful response. You said in a much shorter post (with a different conclusion) what I laboured over at great length.

      I do admit to my Spader bias making me dislike him in this film- and he almost recycles this exact performance in Secretary. I’ve always liked Debra Kara Unger as a presence, and thought that the controlled mania under a steeley facade was superb here. I think I said that aside from Spader I thought they were uniformly excellent. Spader, however, I took as the foil to the others- he’s a bland and silent presence when, for example, Holly Hunter freaks out watching the Crash Test Dummies. He’s almost a third party observer to the action on screen.

      I completely agree with you about the desensitisation process of Crash. It’s notable that the really “extreme” sexual acts all take place in the last third, as the characters have become more and more emotionally disconnected. I don’t, however, agree that James and Catherine have tried hard within the confines of marriage. The film, after all, does open with her getting nailed in an aircraft hanger while he shags an actress in the editing room- notably 2 places suggesting the union of sex and high technology. Which scene was cut? I always assumed it was that one, and then restored.

      Nowadays, Ballard (if he could write from beyond the grave) would no doubt turn in something trite and pathetic about man’s disassociation- he tried this trick with both Cocaine Nights and Supercannes (Supercannes in particular takes place ni a futuristic gated enclave that systematicly dehumanises it’s inhabitants).

      At the end of the day, I find Crash an unpleasant and harrowing experience, and although I do think it’s a good film it isn’t one I want to ever see again.

      • Spud McSpud says :

        By the sounds of it, if the characters are meant to be humourless, emotionless cyphers serving a metaphor, CRASH needs urgently to be remade by M Night Shyamalan. The sheer stillness of the non-performances he wrings from otherwise decent lead actors would fit this like a glove, by the sound of it.

        I haven’t seen it, and by God, I won’t be doing any time soon. Sounds absolutely miserable, and not in any constructive way whatsoever. Great review, as always, Jarv.

      • Jarv says :

        Cheers Spud.

        It’s only really Spader that has to put in the non-performance. Unger, Koteas, and Hunter all have to play insane to different degrees.

        But no, Night shamalame should remake it. He can’t get any worse

      • tdsmart says :

        When I watch Crash I see James and Catherine as a couple who are trying to save their marriage and rekindle the kind of sexual feelings that had for each other early in their union. They first have their trysts with others and then come home their partner about the experience and finally try and replicate it. This was illustrated when James had his most emotional sexual experience with Dr. Remington in the car when she mounted him behind the steering wheel (I think this and the next scene were the only face to face sex in the movie if memory serves me). The next scene is with the married couple having face to face sex with him seated on a chair in much the same position as that in the car. I feel they are trying to find that which was lost to them over the years.

        I too feel that James Ballard, the character, is very much a voyeur throughout the film. He really is the character most lost in this new world and has become almost totally devoid of all feeling. In the last scene when he is playfully chasing and bumping his car into Catherine’s causing the last crash in the movie it is there that he seems to finally have some sense of fun and excitement. I always felt that at some point he would do exactly what Vaughn did near the end of the film and in the ultimate effort to truly feel he would crash and take his own life, probably afterhe had pushed Catherine to her fatal crash.

        Regarding Spader, it is interesting but I do not see any similarities between his performance as E. Edward Grey and that of James Ballard. The time I do see a similarity is in the devoid of feeling character he portrayed in Supernova…this is a film where I think he needed to create a different type of character. What he did in Crash is what Cronenberg wanted, I think the Supernova character was probably Spader’s own creation.

        According to the actress who did the scene it was cut from the movie and is lost on the cutting room floor. I never read that it was restored to the film.

      • Jarv says :

        There are very few instances of normal sex in this film. Even when he’s spooning his wife, she’s arousing him by talking about gay sex with Vaughan.

        The scene with Holly Hunter, funnily enough is probably the least intimate in the film- it follows a near miss and there’s an frantic air to proceedings.

        I also agree that the Ballard and Grey characters are fundamentally different, yet I think Spader underplayed both. For the Grey character, this worked because he was forcibly restraining himself, for Ballard, it’s because he is so desensitised. Both characters are at the extremes of fetish, and Spader plays them both the same way.

