JayDee's Movie Musings

→ in
Tools    





Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror


Year of release
2013

Directed by
Steven Soderbergh

Written by
Richard LaGravenese
Scott Thorson

Starring
Michael Douglas
Matt Damon
Dan Aykroyd
Rob Lowe
Scott Bakula
Debbie Reynolds

Behind the Candelabra

-

Plot - Based on Scott Thorson's autobiography the film details the relationship that develops between Thorson (Damon) and the flamboyant pianist Liberace (Douglas). Swaddled in wealth and excess, Scott and Liberace have a long affair, one that eventually Scott begins to find suffocating. Kept away from the outside world by the flashily effeminate yet deeply closeted Liberace, and submitting to extreme makeovers and even plastic surgery at the behest of his lover, Scott eventually rebels. When Liberace finds himself a new lover, Scott is tossed on the street. He then seeks legal redress for what he feels he has lost. But throughout, the bond between the young man and the star never completely tears.

Last month Behind the Candelabra was the toast of the Creative Emmys, taking home a total of 8 awards. And I'm not at all surprised. With the Creative Emmys focusing mainly on the more technical and behind the scenes elements that go into creating work on television it's easy to see why they were so taken with this film. Visually it truly is absolutely stunning to look at. With Liberace's warbrobe as their blueprint I imagine that the costume department had the absolute highpoint of their career attempting to recreate his iconic style and do it justice. And do it justice they do! The outfits that are draped over Douglas are fabulous; a luscious concoction of sequins, diamonds and furs. A while back when I reviewed Moulin Rouge I dubbed Baz Luhrmann the 'master of sequin porn.' Well following this film Steven Soderbergh may have a decent claim to that throne. In addition to the wardrobe department, also rewarded at the Emmys and very deservedly so was the film's art direction. It is just glorious, particularly in the case of the lavish set design that aims to recreate the astonishing furnishings that Liberace surrounded himself with across his three homes. Adorned in what Liberace describes as 'palatial kitsch' it is a dizzying collection of gaudy furniture, glittering décor, candelabra themed trinkets and a series of ego-stroking self-portraits. There have been very few sets that I wish I could visit in real-life more than Liberace's homes in this film; they are just bursting at the seams with so many delightful touches and hidden details.

And while the sets do succeed greatly in terms of being visually interesting, that is not their only purpose. As well as helping to build Liberace's character they also play an important part in a later aspect of the film. The longer their relationship continues the more possessive Liberace becomes of Scott, seeming to treat him more like a possession than a lover. Liberace's homes, so jam-packed with clutter, act as a representative of the suffocating nature that Scott begins to feel in the relationship. Another extremely impressive element is the make-up that is on show. It particularly stands out when it comes to depicting the after effects of the plastic surgery that plays a large part in the film, turning Damon and Douglas into creatures resembling living waxworks. Especially noteworthy is the job done on Rob Lowe's plastic surgeon. His face is so pulled back that it seems certain that at any moment its going to snap, turning his face inside out.

With all that glitz and glamour on show in the technical departments you might expect Behind the Candelabra to fall into the trap of being more style than substance. That is certainly not the case however. As well as being a portrait of a unique romance (which I'll get to later) the film is also a real examination of celebrity. To start with you have the notion of celebrity worship. When Scott first sees Liberace up on stage, displaying his immense talent and adorned with an outfit the likes of which Scott has never seen before, he is utterly transfixed. When he meets the man it's like he's in a trance, and when he attempts to converse with him he is constantly stammering and stumbling over his words. In his eyes, and in the eyes of many, celebrities are not like the rest of us. They are on another, somehow unattainable level to us for many people. The way that Damon's eyes sparkle when he first sees him is incredible. Through Liberace's outlandish actions we are also presented with an example of the preposterous nature and the vanity so often associated with celebrities. Not only does Liberace go to ridiculous lengths with plastic surgery to keep himself looking young, but he insists upon it for Scott as well. More than that though he wants his plastic surgeon (the scene-stealing Rob Lowe) to make Scott look like a young Liberace! Talk about your ego trips. Essentially he wants to have sex with someone who looks exactly like himself. In addition to the aforementioned absurd homes that he keeps, this certainly marks him out as quite a unique individual.

Film Trivia Snippets - One of the most impressive aspects of the film is the realisation of Liberace's Las Vegas mansion. While the interior design is down to the incredible art design the mansion itself that they filmed in is the Los Angeles home of Zsa Zsa Gabor. /// In Scott Thorson's book “Behind the Candelabra” he noted that “In celebrity-saturated Palm Springs only two stars...took the trouble to pay their last respects" at Liberace's memorial service. One was the actress Charlene Tilton, and coincidentally the other was Kirk Douglas, father to Michael Douglas (who in case you haven't been paying attention plays Liberace in this film! ) /// The film had actually been in development for quite a few years before finally going into procution. It originally went into development in the early 2000s with Philip Kaufman set to direct and Robin Williams attached to take on the role of Liberace. /// In the film Liberace's mother, Francis, is played by Debbie Reynolds. Reynolds actually had first hand knowledge of the story and its characters because she had been a very close friend of Liberace and actually knew both Scott Throson and Francis Liberace. She was said to be thrilled to take on the role as she was very familiar with Francis' peculiar dialect.
Through a combination of Liberace's flamboyant nature, and the numerous trailers and clips advertising the film which routinely focused on Rob Lowe's plastic surgeon being asked to make Matt Damon's character look like Liberace, I was expecting a much more fun and breezy experience that had a greater comedy quotient. With the film not being a full-on biopic however, instead focusing on the brief period in Liberace's life outlined in Scott Thorson's autobiography, what we essentially get is a relationship drama. And occasionally quite a dark one at that. It's such an intimate and personal insight into their relationship that it is actually quite uncomfortable to watch at times. You feel like you're intruding on something very personal and that should back out of the room. The film charts the highs and lows of the relationship, from the couple being gloriously happy to it getting quite nasty and confrontational. It actually reminded me of several stand-up comedians who have done bits on gay marriage and how they hope it happens because what they are really looking forward to is gay divorce and how bitchy that is going to be. I have yet to see Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? but from what I know of it I don't imagine that this would be a million miles away from acting like the gay equivalent of that story. It's a story of two individuals who did, and in some ways still do love each other at film's end, but who have completely poisoned each other and in turn destroyed their relationship. It turns into a real game of love and hate, complete with gloriously catty dialogue and more bitchy glances than you're likely to have ever seen on screen before. While I think it would be an exaggeration to say that after a while you forget that the romance you're watching is between two men, I don't think that the relationship we are presented with is overtly homosexual. It doesn't ever really feel like you are watching the facets of a predominantly gay relationship, so much as just a relationship pure and simple. There is also quite a disturbing element to their relationship, beyond even the strange implications brought around by Scott's bizarre plastic surgery. Both men consider their relationship at least in part be that of a father and son, with plans made for Liberace to actually adopt Scott, creating a creepily incestuous dynamic.

There are two elements which really make this film. The first as I've already discussed is its superlative production design. The other can be found in the performances of its two fine leading men. Michael Douglas has made a career of playing very tough, macho characters. By taking this role on however he made the ballsy move to completely eschew that image, instead immersing himself in the role of the highly camp, flamboyant showman that Liberace was. Liberace is a very interesting character and as such breeds a very interesting performance from Douglas. While at times the character is undoubtedly entertaining in a charismatic, larger-than-life fashion there are also many other sides to his character which are rather unsavoury. Throughout the brief spell of his life that the film covers we see that when it comes to relationships his life really is a revolving door of young men; when his current beau becomes too old or he simply becomes bored of them a new man finds their way into his home with a disturbing fine line between romance and employment present. There really is quite a reptilian and predatorial aspect to his character while we also see his very dominating and suffocating treatment of Scott. So I think it would be very easy to be disgusted by the character except that Douglas plays the character with a real sensitivity which makes him strangely sympathetic. While I had almost zero exposure to the real Liberace before this film he also seems to do a great job at capturing the man's mannerisms and voice. As great as Douglas is however, I'm not sure that his is the performance that I most enjoyed here. In a way his job is a touch easier than Damon's because he is gifted with so many colourful characteristics to help build his character - the flamboyant costumes, some delightfully campy dialogue, his larger-than-life personality etc. Damon doesn't have these facets to fall back on however but still delivers a wonderful performance; proving once again why I believe him to be one of the best and most dependable actors currently working today. I think it would have been easy to right his character off as being dim and deserving of everything he gets but Damon imbues the character with a sense of vulnerable naivety, convincing us that he is just completely out of his depth in such a lifestyle.

Film Trivia Snippets - The New York Times reported in May 2013 that Scott Thorson received close to $100,000 for his participation with the movie, and that he spent every penny of it “in about two months, mostly on cars and jewelry.” /// Costume designed Ellen Mirojnick and her team had to reproduce a large number of Liberace's iconic stage outfits for this film. These included a copy of Liberace's 16 foot long white virgin fox fur coat, which though made of synthetic fur was nonetheless studded with $100,000 worth of Austrian crystal just like the real one. The originals were too valuable to alter to fit star Michael Douglas and were used only as set dressing for Liberace's walk-in closet. Many were also extremely heavy due to the large quantities of rhinestones; each original suit weighted upwards of 60 lbs. /// Scott Thorson, played here by the 42-year-old Matt Damon, was in reality a mere 17 years old when he first met Liberace and just 23 when their relationship ended.
Damon and Douglas are also backed-up by a strong supporting cast that includes Dan Aykroyd, Rob Lowe, Scott Bakula and Debbie Reynolds. As a huge Quantum Leap fan I was particularly buoyed by Bakula's involvement. While they all contribute to the film it really is all about the two men at its core. And I think they have to be commended on their bravery for taking on their respective roles. Obviously you have the 'gay element' which however sad it may be does mean that they will be sacrificing popularity and respectability in the eyes of some small minded individuals. Even outside of that however I think it was quite a risky move to star in this film because I think it could very easily have turned out to be quite disastrous. Considering the story and its characters I think the film could have remained funny and very campy, but for negative reasons; I think it could have achieved them unintentionally. Both actors also really put themselves out there in terms of the film's sexuality and revealing nature. Damon and Douglas frequently kiss throughout the film, and it's never hidden by editing or blocking; perhaps a large part of the reason why it was considered 'too gay' for American audiences. While Damon is seen throughout the film in nothing but a skimpy speedo. I have no doubt that Soderbergh's involvement was a large part of what convinced both men to participate. Both characters could very easily have become little more than caricatures but thanks to the great script and the two excellent performances this is not the case.

With its relatively small budget Behind the Candelabra can very occasionally look a little bit cheap and on the TV drama side, but in general Soderbergh's assured direction papers over these issues and there really are very few other flaws to be found here. On just the occasional instance I perhaps felt that some scenes detailing the relationship were unnecessary and could have done with a little trimming. They could maybe have done with some of the plastic surgery that the characters indulge in; a little nip/tuck, some liposuction etc but that's about it on the flawed side of things. For whatever reason however the film just didn't excite me quite as much as I hoped.

I talked earlier on about the aspects of celebrity that the film covers, and there's one more facet to it. And it's actually proves to be quite an ironic, and indeed rather sad little twist that occurs. Throughout the film we see Liberace's constant attempts at hiding his homosexuality for fear of the damage it would do to his career if the truth were to come out. Taking place some 30+ years ago we can understand this and would like to think that it is something that has been consigned to that time. How sadly ironic it is then that all these years later Behind the Candelabra was unable to get a cinema release in America because studios deemed it as being 'too gay.' Between this and the current furore over gay marriage it makes for a sad statement on the ongoing sentiments towards gay people that still exist for many people. Very disheartening.

Conclusion - I feel that I'm being really rather harsh on Behind the Candelabra in respects to the score I've given it as there really is very little I can criticise it for. It's just that I didn't come away enjoying it as much as I expected. Though I do feel that a large part of the reason is that my expectations for the film turned out to be a touch off (created a slight disappointment), and now knowing what the film is I wouldn't be surprised if I was more significantly more taken with it on a repeat viewing. And certainly the film's excellent production design and performances mean that I would have no trouble recommending it as a worthwhile watch to anyone.



I just finished reading... now tell me what year it is.

I, too, just wrote a review for Behind the Candelabra.

And I actually gave it the same rating you did, JayDee --


WOW. Robin Williams was actually attached at one point to play Liberace? That makes the first paragraph of my Behind the Candelabra review... much more realistic. Good Will Hunting, you're crying out for a gay porno adaptation.

Yeah, I recommend this movie, too -- mainly FOR THE EXPERIENCE of watching it -- but I also don't think it's exactly a masterpiece. Miss Vicky might like it. I am ready for the commentary when she needs me.



Rob Lowe in Behind the Candelabra reminds me of the Team America: World Police doll guy.



And wasn't there a Matt Damon doll in that movie, too?
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Lowe.jpg
Views:	3157
Size:	28.6 KB
ID:	11647   Click image for larger version

Name:	team_america.jpg
Views:	2692
Size:	14.9 KB
ID:	11648  



You haven't lived until you've seen Michael Douglas, decked out as Liberace, at a gloryhole.





I'm on the fence about whether or not I want to see this. On one hand, it's been getting a lot of praise. On the other, I really couldn't care much less about Liberace and I don't particularly like either Michael Douglas or Matt Damon.

Maybe I'll catch it when it hits Netflix instant.



I want a massive Behind the Candelabra commentary party with me, Miss Vicky, JayDee, Rodent, Gunslinger and anyone else who can make it.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
While it's not exactly my genre of choice, inspired by Halloween I've been watching some horror flicks over the last few days. This is my favourite so far


mirror
mirror

Year of release
1982

Directed by
Tobe Hooper

Written by
Steven Spielberg
Michael Grais
Mark Victor

Starring
Craig T. Nelson
JoBeth Williams
Heather O'Rourke
Oliver Robins
Beatrice Straight
Zelda Rubinstein

Poltergeist

+

Plot - The Freelings are a nice family. They live in a nice house in a nice neighbourhood. They have an exceptionally nice life. That is until Carol Anne (O'Rourke), the youngest member of the family, apparently begins to communicate with some kind of supernatural force within the house. Before long the whole family begin to experience mysterious goings-on that at first seem harmless enough, but before long start to become much darker and more terrifying. The hauntings reach their pinnacle when young Carol Anne is abducted by the spirits and disappears into some other kind of dimension. The whole family unite and stay strong, attempting to get her back with the help of a trio of paranormal investigators and even a spiritual medium.

Even before I had seen this film I was aware of the numerous rumours that it was Steven Spielberg who had 'really' directed this film. And having now seen Poltergeist it's easy to see why such stories would pop up; you can very much see the hand of Spielberg at work. In fact there are some camera moves and compositions that just scream of being a Spielberg shot. In the summer of 1982 Spielberg had two big projects on the go; Poltergeist and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. And with its sparking special effects, suburban setting, focus on family and a young child acting as the conduit to a fantastical, otherworldly being Poltergeist certainly shares much of the same DNA as Spielberg's extraterrestrial masterpiece. With it's child-like sense of wonder and showing us horror through the eyes of children this certainly feels more Amblin than Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Well whoever it was that directed it deserves great credit as it's superbly well done. The pacing is expertly judged, delivering a gradual build of the terror that begins with light touches such as the dog looking to play fetch with the spirits and the family revelling in the novelty factor it provides; turning it into a game in the kitchen. And they do a nice job of juggling between the differing tones of humour and family issues, and the creepiness factor. On that front Jerry Goldsmith also deserves a lot of credit for his work on the score. It's almost like he wrote two scores for completely separate films and then smashed them together. So we get the light, spirited score for the lighter, more childish moments mashed up with the spookier side of things that sends a shiver up the spine.

Film Trivia Snippets - Over the years the belief in a Poltergeist curse has been propagated by many people. In the six years between the release of the first and third films in the Poltergeist franchise four of the cast members died. Dominique Dunne (Dana Freeling) died in 1982 at the age of just 22 when she was strangled by her boyfriend. Heather O'Rourke (Carol Anne Freeling) died in in 1988 at just 12 years of age from septic shock. While Julian Beck and Will Sampson (both from Poltergeist II) died from stomach cancer and kidney failure respectively. As for a cause many people point to the fact that during the sequence where JoBeth Williams is trapped in the pool with numerous skeletons, it was actually real human skeletons that were used. This was because it was cheaper to purchase real skeletons than plastic ones. For a film that deals with the remains of dead bodies being desecrated and their spirits being angered it perhaps wasn't the most tasteful or smartest of moves. /// As far as horror films go Poltergeist is surprisingly blood free. Indeed there is only one single death in the whole film, and that's Carol Anne's pet bird! /// Zelda Rubinsten, who plays eccentric medium Tangina in the film, apparently had genuine psychic ability. She claims to have had visions of things before they happened. /// Both of the objects that terrorise young Robbie actually came from Steven Spielberg's own fears when he was a child; a fear of clowns and of a tree outside his window. /// Stephen King was briefly approached to write the screenplay. It would have been the first written by King directly for the screen, but the parties could not agree on the terms.
The opening stretch I felt was very impressive at grounding the story and setting the stage for what's to come. This isn't about a group of sexy teenagers lost out in the woods. It's not about a group of dumb kids exploring a notoriously haunted house on a dare. Poltergeist is about the most normal of families in the most normal of places. In fact it's almost tedious in its normalcy. If the 80s taught us one thing it's that suburbia was a scary place (Gremlins, The 'Burbs, Nightmare on Elm Street) and so it proves once again with Poltergeist. So we open with images of immaculately clean streets, white picket fences and perfectly manicured lawns accompanied by a whimsical and playful score as we see kids playing and riding their bikes. This is suburbia and Americana at its most Capra-esque. We even get the American anthem playing a couple of times when the TV station they are viewing signs off for the day. This is a place where the only problems are usually of the smallest and most trivial nature (minor squabbles with neighbours), and the only fears are inspired by everyday objects such as the tree outside your window and the clown puppet that resides in your bedroom. Although to be fair to the young boy the clown is the creepiest thing in the whole film. And that's before the f*cker even comes to life!

By taking considerable time (a good 25-30 minutes) to familiarise us with this family and their lives it allows us to get to know them and makes us care for these characters and their well-being. So when the spiritual goings-on begin to haunt the family and place them in danger it has much more of an emotional impact. This is also why having the young daughter be kidnapped by these vengeful spirits is such a great move on the film's part. I'm never going to head out into the woods with a video camera in search of a witch and I'm never going to do battle with zombies (at least unless my life takes a dramatic twist! ), but fretting about the safety of someone you love, in this case a young child, is something that we can all imagine. It grounds the film in some semblance of reality; we can easily place ourselves in their situation and sympathise with their plight. The writing of the dialogue that the family members share is really well written.

Poltergeist benefits from a very strong series of performances, in fact as horror films go they're rather excellent. As the parents, both Craig T. Nelson and JoBeth Williams are great. Initially they display a very breezy, natural quality in the opening stretch which establishes who they are, and then once things start to take a dark turn they do an excellent job at portraying the effects it has on them. Nelson expertly depicts the physical detriment that the whole event has on him; he looks absolutely exhausted and drained of all energy and displays some truly haunted eyes. And when the occasion calls for it he also shows off fine comic timing. As his better half Williams is also very strong, making for a very endearing presence. And that endearing quality is heightened by the script which gifts her with a bit of an atypical character for a horror film. She is not your standard scream queen, in fact to begin with she is not even scared by the fantastical occurrences that begin to effect them, instead being rather entertained and downright giddy about them. And then even when she is asked to fulfil the duties of the scream queen she does so with aplomb. When they lose little Carol Anne however she shows the harrowing impact it has on her, while at the same time displaying the character's great power. All of the young actors playing their children are also very good, especially when they are interacting with each other in a very natural manner. The same can also be said for the trio of paranormal investigators, particularly Beatrice Straight who is very warm and compassionate. And then there is the unique presence that is Zelda Rubinstein as psychic medium Tangina. What a bizarre, eccentric individual; so full of character.

Film Trivia Snippets - There is a very strong connection between this film and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial beyond Spielberg's involvement. Initially Spielberg had actually offered Tobe Hooper the script of E.T. but he declined. When he did Spielberg decided to direct E.T. himself and gave him the script for Poltergeist instead. Both films went into production at the same time and hit US cinema screens just a week apart in June of 1982. And with Spielberg involved in the making of both films they were actually filmed on the same street. Drew Barrymore was actually considered for the role of Carol Anne, but Spielberg wanted someone more angelic and went with O'Rourke. Barrymore's audition did however lead to her being cast in E.T.. The two films also butted heads at the 1983 Academy Awards. Both Poltergeist and E.T. were nominated in the best special effects, best sound effects and best score categories, with E.T. triumphing on all three occasions.
I have to say that the special effects of Poltergeist are really quite fantastic. Even today, over 30 years since it first hit the big screen they still hold up as being both impressive and immersive. Through a mixture of excellent make-up and lighting, and some ingenious practical effects the film is able to create moments that are both highly entertaining and on occasion downright creepy! Having to work so hard on the effects just seems to breed a creativity and imagination that is often lacking these days in the big CGI-fests that hit the big screen. So we get wonderful scenes such as the tree coming to life and snatching Robbie from his room and the fantastic make-up effects that create the disturbing image of one of the paranormal investigators clawing off his face. With them largely being practical effects it helps to further ground the film and make it believable. There is apparently a remake of Poltergeist heading our way next year, and I'm sure it will be chock-full of impressive, state-of-the-art CGI that will create all sorts of incredible images. And yet I doubt they will be anywhere near as effective as the practical, 'ancient' effects that populate this film.

Towards the end of the film I felt the filmmakers had rather screwed up a little and dragged the film on too long and beyond logic. After they are able to rescue Carol Anne back from the realm in which she was being held, the fact that they stayed in the house seemed to be just beyond stupid to me. After everything that has happened to them surely they would just get out of that house as quickly as they could. So having them hang around, taking baths and then attempting to sleep there as if nothing had happened seemed ridiculous to me. So the logic of it seemed very flawed to me but it was made to be worth it due to some great effects and exceptionally cool moments as we see JoBethe Williams thrashing about in water with skeletons, countless coffins popping out of the ground and springing open and the sheer obliteration of the house. While I originally had some qualms about it, it turned out be a great spectacle of a finale.

Conclusion - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan. All great films of Steven Spielberg. And perhaps Poltergeist should be added to that list. But whether this is a Spielberg film or a Tobe Hooper film doesn't change the fact that it certainly is a great film in its own right. Impressively written and directed it is a whole lot of fun with some fine performances and thrilling special effects. A wonderfully ghoulish adventure.



Excellent review matey!

I wasn't too bothered by the illogical ending myself. The Dad was going to a meeting then that night they were going to move but his meeting took too long and Mum put the kids to bed in the interim and took a bath. That what I took from it anyways.

The thing I marked Poltergeist down for was the immense amount of continuity errors, visible crew and equipment and some of the photography that occasionally showed the backstage of the sets. The film is rife with mistakes.

Still marked it at 90% though when I reviewed it.
Page 8.
Rodent's Reviews.
Review #70.




Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I called Poltergeist "Raiders of the Lost Ark in a haunted house" when it first came out, and I still think so. I give it the same rating as JayDee. Good review.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I've never been a fan of horror, so I've never seen Poltergeist. However, your review and Mark's stamp of approval make me think I ought to give it try.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
It's really a very eccentric film in many ways, even though it's filled with laughs, thrills and F/X. It's also one of the brightest (as in brightly-lit) horror films ever. Somewhat unusual fare for Hooper and Spielberg, although it contains so many of their usual themes and touches.



I've never been a fan of horror, so I've never seen Poltergeist.
You know, a couple of weeks ago, I wanted to ask you to do commentary for Poltergeist III (it's on Netflix and it really won't hurt that you haven't seen the first two).

STILL INTERESTED if you ever are.



If I'm gonna watch it, I'd rather start with the first one. Amazon has it in their instant streaming, so I may watch it that way at some point.





Poltergeist is a classic fun scary movie. On I was unfamiliar had so much in common with ET. Very good to know. However I was familiar with the curse from the E! True Hollywood Story. Well done as usual!



Chappie doesn't like the real world
Poltergeist is one of my favorite movies. I recently watched it again with two eleven year old that had never even heard of it. They loved it which made me extremely happy. It's a really good horror movie for that age. It's scary without being overly so and at the heart of it it's a really good family movie. They've never seen E.T either so that's next.

Also, good job staying with movies that I approve of. Keep it up.