Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Recommended Posts

[introduction put in by LAW - I've split this discussion off from a discussion on charitable giving in Canada, so that people interested in ballet on film and video can find it! Jump in!]

First of all, wizards on roller-blades is a GREAT idea, so's a 3-headed dragon, unless they're so much better than the dancers there's no comparison. So maybe Baltimore, the birthplace of the Madison, will see a rise in interest in classical dance.....

But over and over again, the real problem is that to fall in love with ballet, you have to see the good stuff, and you have to see it LIVE--

When ballet was new in the USA, it caught on VERY fast in this country, and interest was ablaze in the 40's, when so many European dancers fled HItler and Stalin and were caught in this country; during and after the war, they toured till they dropped -- which was exhausting for them but a revelation to the people in the provinces -- where most of the people used to live....... and ballet in New York City was electrifying.

Ballet does not televise well -- if you dance yourself, you can watch a video and not be bored to death -- But it's just not sensuously exciting.... not like recorded music, where Elisabeth Schwarzkopf can make you swoon through headphones pretty much the same as she could if you'd been there in hte opera house -- Baryshnikov, IN PARTICULAR, who made you feel like your head was exploding when you saw him for real, is not much more exciting than Julia CHild on TV.....

Why is this? I think it's because photography leaches out most of the kinetic drama of ballet -- TV already does the same things that the technique does, i.e., it makes people seem weightless, and it zooms in and out on body parts -- a great choreographer directs your eye all over the stage, and all over the performer's body, in fascinating ways.... camera-men hack through this all the time --even in the BEST-directed video...

SO TV isn't helping -- it's hurting, really, since it only DISCOURAGES the audience that's never seen ballet, while it pacifies us balletomanes with little dabs of great performances that are increasingly drab or frantic....

And meantime, the folks in Kansas City -- well, they'v got a ballet company, under Todd Bolender, I'd love to see what they're doing -- and in Tulsa, of course, they've got a LONG tradition of ballet (by American standards) .... I'd love to see them -- When Moscelyne Larkin set the "Hand of Fate" pas de deux on Oakland BAllet, it was an intoxicating thing that was VERY different in effect from the Hodson-Archer version done by the Joffrey (no offense, Glebb, nor Millicent) -- all I'm saying here is that there may WELL be excellent dancing in Tulsa, I wouldn't be surprised --- you should have seen the former Oakland-Ballet star Michael Lowe in class this morning in Berkeley, who's retired now as a performer but used his head and upper body like a Massine dancer. There was a grand allegro that included a soutenu-turn where you had to LOOK AT THE AUDIENCE as you went into it, which was very difficult after the big jumps you'd just done, and hardly anybody even tried -- But Michael leaned into it with a smile, as if he were emptying a barrel of roses at somebody's feet, and suddenly you saw this grand old style come to life.....

Michael had worked a LOT with Massine (and with Freddie Franklin on GisellE).... he told me after class how when Massine set a dance he showed the head and torso BEFORE HE EVER SHOWED the legs and had Michael work for an hour at least getting the upper body right, with the feet and leg-work only roughed in. Only then would he let Michael know what the details of the footwork were. There can be fabulous dancing in out of the way places, and the lucky people in those places know about it.......

But the mass-media are increasingly reflect only themselves. Newspapers and TV and movies and AOL don't so much compete with each other as collude.... The boosters of the new economy all want everybody to think that if it's not mass-media-ready, it's glamorless, not newsworthy, "unsexy' -- when really all they mean is it undermines their tacit appeal to the very large advertisers, which is "we deliver a large audience starving for spiritual nourishment, whom you can sell your expensive toys to...."

This may sound strange, coming from a San Franciscan, where the ballet is thriving and there are performances galore....... It's true, our ballet IS popular, it's well-attended and well-supported, children are brought in to see it by the busload, and the dancers and teachers go out into the schools big-time....

But the percentage of empty spectacle is climbing.... The ballet's just showed 2 Tomasson spectacles, Chi Lin and Silver Ladders, that owe a lot to Bugaku -- kinky-creepy-fascinating exotic plastique, extensions everywhere --without having the fascinating kinetic logic Balanchine employed. Mr B was doing experimental dance at the same time as he was engaged in oriental poshlust....

Here, now, the performers of experimental dance are being left to languish in obscurity as if their work meant nothing to the larger community, in a way that's very different from the way it was treated only twenty years ago --

Link to comment

Paul -

Very trenchant post, but I wanted to update you on both Tulsa and KC - the directors you mentioned have retired in both places.

Kansas City Ballet is presently directed by William Whitener, Tulsa by Marcello Angelini. I haven't seen the work in either place, but I think in both places they are attempting to make the companies more contemporary.

Link to comment

Merde indeed :cool: THE single most disturbing trend in ballet today is the notion that modern dance is new ballet. (I had a long conversation with a Washington modern dancer about this a couple of weeks ago and was delighted to find that she was just as upset about it as I was!)

There's very little classical experimentation going on -- Paul's Bugakuesque example is a good one. I can't remember the reference -- someone who's memorized Croce will be able to come up with it :) -- but she addressed this in writing about an early Son of Balanchine piece, that Balanchine, when he did Serenade was working from within a tradition of Romanticism. His imitators were merely imitating baying at the moon.

Paul, I loved your comment on Massine's method of staging. The very idea of setting head and torso before feet -- now THAT's revolutionary. The pre-1993 way of setting a ballet in Denmark was holistic: steps, gesture, phrasing, head/arms all taught at once so that the dancer didn't have a chance to separate them, or drop the part s/he didn't like.

I also agree with what you wrote about TV. I think part of it, too, is the observation by Marshall McLuhan? -- I've blanked on his name -- that there are "hot" media and "cool" media. Stage and movies are hot, TV is cool.

Link to comment

Having recently bought a video camera to film performances and rehearsals, I can tell you that somehow the image on the TV screen is altered... it is flat and one dimensional. You don't see a three-dimensional body move through space. Maybe this is obvious, but even so, I had to really think about whether the effect was real or something I was imagining. I don't know if there are camera techniques to alleviate this flatness- that would be an imteresting study. Anyway- just thought I would try to add to he reasons ballet is not so successful on TV- though I would love to see more of it!

Link to comment

Leibling, I've seen exactly the same thing... I watched a dance at a studio, and immediately saw the "instant replay" -- and was shocked. A very important fact in hte live dance, that the performer had come down off-balanceand gutted it out, didn;'t register as an event of any importance, while it was a big deal if she spread her fingerssuddenly, which hadn't gone unnoticd but was not the POINT.... and on the video it WAS....... It's like the way Matisse flattened the picture-plane and worked as if with cut-outs -- indeed, somethimes he DID use cut-outs.......

Merce Cunningham has commented somewhere htat the camera is "quicker" than hte eye -- if you're making a "video dance," he found, you had to cram it with more detail and make everything happen faster in real time, for on the video it would be boring at the live pace...........

Link to comment

Actually, I'm in the midst of doing the video editing for last year's concert (6 hours in front of a screen looking at alternate versions of the same choreography. My brain is MUSH!) so this is a topic I am living right now!

An aspect of the camera that hasn't been mentioned is that the camera makes choices for the viewer. As a choreographer, I've always made ballets were there was focus in more than one spot of the stage, and the viewer chose who or what to follow, and what was background. That kind of freedom just isn't possible with a camera, even in a wide shot, because wide shots have that sort of flat energy both Paul and Liebling mentioned. If the shot is going to have any impact at all, it needs to be a relatively close shot - and that means something else is not being seen.

By the time the videographer (Amy Reusch, who occasionally posts here) had shot the Sunday performance, she knew the works well enough that her Sunday shot had long sections that could have been used without switching to other cameras. I was impressed, and chose those sections with long duration - and learned that all the energy drains out of choreography when you stay with a single shot. So I just did another draft incorporating other angles just to break up the monotony. Again, it's the same problem as above. We look at things from different vantage points in our head when we watch a dance, and change our focus. In a video, an analogue for that needs to be provided.

I think it's one of the reasons that ballet is so hard to televise, and also why dance that will hold up to chop-cut editing like MTV seems more energetic. Often, the camera is doing the dancing.

Link to comment

often the camera is doing the dancing......

it's true....

This is what makes me admire the Disney animators so much -- they're hte folks ho've wthought about this the best....

Al the way back in Fantasia, check it out -- the Nutcracker ballet -- it's dazzling, the way they "frame" the picture and put a mystery in front of you and make it shimmer and then turn into something you recognize...... it's continuous wonder.... the part of it i think is cheesy is te way things you cnant recognize turn always into CUTE things, like minnows wearing false eyelashes and lots of lpstick........ but it's a wonderful use of a flat medium to create wonder using movement.........

Link to comment

Fascinating discussion. I'd like to back waaaaay up and add some very basic observations that are obvious to choreographers and videographers but don't even occur to most of the rest of us.

Video is never the same color as live. Audio is never as rich. Both are limited, as you have said, by the direction the technician is pointing the instrument, but also by the inadequacies of any recording medium. Anyone who has tried to capture the range of light and dark, loud and soft in a ballet performance appreciates the rich spectra of experience that a dancer can convey that the videographer cannot. Video is two dimensional, particularly wide shots from the back of the orchestra section with a telephoto lens, which is what we are frequently limited to.

Video cannot capture the sensation of being at a performance. What the person next to you smells like. The conversation you had with the usher seven years ago. The movement of the building from the music and the performenrs' footsteps. How big the Thompson kids are getting. The performers' auras merging like Aurora Borealis. It's a completely different thing.

Dance is a prehistoric activity, and our sensoria have evolved with it. Television is not useless but the pernicious assertion that it is anything like attending a performance is like telling an ancient Sumerian that he can milk the marks on his clay tablet instead of the cows that they represent.

Link to comment
Originally posted by pumukau

Video cannot capture the sensation of being at a performance.  What the person next to you smells like.  The conversation you had with the usher seven years ago. The movement of the building from the music and the performenrs' footsteps.  How big the Thompson kids are getting.  The performers' auras merging like Aurora Borealis.  It's a completely different thing.

One hundred years ago before the advent of recording medium, the only way to hear, say, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony was to go into a theater with 2000 other people at an appointed time and all listen to it together. Now people might listen to Beethoven or Mahler at bedtime, and my guess is they do that far more often than the communal act of going to the theater. What was once a communal act (even smaller piece of music required amateur musicianship) has become an intensely private one - now we listen to music no one else can hear.

The energy of the communal act of viewing dance can never be duplicated by any sort of recording. Will watching dance move from being a public activity to a private one?

Link to comment

It goes without saying that films and videotapes of dance are less desirable than the real thing. However, it's also clear that they make dance available to many people who would otherwise see little or none. Not everyone lives in or near a big city with lots of live dance.

I think the deficiencies of film and television are more tolerable before you've been exposed to a lot of live dance. A figure like Astaire doesn't seem to lose anything from being filmed, but who knows what he was like on stage -- he didn't make his first film until he was already in his early thirties, so we missed a significant portion of his career and probably some of his peak years. Anyway, we have the movies and thank goodness for that.

Leigh's point about music is an interesting one. In the pre-Gutenberg era, if you were in the mood for poetry or a story, you gathered somewhere in a group and somebody recited. The advent of books made literature a private experience. I don't think anything as drastic is likely to happen to dance, however.

Link to comment

Though another thought is that the advent of digitally produced images. A high quality digital video camera, usually used in the making of independant film, comes equipped with a special lens that enables the tape to have a more three dimentional quality. That is also what they use when producing major effects masterpieces. You would just have to make sure to get a high quality camera with a 3 crystal lens and make sure that you can edit it on a computer. That will preserve the integrity of the three dimentionality of the recording. Then what has been recorded can be transferred to video tape, vcd, or dvd.

That would probably be the most effective way to tape dance. I know that most television still uses the older analog cameras and that would account for the one dimentional look of the performance.

The only drawback is that a system to edit the digital video will cost you around 3,000 dollars including the Firewire card, then the editing software is another 700-800 dollars, then this type of camera runs about 5-7 thousand dollars.

The only other thing I can say is that I am glad that my other specialty, independant filmmaking, can possibly help with some information for those here on the board.

Link to comment

"Theatre is life.

Film is art.

Television is furniture."

I am a television director/camera person. Although most of my work is in sports, I am constantly seeking a way to bring my love for dance to the small screen. Unfortunately, as virtually every other writer has pointed out - ballet doesn't translate to TV very well.

Some has to do with technical limitations, such as the 4 by 3 frame ratio which means there is far too much height for the desired width. If high-definition TV ever becomes generally accepted, the new standard will be a wide-screen 16 by 9, which will be better for dance performances. HD's increased detail level will also mean a wider shot will still show expressions and nuance. The TV audience can then choose which part of the picture to focus on instead of the current necessity of having the director zoom in on a portion of the action.

TV also turns a 3 dimensional "experience" into a 2 dimensional "view". If you've ever used binoculars at a performance, the same thing happens.

Finally, performances designed for TV must place the camera in desirable audience positions. A camera placed at the back of the house and zoomed in might make an OK reference shot for documenting a performance, but it's angle of view isn't as exciting as a row 3 seat.

Link to comment

When I most enjoy ballet on film or video, it's when I can mostly forget about the camera work and editing and see the dancing, and when I least enjoy it, it's because the director's activity gets in the way of my seeing it. Examples of the first are Merrill Brockway's "Dance in America" programs, and of the second are Matthew Diamond's for the same series.

It looks to me like the way to get out of the way is to show the space and let the dancer, or dancers, dance in it. That doesn't mean frame the stage, start recording, and sit down; the video image especially is fuzzy, and the dancers make a more vivid effect if they are seen more distinctly in a smaller frame, but since a shot of the entire stage, when it becomes necesssary, will make the dancers look all the more like ants if it follows a tightly-framed shot we have oriented ourselves to, it's better not to frame very tight. Also, when the dancer travels in a tight frame, the camera must pan closely with her, so that she looks like she's dancing in place and the background is traveling by, which is not at all what's happening.

Zooming in from a distance not only flattens out the dancer's image, as has been pointed out here, it seems to flatten the stage space, too, so elevation helps a camera to see even more than it helps me when I'm at the back of the theatre. I think putting the camera in the first balcony helps keep the stage space from looking shallow.

So when I taped a ballet-school demonstration with a single camera, I zoomed in at most only enough to show about half the stage. (I would like to have been able to dissolve between two cameras, but that's suddenly a lot more complicated.) When a dancer circled the stage alone, I panned left and right so that when she was near the left wings, she was near the left side of the frame, centered when she was in the center, and near the right side of the frame when she neared the right wings. This way her space may seem reduced, but she is more clearly visible. It's a compromise.

And experience teaches me that shots should be held fairly long, panning and zooming should be fairly slow, so the viewer is not distracted from the dancing by constantly having to get re-oriented in relation to what he is watching. (For the same reason, camera angles shouldn't change very much, when more than one is used.) Every situation needs to have a camera-work sequence worked out for it, taking into account what just happened and what will happen next, as well as what is going on now. In other words, rehearse.

I always thought it wouldn't be so hard to tape ballet better than some of what's shown on television. The main thing is to get out of the way. Trust the dancing. As so often, something I read that Balanchine had said sums it up for me, and then some: He and director Emil Ardolino were taping "L'Enfant et les Sortileges" and they came to Karen vonAroldingen's solo. He listened while Ardolino explained how he would shoot this sequence and how he would shoot that, and so on, and then Balanchine said, "She's a pretty girl. Just let her dance."

Link to comment

I just came on this wonderful discussion dating back 7 years. What sparked me to look for it was the following, from Alistair Macaulay's tribute to Astaire and Rogers dancing on film. (NY Times, 8/16/09) Regarding Astaire's specifications for how they should be filmed.

Astaire choreographed, and the specifications he made for how the camera should follow him set unsurpassed standards: Film the dancers full-frame, without close-up; keep reaction shots to a minimum; run the dance in as few takes as possible, preferably just one.

That goes back to 1934. It's sounds remarkably simple. Even though an awful lot of dance films have been made and released since then, many directors either don't care about -- or actively disagree with -- Astaire's suggestions. Maybe it's time for dance film directors to return to their roots.

P.S. The full article is here:

They Seem to Find the Happiness They Seek

Link to comment

Thanks for reviving this thread bart. Of course it's of much intereste to me as well. When I taught tv production and camera techniques (or had to train my all-male crews with nil experience filming dance) the point I made over-and-over, in every class was: TV is 2-D, and your goal is to make it 3-D. You can do that (without a 3-"crystal"?--ie. chip? camera) by three simple means:

1) Shoot on a DIAGONAL whenever possible and you get automatic perspective and depth within the frame.

2) Lighting--our brains are programmed to think something light is in front of something dark (ie. why your nose sticks out from your face--it catches the light on its bridge and a shadow under the tip. OR...a black circle on the floor is automatically thought to be a hole until you touch it. OR a hallway has more depth if the light/dark areas alternate; this reinforces the natural perspective, and creates tension.)

3) Having objects in the foreground, middle, and background which is the most obvious means.

And corollary (4): the mechanics of optics means that when a camera is zoomed in the space between objects is compressed--(eg. the "traffic" on the freeways looks "bumper-to-bumper" because it was shot from an overbridge and zoomed in), AND consequently you also get a "running in place" effect. If a wide-angle lens is used, the opposite happens: space between objects is exagerrated, and apparent speed of motion towards/away from camera is faster.

So how does this translate to filming dance?...

The center shot is the safety, but is also the most 2-D and static.

It is always more interesting to shoot on a slight diagonal.

HD does give you a wider aspect ratio, but it also means you have to be that much more aware of what fills that frame, and the angle it's shot.

And unless you use the above techniques in close-ups as well, you are still just as likely to get a disembodied "talking head" as not.

Of course it goes without saying that I totally agree with everything Mr. Astaire said, and was glad he could enforce his vision with the clueless ones in Hollywood.

PS. I tried to use all these techniques, (which I believe are visible) in the trailer to my doc on Corella Ballet. And used editing to make the camera "dance" so that the shots and edits were both musical. I didn't just want a collection of shots, I wanted them to dance to the music as well. Hope this makes sense.

Link to comment

4mrdncr, we must all obey our muse, but I disagree about the diagonal shots... I find they distort the choreography (unless the choreographer tends not to think proscenium, which is indeed sometimes the case) and use them only when I want to use a wide shot but it's too wide... or would like to show the relationship between two dancers splitting the stage. They're nice for shooting counterpoint. (I must however offer the disclaimer that having retired before the advent of HDTV I don't know what works best on the wide aspect ratio.) I usually prefer a single central camera using mobile framing to direct attention to the disorientation of side angle cameras point-of-view jumping the audience to different seats in the theater. BUT, if we're talking shooting dance designed for filming rather than for the stage, then yes... please... diagonal shots, with close-up in foreground and full view in background. My biggest complaint about most dance filming is that the directors rarely to look at the choreography, but only at the dancers. If one looks at the choreography, sometimes a close-up is called for, sometimes a wide shot, sometimes a medium close-up, etc... shooting blind to the choreographic intent gets boring to watch after a certain number of minutes...

Link to comment

I am amazed by the number of technical considerations that have an impact on what the viewer sees/feels/understands. Thank you so much, 4mrdncr and Amy, for expressing these so clearly.

One question I have concerns has to do with the kind of "viewer" the filmmaker is concerned about.

If you are thinking about students of dance, the simplest shots -- from the front, even if this limits the sense of 3D -- would probably be best. Your target audience is already motivated to look closely and want minimal distraction.

To reach a larger audience, one consisting of less motivated and/or knowledgeable viewers, you probably do need a degree of assistance (intervention, manipulation) from the film-maker. I'm thinking about techniques that enhance or underline the sensations (drama, personality, difficulty, or whatever) that the choreographer or dancer is trying to express.

The problem arises when the film-maker's "assistance" begins to distort what is actually going on.

Astaire's solution works wonderfully for Astaire and for the genre in which he created and danced. Would it work as well for a complex ballet performance (not just pdd) where the re is also a goal of attracting an audience of new and relatively uninformed viewers?

