The theatre has the power to change a person’s experience of life within the brief timespan of a few hours. You enter not knowing what to expect, and emerge with all your senses on fire, your intellect and emotions enhanced, pushed, pulled, stretched and tested, your belief systems challenged, every cell in your body viscerally affected by the experience of a great ensemble reaching into the depths of a playwright’s intention and laying it out for the audience to drink in.
This is what happened to me when I first had the chance to see Death of a Salesman, one of my favorite plays, on Broadway in 1984 with Dustin Hoffman as Willy Loman (Low Man on the Totem Pole). It was one of those blissful moments when the power of personal interpretation hit me over the head. Reading the play I had never thought of Willy as short and sprinting across the stage. But there he was, brought to life by the brilliant Dustin Hoffman. A different Willy than the one in my mind.
Fifteen years later I bought a ticket to the revival starring the huge Brian Dennehy as Willy, and, again, my mind was blown. How was it possible for the giant presence of Dennehy to ever be a Low Man on anyone’s Totem Pole – dejected, afraid, cast off, misused, ignored, insignificant? But there he was, brought to life by the brilliant Brian Dennehy. Another different Willy than the one in my mind.
Unfortunately, I hadn’t been born when the original production with the great Lee J. Cobb was produced in 1949, but I promised myself that I would see every incarnation of Death of a Salesman, one of the greats among American dramas, ever done on Broadway. And so last week I bought a ticket (before the attached review came out) to the current revival, which stars the extraordinary Philip Seymour Hoffman as Willy. There was an interview with him in the Times last week, which I read wondering why it had never occurred to me that Hoffman would make a brilliant Willy. Thank God Mike Nichols, one of the greatest American theatre and film directors ever, does not rely on me when it comes to what his next project should be.
I go on April 18th, ready, once again, to go in as though I have never seen the play, for surely every great actor makes the part their own, and to come out a changed person. For those of you who do not know this play, it is an American Drama For Our Times, even though it was written by Arthur Miller in 1949. But then again, many things are not so different now and it speaks to the eternal issue of what makes a man’s life worthwhile, worth living, his legacy, his impact on those around him. It is a must read. It is a must see. Attention…attention must be paid, again and again and again…
For those who are interested, I’ve attached links to the Times Reviews of this essential American play below.
Frank Rich’s review of Dustin Hoffman as Willy Loman:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/12/specials/miller-hoffstage.html
Ben Brantley’s review of Brian Dennehy as Willy Loman:
http://theater.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?html_title=&tols_title=DEATH%20OF%20A%20SALESMAN%20(PLAY)&pdate=19990211&byline=By%20BEN%20BRANTLEY&id=1077011429728
Brooks Atkinson’s review of Lee J. Cobb as Willy Loman:
hthttp://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/12/specials/miller-salesman49.html
March 16, 2012 at 12:51 pm
would so love to see this.
March 16, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Me too, Suzanne Catty . Thanks so much for this interesting piece, Giselle Minoli – Perhaps you had a bit of alcohol in this creative process? (Just read that fascinating article whose link I posted this am and has now got me thinking.)
March 16, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Sounds great. He’s a great actor.
March 16, 2012 at 1:13 pm
So, yes, “Attention must be paid…”
March 16, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Indeed would also love to see this;what a classic!
March 16, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Ellie Kennard my dear…I must anon to work…but I will check your post and am so glad you told me about it! As for a bit of alcohol…no…but tonight? Mai oui!
March 16, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Philip Seymour Hoffman! Perfect choice. He’s a brilliant actor, simply brilliant.
March 16, 2012 at 4:20 pm
and Mike Nichols is also fabulous
March 16, 2012 at 10:45 pm
“Attention must be paid” to timeless works revisited. How I envy you Giselle for seeing Dustin Hoffman play Willy. Imagining the powerful Lee J. Cobb portray Willy is challenging. Enjoy your day at the theater.
March 16, 2012 at 11:01 pm
I think Suzanne Catty John Blossom William McGarvey Kim Crawford M.D. Lew Bloch and Gary S Hart ought to take a plane, train or automobile to New York to see Death of a Salesman.
Someone once asked me what I’d spend my last dollars on if no more was scheduled to come in the door. And I said I’d spend it at the theatre and take someone who’d never been. For me, it is the arts that I could never give up.
A brief list of my favorite playwrights, who include (but are not limited to) Tennessee Williams, Sam Shepherd, Edward Albee, Eugene O’Neill, David Mamet, Terrence McNally, Conor McPhersen, Lanford Wilson, Martin McDonagh. And, yes, I know they are all men and I have a theory about that, too. But that’s fodder for another post.
March 16, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Thank you Jack C Crawford Gary S Hart Rehan Ahmad Bill Collins linda colman Gari Fowler Dan Brill Suzanne Catty John Blossom Travis Hammond Ralf Hoffmann heather flinn Sideris Panos – Aggelos Jaime Alonso Selver Basic +Ruben Val and +Inigo Lopez de Uralde for +1’ing and Travis for sharing. It’s nice to know there might be some people out there who love theatre.
Death of a Salesman will make you weep…
March 16, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Gary S Hart I saw Dustin do The Merchant of Venice and Death of a Salesman (John Malkovich was Biff – he was unbelieavable). Then I saw Brian Dennehy, who stopped the play toward the beginning because some bozo’s cell phone went off. Dennehy waited, then continued. He was very serious about the Attention Must Be Paid part…
March 16, 2012 at 11:33 pm
It’s one of the great plays of our age.
March 16, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Brian Dennehy is another personality force. Did he make the pause a befitting theatrical moment? It’s interesting to see how has been attracted that role. Dustin has been one of my favorite actors since The Graduate. The years he spent on the stage somehow escaped me. He was living and performing in London as I recall and for whatever reason, we did not spent enough time going to the theater. Running with the kids and sneaking away on secluded romantic excursions left little time I guess. As always, you’ve inspired me to include live theater in our summer trip to NY.
March 17, 2012 at 12:10 am
I loved Dustin in The Graduate Gary. And in simpler films such as Kramer vs. Kramer. As the years went by, and I think this actually happens to a lot of actors, some of the roles just started to blend together (after Rain Man). Somehow, on stage, the mannerisms weren’t there. He managed to make Shylock understandable. The same with Willy Loman. There aren’t many film actors anymore who work on the stage. Dennehy, Hoffman (both of them) are two. And there are fewer roles that they can do in classic American theatre. It’s always been interesting to me to see how differently different actors play different roles. I had not thought anyone could do Stanley Kowalski…then along came Alec Baldwin. It’s what I like about theatre. Films do get remade, but not very often…so there isn’t much of any opportunity to see how another actor would interpret a particular role. Not so in theatre. And every time it’s a different play.
March 17, 2012 at 12:54 am
Yes! My daughter – age 15 – goes to an arts magnet school and it’s amazing to see teenagers put on plays. Every time it is a different play. The kids actually ask to go to the play multiple times.
March 17, 2012 at 12:59 am
I’m tellin’ ya Bill Collins it’s life-changing. I was in my first play when I was fourteen years old. Won the Southwestern Drama Conference Award for it. Ionesco’s The Lesson. There is a good reason schools have theatre programs for kids. It takes them out of themselves and puts their attention on something, on someone, else. And that is a good thing for kids. For adults, too!
March 17, 2012 at 1:25 am
Awesome! Wait. What role. There are only three in that play.
March 17, 2012 at 1:28 am
The student. Me, Michael Utter (the Professor) and Gina Libo (the housekeeper). I can’t believe you know this play. I can’t believe anyone knows this play Bill Collins.
March 17, 2012 at 1:34 am
Truth to tell, I had to refresh my recollection. However, I went to a Jesuit high school and yes I remember Ionescu. Why did we spend more time on Ibsen? Why? The 21st Century really ought to revisit Ionescu more.
March 17, 2012 at 2:28 am
Because Ibsen was The Man Bill Collins. In many ways he still is. It is odd that you mention Ibsen. Maybe not, but it jars my own memory. Like the time my mother came to visit me in New York and brought with her a gift – which was the “program” of an evening of theatre and dance at Columbia University, where my father went and at which he was President of the Dramatists’ Club. The program was for a night of Ibsen! My father’s favorite playwright. Small world.
March 17, 2012 at 3:11 am
Giselle, why am I not surprised that you won an award for acting? You pour so much of you into everything you do that the absence of quality is virtually impossible.
Although Ibsen’s feminist support was dubious, it was those writings that attracted me. Bill Collins and Giselle Minoli are beyond my experience, so I looked up Ionesco. Satire was my true love and I fancied Kaufman and Perelman and so it’s a surprise that I was not introduced to him or at least do not remember. As Giselle knows, some of my hard drive was wiped out.
March 17, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Gary S Hart I venture to say that even if your entire hard drive was wiped out, the scent of what had once been would far exceed in gravitas the information that occupies the brains of most of us.
I hear it said that the theatre culture is gone. And while certainly the nature of every business has changed, when I go to the theatre it is always sold out. So, gone? No. Taught in schools? Probably not. I have noticed that many young people do not know who the classic painters, artists, poets or writers were. I don’t think it’s odd that you didn’t know the work of Ionesco. I went to a weird school. We learned weird things. We studied weird stuff.
March 17, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Giselle Minoli And as an undergraduate I became the campus expert on Antonin Artaud — if you want weird stuff. I read most all the Modern writers and acted in Genet’s The Balcony , Weiss’ Marat … Sade , and Sargeant Musgrave’s Dance . The most fun was in imagining my General’s cloak on me in front of a mirror frame because the crew forgot to bring on the valet with it — ad lib all the way about “reality” in The Balcony …
March 17, 2012 at 1:53 pm
William McGarvey I LOVE that story. You are indeed an odd duck, and therefore can swim in the pond with me any day! Jean Genet. Check. Marat Sade. Check.
While parents encourage their kids to play tennis, soccer, baseball, football – all of which I think is great – I am more dismayed that there isn’t equal emphasis on the arts, particularly acting and dancing.
Acting brings out the personality, builds confidence, teaches stage presence, encourages ensemble work and respect for others…all of which skills are needed in life.
Dancing on the other hand, while it teaches many of the same things (Gary S Hart would know all about this), it teaches something specific that I think is very rare these days – working with others in completely noncompetitive way to create something of beauty. Dancing with a partner is about giving. Not about winning. Tennis, baseball and all other sports that I can think of teach the art of competition and winning. Great. But they need to be balanced by something. Else that balance tips.
March 17, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Giselle Minoli Ah, such a dream… the argument could be put that, in many sports, teamwork is vital to success — just as in the theatre, where cooperation among the director, actors and crew is likewise critical. And to argue the arts are without competition? Hah! See the comments from Robert DeNiro in a recent Salon interview (http://www.salon.com/2012/03/16/robert_de_niro_im_prone_to_overanalysis/?source=newsletter).
_
March 17, 2012 at 2:11 pm
William McGarvey I would never say the arts are without competition. I’ve been upstaged many times (you remember the definition of that right? You are on stage facing the audience and someone stands upstage of you forcing you to turn your back to the audience to talk to them which puts the focus on them.) But there is no winner and loser in the traditional sports sense…unless it’s at the Oscars….
March 17, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Giselle Minoli Or say, cut-throat efforts to get a part… the competition, I’ll concede, occurs off-stage and not in the performance — at least, typically so.
March 17, 2012 at 2:54 pm
William McGarvey speaks truth about a great paradox, competition in the arts. Competition dance comprises the majority of dance schools. Owners who have told us they were forced to go that route to stay in business. Parents want their children to win something as if beauty, the enjoyment and love the art is not enough. Tricks are taught instead of technique and backbiting competition enters the ranks like the behind the scenes ugliness of beauty contests. Our school is not for most, but many parents who were in competitions schools brought their children to us to escape that insane culture.
“Dance With the Stars” and “So You Think You Can Dance,” which my daughter auditioned for and walked out on in disgust after winning her Golden Ticket. Yes, they actual handed out Willy Wonka-esque golden tickets to the next round. And there’s American Idol. The brass rings of organized sports, public recognition, travel teams, college scholarships, going pro has invaded the arts.
My friends daughter is performing in a one act play series at the Barrow Theater this weekend, because their play made the semifinals.
Success in America is measured by that which is measurable, fame and fortune, not by grace and beauty. Few make a decent living in the arts and so what little pure art culture we have left is supported by people like my wife and I.
Weird Giselle Minoli? Nay, I say your school was normal. Attempting to grow identical adults via impossible standards is weird, for how does one standardize a soul and a mind? And children know it and find ways to define and express their uniqueness in what is called rebellion.
March 17, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Gary S Hart Well-put, sir, well-put. Emotional satisfaction has its place, but that — to many tastes — comes after things more materially consequential like an income, health coverage, and in their place silly tokens like your daughter’s winning ticket. Oh, and lest I forget — the looming debt-bomb associated with nondischargeable student loans and ever-increasing tuition costs. Graduates in the arts and humanities, many destined to wage-and-debt slaves for decades, face even more grim prospects than those in more technical fields. Can this not have an impact on their career and study choices? The dream, for many, has become a nightmare (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/saddled-with-college-debt-a-decade-later/2012/03/16/gIQAm3kHHS_story.html?hpid=z3).
March 17, 2012 at 5:05 pm
William McGarvey and Gary S Hart I suppose I should make a distinction between certain kinds of “arts.” I don’t think that a school play or even a play on Broadway or Off Off Broadway (even though there is a definitive competition for roles) can be fairly called “competitive” arts. A paying audience is necessary to keep them alive – to pay the light bills, for the sets, costumes, insurance, stage hands…to pay for everything. These are the true arts, to me, where someone has the courage to mount a show and people who love theatre, performance, dance, are willing to pay to see it. No one at a Broadway show votes for who did the best at the end of the evening. There is a curtain call and the company takes a bow.
Nor would I call American Idol and Dancing with the Stars “the arts.” They are television programs designed to make the producers boatloads of money. They are no different than All Football All the Time or Two and a Half Men. That said….the individual people who are on these shows, who work hard to develop their voices and their bodies are indeed artists with a passion for what they do. In fact I admire them for seeking out these competitions and going through what they go through. It’s hard. It takes discipline and courage. What the producers are doing with these shows and what these kids aspire to for themselves as individuals are two different things. Just like there is a difference between our talented and humble Philip Seymour Hoffmann and Nicholas Cage. One is an actor. The other is a movie performer (in the words of Sean Penn, I believe).
March 17, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Giselle Minoli I’ll try slightly different semantics here… I think you’re talking about three not-unrelated things: (a) the performing artist(s); (b) the amateur arts; and (c) the professional arts.
If I read you correctly, performing artists can be on a street corner or a bar or on a high-school stage or the Broadway boards. They draw their joy and meaning simply from performing. Their audiences may be of any size, and their remuneration may be nothing or very little.
Venues other than “The Big Time”, though, can never be anything more than the amateur arts. As such, they are not the professional (or, in your words, “competitive”) arts, and their aesthetic contribution should be regarded accordingly. I think that’s what you mean.
Odds being what they are, this paints a very grim prospect for a child who would be an artist in “The Big Time”. All their efforts in whatever amateur venue they perform are rehearsals for a small chance to participate in “The Big Time”, and an opportunity to gauge their competition (oh-oh, there’s that nasty word again) and likelihood of “success”. (Put this way, it’s not unlike high-school and college basketball players who want to be part of their “Big Time” — the NBA’s select few professional basketball players.)
Again, odds being what they are, it is not a mystery that the parents Gary S Hart described feel they have to “get something” out of their child’s amateur efforts, feeling that passion is but a passing phase unlikely to be a ticket to “The Big Time”.
The issue, then, becomes somehow preserving the intrinsic value to the young artist of their performance pleasure without deluding them as to their “real” prospects. That’s a tough educational balancing act.
March 17, 2012 at 6:47 pm
I love how William McGarvey spun to “preserving the intrinsic value to the young artist of their performance pleasure without deluding them as to their “real” prospects.”
William, I happen to be writing today about how my father dissuaded me from the arts in search of real prospects. Our daughters fell in love with dance. My wife danced for Joffrey and has been teaching for twenty years.
Now our daughters dance professionally. They work second and third jobs to support themselves. We help as much as we can. We did not delude them about the artist’s life. We encouraged them to chase their dreams. I told them “Dancing has a limited window, you can always go back to school.” They teach, and they’re marvelous teachers and role models. They’ll probably be attached to dance for the rest of their lives. Unless they marry high income earners, or become big time choreographers, they will live modestly. Most importantly, they’re doing what they love and they can pass on true dance for one more generation.
Giselle Minoli , you are right about the discipline, sacrificial investment, and courage of artists who compete. Are all of the arts competitive? No. Are all artists competitive? No. Is there a distinction between real art and entertainment passed off as art? Yes. Unfortunately, your education and background in the arts gave you what recent generations have been deprived of.
This off Broadway one act play series that my friend’s daughter is participating in is a competition. Are the performers artists or competitors? I believe they are trying to be artists in a competitive environment.
The art culture in America shriveling. True art is dwarfed by cookie cutter mindless entertainment. Art has always been financially challenging; another conversational journey manifested by Giselle, but in the wealthiest nation on the planet, art is struggling more now than ever before.
Are we educating our children to appreciate art for art’s sake or training them to expect an award for everything? We’re not teaching the arts in the public schools as they the should be taught. Art programs have been cut and shrinking for years. Bringing a free performance to the schools has become nearly impossible, because they cannot take time away from SOLs.
Without parents educating their children about art at home or sending their children to schools like Giselle attended, there is no art education. How will this generation pass on something they have never learned? How can someone uneducated about the arts make a distinction between a movie or circus performer and a devoted artist?
March 17, 2012 at 7:44 pm
William McGarvey Broadway is The Big Time. And I consider it art and artistic. The distinction I make is in the heart of the performer. There is no small part. Only a small performer. Ditto someone can bring themselves fully to American Idol and be an artist. But I do not consider the show itself artistic in the way that I think Spring Awakening was. I do not believe there is anything noble about artistic poverty. Artists should make a living at it, but it is not guaranteed.
I have taken many an acting class in New York City and there are those who come devoted to the craft of acting. And there are those who come because they want to be stars and get a good seat at a restaurant. That is a nice perk, but it doesn’t make one an artist.
It’s not an easy topic to discuss or to agree on because we each of us are attracted to different things in the arts.
March 17, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Gary S Hart Once again: well-put, sir, well-put. I’m not sure you meant your closing questions rhetorically, but if so, I’m afraid I’d think the implied response is negative — absent the premise, absent the conclusion.
I trust, too, that my argument about a tough educational balancing act was the case for your children, but they most certainly had your good will, as well as the good will, experience and genetics that your wife provided. In any event, things seem to have worked out for you all very, very well, and I congratulate you all on the successes you’ve achieved.
I’m afraid, though, that your story highlights what has been a societal phenomenon, namely, how males are — as presumed or potential “breadwinners” — the gender most encouraged to “give up” the dream of “The Big Time” performing arts in favor of “practical” pursuits. This is, or becomes, a correlative of how children are raised by their parents, and sometimes socialized by their gender peers. (I recall some tension in my elementary school days because I — unlike the other boys in the class — could and did sing the harmony lines in musical numbers.) I suspect the gender ratios in several performing arts aspirants would confirm this argument.
As to my own choices in college, I did consider and study drama for a while, but went on to quantitative social psychology as a field that I found to be a better combination of intellect and eventual economic demand. (After the heady philosophical brew of Marat … Sade’s arguments, I confess, most dramatic literature seemed not to challenge me intellectually.) For me, it all worked out in a long Federal career, and I don’t make light of my studies in the performing arts at all. As Giselle Minoli has noted in earlier parts of this extended thread, I gained a sense of self-expression and confidence that has served me well.
_
March 17, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Thank you for your kind words William, I hope I was not bragging or puffing myself up about our kids and support.
Neither rhetorical or conclusive William McGarvey, merely open ended questions. As Giselle Minoli said, “It’s not an easy topic to discuss or to agree on because each of us are attracted to different things in the arts.” There are many who say that art can and should be enjoyed without education. “Why should I need education to enjoy music or a painting. I know what I like and what I don’t like” has been stated more times than politicians have lied.
I’m of the opinion that our eyes can be opened to see something we are blinded to without the benefit of education. There is no empirical evidence or scientific studies to support that lack of education is causing a waning of the arts. My observation may be sensible, but it is merely this old dog’s opinion.
My wife and I were discussing the gender economic issues. That was certainly the heart of the matter when I was growing up. “Get a job that can support a family” instead of writing and painting. I ended up in sales and marketing. My career was financially and intellectually rewarding. It was not my first choice and I have no regrets.
We have a son who was given the same encouragement to pursue the arts. He wanted a to be a cartoonist and oozes with talent that we supported with art classes. Like his old man, he became a sales executive, which he said was by choice to provide for his family as I did. A nice sentiment, but was it his first choice? If he never regrets his path, then it was a good decision.
From what we see and hear, the majority of parents are stressing financially viable careers for their daughters, and young ladies are moving in that direction. Gender appears to a moot point today.
Question: How is the push for trophies, material reward, and celebrity affecting the arts?
March 17, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Gary S Hart Thanks, Gary, and I presumed no puffery at all — merely justifiable pride, no more, no less.
As to whether the “financially viable careers” path will lead to either greater gender equity in the performing arts — or, sadly, doom them more rapidly — we’ll see.
But as to your closing question — I leave that to someone in the arts like Giselle Minoli to speak to. I’ve enjoyed our “little colloquy”, so thank you.
__
March 17, 2012 at 9:52 pm
William McGarvey and Gary S Hart I bow at your collective feet today. What a lovely conversation, between two men no less, about education, the arts, competition…and making a living. Is there anything you left out? Don’t think so. I, too, am married to a man who was dissuaded from pursuing his desire to be a writer. We all have to make a living and I suppose in most families the fear is that someone will live the life of a van Gogh, selling only one painting in his lifetime, more than a little emotionally off-balance, brimming with brilliant talent though he may have been.
I remember when earning $150,000 a year was considered a fortunate (a fortune!) for a man. Then Bill Gates came along and changed the game. The internet changed the game. People now want to be in the arts because of the glamour of it. In my parents’ day almost all of their friends were artists and if they weren’t they had some artistic outlet side-by-side with their “day” job. Is it wrong of me to say that the people I know who are able to make a living but whose lives are supplemented with a love of artistic endeavors are more balanced people? I don’t think so…because I can tell you this – unfortunate as it sounds – in my days as an actor/theatre director/designer, lawyers and bankers all wanted to have dinner at the end of the day because the conversation was better. We, on the other hand, never gravitated toward business-talk at the end of our days.
Still, to this day in New York, the hottest (and most expensive ticket) is to the opera and it, along with every ballet company in the city, is supported and patronized by the most successful business people. It is a symbiotic relationship. Without someone to buy a painting, the painter starves. Without the painting, the person with the capacity to buy it has an empty wall. To me it is an endlessly interesting conversation…how we balance our lives, and with what.
Which brings me back to our friend Willy Loman, who fell out of balance, and whose story was told by a writer and interpreted by an actor named Philip Seymour Hoffman. I don’t want to live without that effort.
Thank you gentlemen…
March 17, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Giselle Minoli And thank you, Giselle, for initiating and maintaining the conversation(s), and for “closing the circle”… [ Do we cut to a commercial now? ] < winks >
Translate
March 17, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Thank you for curating a wonderful conversation Giselle Minoli and for the introduction to William McGarvey.
March 17, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Gary S Hart Likewise, Gary…
March 17, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Gentlemen, both of you, and what a pleasure for me. I am a lucky Plusser!
March 17, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Giselle Minoli And I am, too…
March 18, 2012 at 4:37 am
Battling the flu set my writing back this week. My gratitude to Giselle Minoli and William McGarvey for inspiring me today. One and half new chapters drafted. Thank you!
March 18, 2012 at 11:43 pm
Gary S Hart Giselle Minoli Happy to be an inspiration to anybody these days, Gary — thanks for saying so. ;-))~
March 20, 2012 at 3:12 am
Don’t underestimate yourself William McGarvey. I don’t!
March 20, 2012 at 11:42 am
Giselle Minoli Aww, gee whiz, Giselle — now you and Gary have gone and left me riddled — I say riddled — with expectations… < winks >
June 4, 2017 at 10:05 am
Hi