        I also think that the two characters are doomed. Death is inevitable, and I can’t help but wonder if it will be a release for both of them.

        This has been a good chat, cheers.

  12. just pillow talk says :

    Any time a movie is described as “revolting”, it tends to make me not see it. I’ve only seen a few of his movies, and I think I’ll keep it that way. HOV, Promises, and the Fly are good enough for me.

  13. kloipy says :

    Haven’t seen this one in a very long time, probably will see it again at some point, but from what I remember of it Jarv your review is dead on. Great stuff

    And for Barney I suggest Shortbus. It starts off with a guy sucking himself off and then blowing his own load into his mouth. Straight up your alley

    • Jarv says :

      I thank the lord I haven’t seen that. Sounds dreadful.

    • koutchboom says :

      Hahahah YEY SHORTBUS!!! Jesus what a fucking stupid movie. kloipy you forgot to mention the scene where three dudes are singing the National Anthem into each other’s blooming onion.

      Remember yesterday when Droid confused the urban demographic with the gay demographic, ‘Shortbus’ must’ve been the movie he was actually thinking about.

      • Jarv says :

        kloipy you forgot to mention the scene where three dudes are singing the National Anthem into each other’s blooming onion.

        What. The. Fuck.

        Really man, you sit through some crap. You should take on Thundercrack!

      • koutchboom says :

        Well it was from the director of hedwig and the angry inch, which was better then I thought it would be. Plus the whole trailers talked about real sex and this and that and there is a giant orgy scene or two. So it wasn’t like somthing PLUCKED out of nowhere. A lot of people love Hedwig, I don’t really remember it other then he lived in an oven as a kid? That and it was funny and not awful.

      • kloipy says :

        I actually really like Hedwig, one of the best Rock musicals. I didn’t hate Shortbus, it was an interesting take on sexuality. And that national anthem scene actually cracked me up as it was so fucking random. I don’t think the sex in Shortbus was supposed to be sexy. It was mostly about people who trying to find happieness through sex, which doesn’t work. In the end I think the main thing was about learning to love yourself before you can love others, as shown by the main characters inability to orgasm with other people until she was able to do it by herself.

      • koutchboom says :

        Yeah it was a strange movie. I think my problem with it was that I didn’t like the main character, she seemed too much like a bitch. The whole gay guys story was funnier and better. Also did you see that the director inserted himself into those orgy scenes? hahahahah I think they said that club was real? I don’t know though? But jesus could you imagine just going to a party and walking buy something like that?

        We are talking bigger then Caligula orgy, and Dog Days Orgy.

      • kloipy says :

        I don’t remember the director in it, I know he was Hedwig, but didn’t see him in Shortbus. I’m pretty sure that particular club wasn’t real, but I can say that there are real places like that, but filled with more fat trailer trash than hipsters

      • koutchboom says :

        It was in the bonus features, he’s just in the back banging some dudes. See I think in the bonus features they talked about that places being real and they just used the people that where there that night. Not EVERYONE in that scene was amazing, just the only girl they put front and center.

  14. koutchboom says :

    Also sorry Jarv I have failed you. I’ve mainly been too busy to watch Crash this week. Plus I may have spent my entire fucked up movie watching bar for the entire year when I watched ‘Serbian Movie’. Also I need to be in the right headspace to see ‘Crash’, which mainly means not tired, because the movie is boring and slow. I’ll try to watch it SOONish.

  15. MORBIUS says :

    Nice read Jarv, the exchange between you and
    tdsmart was also good reading but…

    I wasn’t compelled to rush out a find a
    copy of this to watch, now…or ever?!

  16. MORBIUS says :

    Alas, in that one pic it looks as if poor Herbie..

    is stuck in a rut…!!!

  17. ThereWolf says :

    Never bothered with Crash. Not sure why – I like Cronenberg and Spader. Probably put off by all the hoo-haw at the time.

    It sounds grim, but I do still want to see the film for meself. I’ll have to pick a night when I’m reasonably cheerful.

    Superb review, Jarv. Some good follow-up comments as well…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: