The International Writers Magazine
: A Woody Allen Primer

Deconstructing Woody:
Identity and Selfhood in the films of Woody Allen
Robert Cottingham

Paddy Cheyevsky said years ago that all the characters are the author. And I found that true.... I find myself all over the place. It's very hard for me to pick one over the other. They all reflect me. Woody Allen.
(Bjorkman Ed., 2004,p. 86)

Although it is always dangerous to suppose that there is a comparison between an artist's work and their life, Woody Allen constantly draws us in this direction. Ostensibly his films continually make connections between his private and public screen lives fostering the perception that goes back to his earliest cabaret performances - that his films are autobiographical. He freely admits that the character he created for himself as a stand-up comic was essentially a development of his own personality, exaggerated for comic effect: ''I just went up and talked as myself.'' (Cited in Bjorkman. 31) As his career has developed Allen has been reticent to accept that such parallels between his life and his films exist.

Given the difficult and complex nature of autobiography, indicated by the wealth of material attempting to explain and identify the genre, Allen's stance is understandable, although perhaps contradictory. Allen is correct, however, in discouraging viewers of his work from drawing the simple parallel between his life and his art both the general public and scholarly studies have frequently perceived. Autobiography operates in a far less clear manner than can be accounted for in simple comparison between Allen's work and unreliable impressions of his private life. Further the medium of film poses its own questions of authorship intrinsic to its form.

Central to the common perception of Allen is the familiar nebbish persona that Pogel terms 'the little man' (Pogel, 1987, p.57). This vehicle for Allen's stage comedy is clearly present in his early films, from Annie Hall onwards, however, we see a shifting of emphasis away from pure comedy to work of a more dramatic nature that effects a change, resulting in the persona developing a more sophisticated characterization. As Allen's persona has evolved within the widening sphere of his films, however the common view of Allen has not. The underlying themes and anxieties have been with Allen since Take The Money And Run. The persona that Allen originally created has become resilient instilling itself in the minds of the public such that it is the commonly perceived as the real Woody Allen, rather than the construction that it is. Reductively, Allen is regularly seen as the cartoon caricature of himself as presented in Annie Hall to the extent that the character traits of nervousness, physical ineptitude and fears of women are readily understood through Allen's visual appearance of square rimmed glasses, unkempt hair and baggy beige wardrobe. This image of Allen could be seen to act as a myth in the sense produced by Barthes in his work Mythologies.

The use of the cartoon sequence in Annie Hall seems to act as a microcosm to the whole problem of the public's generally simplified reception of Allen. Allen appears to understand the difficulty well enough to respond, mocking his observers in the production of the exact caricature they see as him, yet in doing so he encourages them. Further this pattern has continued throughout his career, constantly prompting unprofitable avenues of discussion as the temptation to conflate Allen's life with his screen existence becomes even greater. Perhaps now, however, after Deconstructing Harry (1998), this type of approach has reached its logical conclusion, and we may finally examine what Allen has achieved in the arena of autobiography.

As I have indicated, the frequent juxtapositions of Allen's real and screen lives rely upon representations of Allen's real life derived from many, frequently unreliable, secondary sources. This approach is therefore essentially antagonistic and reductive to Allen's actual work. The frequent readings of Allen's relationship with Diane Keaton into Annie Hall overlook the real aims of the film's narrative structure, that is, as we will see, not a study of relationships per se, but rather how Alvy perceives and recalls his with Annie Hall. That even this reading is complicated by fact that the single perspective of Alvy is arrived at through a collaboration of workers producing the film clearly reveals the difficult territory, and inherent instability in suggesting any film is autobiographical. Perhaps then, this example suggests that the most profitable approach to Allen's work is not explicitly his own autobiography, but rather his body of work which examines autobiography, and, implicitly, film itself.
Etymologically Olney tells us autobiography is the study of life, or ''bios'', by the self, hence autobiography. Allen's films can be said to reflect that this if we consider his dominant themes; love, morality, death, and the border between fantasy and reality that he examines in the constant manipulation of the little man myth. These are exactly the areas of thought that affect us all, and indeed appear in a great many artist's works, thus Allen's work can come to be seen as an attempt to understand the type of life he experiences, an aim common, though not exclusive to, autobiography. Naturally the environments Allen presents us with, where he examines these issues, are those he understands, thus his work is in a sense infused with his own life. Allen's interests, as we can understand from his early love of magic, his tenure as a stand up comic, his love of New York, his Chekov, Tolstoy, and Dostoeveky whose works have influences in, any of Allen's films and writing in terms of ambitions, tone and structure. Allen's interests can be seen as his tools, he uses what he has learnt from his admiration and experience of them to enhance his own work; sometimes transparently as in the use of Gershwin in Manhattan, or Tolstoy in Love And Death; more often, however, Allen's approach is of a more subtle nature as the application of Bergman's camera style in Crimes and Misdemeanors suggests.

For Roland Barthes the fact that the culture surrounding the artist will emerge in his work is inevitable. In his groundbreaking essay ''The Death of the Author'' he suggests that a ''text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, and contestation. (Barthes, 1973, p.148).'' For Barthes then, a text is made from the language that is all the life that surrounds the author. The author can build his own utterance from nothing original, he merely assembles the words of that language into a new combination. Transferring this theory to Allen's work, however, does not reveal the ''tissue of quotations'' (146) Barthes would lead us to expect. Allen's persona is resilient enough to resist Barthes claim for the death of the author, as its power seems to place his work as the origin of one man. Allen is, because of the popularity of the little man persona, commonly seen as the single source of explanation of the films he is involved in making. Through the manipulation of his persona he is able to transcend his influences producing an expression, which whilst not being entirely his own creation appears to be. What we find in Allen's work is, then, a series of approaches to autobiography, Allen does not tell us his own story, rather he shows us how some stories operate; that is, we see variously in his works, the unconscious filmic exploration of the subjects of the modern theoreticians of autobiography. From Gusdorf's considerations as to what constitutes autobiography, to Renza's examination of the narrative reordering and perspectivism of the genre. If, as is inevitable, something of Allen himself emerges through these examinations it is perhaps only then that Allen's own autobiographical position should be considered.

CHAPTER 1: The myth of the Autobiographical Auteur.
Which attempts to place Allen within the auteur policy, and separates the man from the films
The commonly held notion that Allen's films are a partial attempt to express his own life upon the screen is intrinsically linked to the powerful notion of the cinematic auteur. The idea of 'the auteur' is, as John Caughie observes, essentially the installation of the Romantic artist into cinema. (10) This notion developed from the desire in the '50s to claim that cinema was an ''art form liker painting or poetry, offering the individual the freedom of personal; expression'' as Edward Buscombe observes. (Caughie, 1981, p.23) Developing the concept of the auteur was essentially a convenient method for raising the status of cinema, employed by the influential French publications Cahiers and its predecessor la Revue du Cinema. (22) Its terms were indefinite, Buscombe explains that Truffaut characterized what has become known as the ''classic auteur'' ''as one who brings something genuinely personal to his subject instead of merely producing a tasteful, accurate but lifeless rendering of the original material... instead of merely transferring someone else's work faithfully and self-effacingly, the acuter transforms the material into an expression of his own personality.'' (Buscombe.23).

Allen surpasses Truffaut's criteria in that his work is self-conceived; Allen generates his own ideas and writes his own scripts. Obviously, however, this type of approach is limited by many factors, not least of which is the fact that, as Elisabeth Bruss is correct to remind us, film is essentially a collaborative medium. Thus we cannot treat the whole of a film as the singular output of any one artist. It takes more than a director and screenwriter to realise a film. We can't overlook the contributions of the actors, cinematographers and musicians involved. Moreover, films do not, as Kochberg indicates, "exist in a vacuum: they are conceived, produced, distributed and consumed within specific and economic and social contexts. (Nelmes, Jill Ed. An Introduction to Film Studies, p.8)" These two key points, then, indicate the most fundamental difficulties in ascribing the contents of a film to one authorial figure, which is the essence of the notion of the auteur as defined by Truffaut.
The circumstances that have surrounded the production of Allen's films for at least twenty-five years are liberated in contrast to much of Hollywood's production, the most significant factor being the nature of Allen's contract. Allen's films are produced in an environment where he is the principal source of ideas; his only constraints are of budget and production schedule, within these limits he is free to produce whatever film he chooses without the need to have his scripts authorized by the studio financially backing his work. (Lax 11, 337-8 and Bjorkman. 259) He has managed to plough his own furrow in an industry notorious for restraining creative autonomy.

It is Allen who writes, occasionally in collaboration with Marshall Brickmann (Sleeper, 1973, Annie Hall, 1977, Manhattan, 1979), directs and often acts, further, his influence is key in choice of music, casting and editing. His control is thorough if not absolute. Allen operates within an environment of trust; through his career he has developed an ensemble of camera operators, designers, actors and technicians who return again and again to his productions, such that he could be seen to have developed a reasonably consistent opus upon which he can influence the film in the direction he wishes. (Bjorkman. 24, 259 -60)

Allen, however, cannot alter the environment in which he has grown both physically and intellectually, he is subject to the cultural influence that Barthes identifies as the ''Death of the Author''.' Barthes dismisses the longheld cultural practice of seeking the ''explanation of a work... in the man or woman who produced it, (Image - Music - Text, 143)'' suggesting this ''totalitarian'' approach impoverishes the potential of art, for it reduces the possibility of a work to a single point of explanation. Instead Barthes seeks to establish the view of an author's work as ''a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the vocabulary of everyday life. Barthes, then, views the artist as a writer utilising the language of his culture to form new meanings through new combinations. These meanings are, however, not limited but are as potentially varied as any other language. Meanings produced may be unconscious and independent of the author, derived from the reader/viewer's cultural associations rather than any deliberately produced by the author. This linguistic analogy can clearly be applied to Allen. Taking a broad view of Allen's work we can immediately identify the prominent influences of his Manhattan-led life, the mass media, literature's structures, earlier cinematic comics such as Chaplin and the Marx Brothers, and later on the psychodramas of Bergman all merging into one oeuvre. Additionally, Barthes would suggest that there are many other external influences that Allen is interacting with on an unconscious level permeating his work.

Barthes' theory essentially extends the understanding of these various strands of influence to a quite different single focal point from the author, that is the reader: 'a text's unity lies not in its origin but in its destination (148).'' The application of this theory to the viewer of an Allen film creates immediate difficulties alerting us to the complex relationship between Allen's audience and his creations. Barthes' improbably argues that, for 'the death of the author' to occur the reader must be ''without history, biography, psychology; he is simply that someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted.'' (P.148); With Allen, however, this is clearly not the case. The little man persona that Allen created initially for stand-up has come to infiltrate his audience to such an extent that they bring a persistent impression of him to all of his work. Ignoring what contradicts this ''myth'', and readily accepting all the parallels between the man and his work they can. Further, the residual impact of the little man of Allen's earliest works has been so great that, despite the continual development of the persona throughout his work the audience continue to view Allen as the powerless, inept schlemiel of his early films, even to the extent that actors who take on the role of the surrogate Allen are conflated with this persona.

The reasons for the development of this situation can be understood in reference to Barthes work Mythologies. Both Allen himself, and his creations, specifically the little man persona have become, as Leak describes, sucked in ''by the organs of mass culture... and transformed into modern myth (12)''. Barthes conceives of myths operating in society as a language (Mythologies. 109) Myths articulate common cultural ideas; they are usually an image applied to an idea. Barthes describes understanding myth as ''dealing with this particular image, which is given for this particular signification (110)''. The relation between the signified and the signifier, to use Saussure's terms, in myth is frequently arbitrary, governed by the proximity of the idea and the image, rather than any direct relation between the two (109-111). Barthes cites the example, amongst others, of Abbie Pierre, whose mythologised status operates in a similar way to Allen’s. Pierre instigated a charity drive to relieve the frozen homeless from the harsh French winter of 1953-54, and became a media figure in the process, whose life inspired the production of a film. Like Allen, Pierre had distinctive physical qualities, which were attached by the public to his behavior. Pierre's saint like eschewing of fashion in favor of a neutral appearance characterised by his benign expression, a Franciscan haircut, a missionary's beard'', became as Barthes identifies a sign of neutrality in itself. (Mythologies.47) Barthes comments in wonder at the apparent ease with which these physical attributes became so closely linked to Pierre's actions; ''it is indeed surprising that the attribute of goodness should be like transferable coins allowing an easy exchange between reality (the Abbie Pierre of the film)'' (Mythologies, p. 48). This process is, however exactly that that has occurred with Allen and the little man persona. Mass culture has produced a perspective whereby Allen's appearance has become conflated with the persona Allen presents us, such that when the relationship between his life and work are considered this is the Allen model on which assumptions are based.

Returning to Barthes for a moment, we see the conclusion of his examination of Pierre is one of concern: 'I get worried about a society which consumes with such avidity the display of charity that it forgets to ask itself questions about its consequences, its use and limits. (48)'' These concerns are exactly those pertinent to Allen. The ready acceptance of the myth prevents proper examination of the autobiographical nature of Allen’s work, because the ''real'' life that is compared to Allen's films and produces the conclusion that they are, indeed, autobiographical, is in part a construction of those films.

Barthes is able to see beyond the constructs of society because he places himself in what Leak describes as a typical ''critically distant'' perspective. His perspective, though subjective, is designed a Leak clarifies, to be ''isolated'' and ''singular''; simply put, Barthes attempts to recognise the influences and tendencies in popular culture without being caught up and swayed by them (9). Barthes must still, however, ''grasp the meaning of representations before he is able to analyse the ways in which meaning is constructed. (9)''. For the viewer of Allen's films, all that is significant is the produced meaning, the complex artifice that creates the little man, that is partially revealed in Annie Hall, and subsequent works, frequently escapes attention leading to the conflation of Allen with his work.
That Allen's films do not carry the imprimatur ''A film by Woody Allen...'' is perhaps an indication that he himself is aware of the many difficulties involving authorship of film in general, and the particular difficulties involving his audience's involvement with his little man persona. As Phillips observes, the phrasing ''A film by'' is closely associated with auterism. The name of the director acts as a sign, indicating to the public something of the content and the theme. Ordinarily, as Philips explains, the director's name only carries expectations from ''his previous work and the kind of promise offered by a new film bearing his name. (Nelmes ed.,1996, 150-1)'' The special case of the director as auteur carries a greater significance. Approaching an Allen film within the auteur construct places it in a context of his work as a whole. Within the auteur structure each work by the artist is seen to reflect ''some essential underlying personal force'' (Phillips in Nelmes Ed. 150) implying that films do not exist singularly but rather as a collective body. An unusual product of this approach, as Philips observes, is that ''absurd conclusions'' have been drawn; ''a bad film by an auteur was ''better'' than a great film by a non-auteur'', a standpoint which highlights the blurring of the auteur construct. The conspicuous difficulty with auterism is its tendency towards overt generalisation, a fact that has become prominent in the many recent critical assessments and indeed, prompted the development of several more objectively thorough auterist critical strategies. These have ranged from the uncovering of consistent themes, to the ''auteur - structuralist'' examination of mise-en-scene or recurrent visuals. (Caughie 12-130. Common to the various strategies, however, is that blinkered quality of view that places the filmmaker as the romantic artist, serving his own inspiration from his mind, untouched by all external influences until they are deliberately drawn to him. Devotion to auterism leads Allen to be viewed as a maker of quirky New York comedies where the focus is upon his nebbish persona; an account which hardly begins to account for the depth and diversity of films such as Sleeper, Annie Hall and Crimes And Misdemeanors.

This conventional view of Allen can be immediately dismissed if we turn to its critical fulcrum, Allen's little man persona. Broadly, until Annie Hall,

Allen's little man persona was fairly consistent. Much of the humor of the early films derived from his cabaret technique of exploiting disjunctions between visual and verbal messages. Steve Allen, a veteran comic of the 1950s, and an acquaintance of Woody Allen, explains this technique in his assessment of a comic monologue Woody gave in 1963; ''Allen depends on the incongruity between two factors: his alleged prowess as a lover and his mousy physical appearance. This appearance makes it possible for him to say certain things without offending.... Needless to say in making these observations I make no reference whatever to the reality of Woody Allen's sexual or romantic experience.'' (Spignesi ed., The Woody Allen Companion, 1994, p. 109.) Steve Allen usefully highlights the operation of much of Woody Allen's early humour, it is from exactly these type of contrasts that much of Love and Death emanates. Allen's character Boris Grushenko is a highly unlikely soldier both physically and intellectually, a fact indicated by his penchant for butterfly collecting, so it is all the more amusing when he becomes firstly a highly decorated hero and, subsequently, embroiled in a plot to assassinate Napoleon.

Significantly, Steve Allen also clearly establishes the separation between Woody Allen and the little man persona he employs in performance. As Steve Allen indicates, some of the humour of the monologue is generated from ostensible references to the real life of Woody Allen, (Spignesi ed. 109) knowledge or accuracy to Woody Allen's real life is unnecessary. The jokes of the monologue are essentially fabrications, they seem realistic because of the persona Allen employs to present them, the references are to the fictional life of the persona, not Allen's own for clearly they are far too far-fetched to have actually happened:

For the first year of my marriage, I would say I had a basic attitude toward my wife. I tended to place my wife underneath a pedestal all the time, and we used to argue and fight, and we finally decided that we would either take a vacation in Bermuda or get a divorce, one of the two things.
We discussed it very maturely and decided finally on the divorce, 'cause we felt we had a limited amount of money to spend on something and that a vacation in Bermuda is limited but a divorce is something you will always have.
(Spignesi ed., 1994)

At this point in Allen's career then, the temptation to conflate the real Woody Allen's experiences with his persona is minimal. With the release of Annie Hall, however, the little man appeared to be revealing more than the hapless events that befell him, the persona Allen presented us with, Alvy Singer, essentially became less a caricature and more a character with a rounded experience, and importantly a history, and it is exactly this change this change that leads the audience to consider the film to be of a more autobiographical nature.

Allen's awareness of the audience's approach is indicated by his deliberately shifting presentation of the little man and significantly his continued use of reflexive, self referential techniques to alert the viewer to the constructed nature of his films. These techniques include frequent reference to other films within his own, and in the characters of his films viewing films made by other fimmakers. These techniques frequently disrupt the narrative flow of Allen's films foregrounding, as Robert Stam suggests, ''the specific means of ''filmic production'' subverting ''the assumption that art can be a transparent medium of communication.'' (Quoted in Pogel, 215) Reflexive techniques remind the audience that they are watching a film, stressing the escapist nature of cinema. Further, unlike in the random montage of surfing through channels, the insertion of secondary sources into Allen's primary film stock can be used to comment on the primary film itself. Similarly Allen frequently has characters in his films speak directly to the camera, breaking the conventional realism of film, by violating, in Brechtian style, the illusion of the audience watching real events. It is through these reflexive techniques that Allen can explore within the context of his films the relationships between film and reality highlighting the construction and presentation of autobiography, specifically focusing upon the mediating effect of constructing identity and personal history from the subjective perspective of the narrative present.

The representation of the little man persona in Annie Hall allows Allen to examine the narrative strategies of autobiography. Alvy Singer emerges prominently, like the Carnegie comics in Broadway Danny Rose, as the narrator of Annie Hall. The focalisation of the events of the film from his perspective draws the audience to an awareness of the perspectivism of both his own story and inevitably, those characters involved within his life. As we watch both Annie Hall and Broadway Danny Rose we are clearly aware of the fact that the story we view is being presented through the mediating view of another character, and therefore is subject to the whims of how that narrator wishes to present that story. Put simply, Allen makes clear that these films are subjectively presented.
Louis Renza would suggest that it is exactly this type of subjective representation; the editing of a 'Life' that leads to the fictional element of autobiography. For him the need to for an order in fiction, and doubtless this theory can be transferred to film, imposes a certain falsehood, for life is never complete or certain, much depends on chance. For the reader and viewer, however, the improbable and inappropriate impact of chance (true or not) can effectively spoil the escapist, entertainment value of the text/film; which have their own conventions to fulfill. Allen's films demonstrate Renza's argument in their simultaneous highlighting of narrative perspectivism that signifies to the reader the fictional nature of his work, whilst constantly inviting the audience to draw autobiographical parallels between his 'real life'' as understood by the public and that shown on the screen. Allen indicates this in film the precarious position of the autobiographer that Renza describes. The act of representation is that of making experiences ''present'' again in a new medium - but it also indicates a difference and distance from the original experience. Representation frequently involves finding a difficult balance between truth and fiction:

The autobiographer cannot help sensing his omission of facts from a life the totality or complexity of which constantly eludes him - the more so when discourse pressures him into ordering these facts. Directly or indirectly infected within the presence of incompleteness, he concedes his life to a narrative ''design'' in tension with its own postulations, the result being an autobiographical text whose references appear to readers within an aesthetic setting, that is, in terms of the narrative's own ''essayistic'' disposition rather than in terms of their nontextual truth or falsity. (Olney, James. Autobiography: Essays Theoretical and Critical. Guildford. Princeton University Press. 1980, p. 207.)
Renza guides us to a situation whereby the autobiographical elements of an artists' work must be separated from the secondary source. In attempting to separate the autobiographical material of Allen's films from the fictional structures, however, we become engaged in the unprofitable dissection of a jumble of layered fictions. What is clear is that Allen's life is inextricably entangled with the films he makes, he has been involved for over forty years in the movie business, he has frequently cast his friends, lovers, wives thus merging life and art. The nature between Allen's films and his life may be one of the common simbiosis of all artists. His filmmaking is dependent on his life and, if we follow Barthes notion of the influence of all culture surrounding us affecting our art, then it also follows that something of Allen's life must have impacted on his work. This is the position expounded by Eric Lax, the first person to write an autobiography of Allen:
One reason Woody is prolific is that, like almost every great artist, he is a prolific recycler of his own life. His ideas, he says, all have some autobiographical content in that they spring from a germ of experience that he turns and augments. While acknowledging the breadth of Woody's imagination Charlie (Charles) Joffe thinks there is more than a germ of reality in his work. ''He denies a lot of truths in his life. Radio Days was easy to admit was autobiographical because he was six in it.'' And Mia adds, ''I think everyone in Woody's life plays roles and replays them in a different context. Some of Hannah was drawn from my family, and I guess other sisters Woody has known, like Diane Keaton and her sisters.'' (Lax, 1992.p.179).

Lax is really just modestly restating the common perception of Allen; his perspective tends to accept the myth constructed around Allen, conflating his private life transparently with his films. His biography is instructive in terms of the ostensible facts of Allen’s life. It presents an engaging story of Allan Konigsberg's rise from the low-income suburbs of Brooklyn to his opulent Central Park apartment; but it fails because it doesn't approach Allen's work critically. Lax has constructed a life history of Allen that embraces rather than challenges the myth that has grown up around Allen. Too often Lax accepts Allen's own explanations of his motivation without analysing what Allen has said. For example he encourages the perception of Allen as a death-obsessed neurotic by repeating Allen's famous line:'I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying.''; without putting in into its context as a line from one of Allen's short stories. A comparison with William Geist's Rolling Stone interview reveals the shortcomings of Lax's approach. Geist is a writer for the New York Times, not a personal friend of Allen’s, as Lax was. In his casual interview, he reveals the naive reading of those who approach Allen thinking he is the same character as he is on screen:
Woody Allen puts me at ease. ... He insisted he was not obsessing over the essential nothingness of the universe at the moment and invited me to sit down. He sat down too, and not at all in the foetal position...
For a man often depicted as a tormented neurotic, Woody Allen appeared remarkably relaxed, ''centred and directed'', as pop psychologists say, honest and sincere. And also quite rich.
Lax's tendency, then, to compliment Allen's work rather than deconstructing it in order to discover something of Allen's impetus is disappointing, especially given Lax's enviable access to ''Woody's sets, scripts, cutting room and even Woody himself. (Spignesi, 1994. p. 426)''

In supporting the conventional view he skirts across the difficult ground of Allen's self representation, when he may have been positioned to reveal the constructed nature of the myth of Allen's little man persona.

In attempting to understand Allen's work it may be shrewdest to approach works individually, looking for autobiographical themes, techniques and discussions, whilst appreciating the larger picture of possible continuities across his works that leads Bjorkman to conclude that ''even if your (Allen's) films differ a lot, in content as well as in style, being sometimes comedies and sometimes dramas, there is a coherence about them.... (44).'' Beginning with Annie Hall then, we can trace the development of Allen's increasingly sophisticated cinematic expression. Developing theoretically and artistically Allen's film continually challenge our perception of the little man of persona and thus implicitly the myth surrounding Allen’s work, the realism of cinema, and importantly how self-expression can be achieved within the framework of a variety of narrative structures.

Continued here - Annie Hall and more

Film Space where film is discussed


© Hackwriters 1999-2005 all rights reserved