Link to comment

Good move, bringing in the audience, bart! That's where I sit, in the theatre but also in my living room, sometimes with friends, no all of whom are dance aficianados like us. But "even" the audience less experienced at watching dance is experienced at watching television, and movies. I really think they're sophisticated at relating to what they see through that "window" and can relate to the space where the dance is taking place, if they're given a chance, in other words, if the production doesn't jump them around too much for them to settle into a point of view on it.

Sometimes the camera might take the viewer deeper into the scene, sometimes it might show the whole scene. Lately I've been enjoying watching Merce's Pond Way on Dailymotion, an unusually long clip at nearly twenty minutes, which I think is very deft at mimicking the narrowing-in of the viewer's attention when a solo "happens" amidst the general activity, like we might in the theatre:


(Hints: Be careful, the clip begins in silence but the sound fades in at 00:09, so don't be caught with your volume way up! And the pesky banner ads inside the video pane bothered me less with the full-screen display.)

It's true that we know we're missing something here we might get in the theatre, because it's cut out in the medium shots; but we don't always see what our friends saw in the theatre, either, do we? (Granted, this example is a little eccentric, because ballet choreographers tend strongly to direct our attention to the main events of the moment, while Merce famously claimed he didn't. Nevertheless...)

As for Astaire, with Macaulay and others, I agree that his rule, "Either the camera dances or I do," resulted in unsurpassd, most enduring dance on screen; but his project was significantly different from our subject, and he made his dances with that non-dancing camera in mind.

My main criticism of some of what I see of ballet on screen is that those making it seem to underestimate the audience's ability to adapt its perceptions to that space it's being shown and seem to want to lead them around by the nose. And sometimes they're downright rude in show-business terms: They're upstaging the performers! Do they think they're still in school, and still have to show off all they can do with their equipment? More fairness, please, fairness and respect for the audience and for the dancers!

Link to comment
Having objects in the foreground, middle, and background which is the most obvious means.

Reading this brought two sequences to mind. First, the filming of Alicia Alonso's Black Swan coda on a checkerboard floor and against a background of columns. The eye had many stationary reference points to appreciate how very little her fouettes traveled.

Also, the celestial clouds on the backdrop in Choreography by Balanchine, Chaconne, first pas de deux. In the theater, where the eye needs no help in orienting to gauge spatial relations, it's a plain blue backdrop. It would have been difficult to perceive the movement through space on the tv screen without any fixed points on the screen.

There must be moments when slow pans would enhance viewers' experience. I'm thinking of instances when the dancers are still or nearly so, such as the opening moments of Serenade or the swoon in Lilac Garden.

Thanks for the crash course, 4mrdncr and Amy. :wallbash:

Link to comment
First, the filming of Alicia Alonso's Black Swan coda on a checkerboard floor and against a background of columns. The eye had many stationary reference points to appreciate how very little her fouettes traveled.

Also, the celestial clouds on the backdrop in Choreography by Balanchine, Chaconne, first pas de deux. In the theater, where the eye needs no help in orienting to gauge spatial relations, it's a plain blue backdrop. It would have been difficult to perceive the movement through space on the tv screen without any fixed points on the screen.

Yes. And it can work the other way too. If an object in the foreground MOVES, you can obtain the illusion of that the dancer is moving in space even if he/she is not. For example, the clip of Mahmud Esambaev as a cabaret dancer (posted originally by innopac) includes the head (in silhouette) of an audience member watching the show. As Esambaev does his "moon walk," this head gradually shifts towards the right of the screen. The illusion is created that the dancer, who is walking in place, is actually gliding across the floor. I don't imagine this was intentional, but it confirms just how important visual "reference points" can be.


The movement occurs about one minute into the clip.

Thanks, Jack, for making the following point so eloquently:

My main criticism of some of what I see of ballet on screen is that those making it seem to underestimate the audience's ability to adapt its perceptions to that space it's being shown and seem to want to lead them around by the nose. And sometimes they're downright rude in show-business terms: They're upstaging the performers!

Astaire would definitely agree.

Link to comment

I think the director is always leading the audience. When they're good, you don't realize you're being lead... it's usually when they make mistakes that you notice someone is choosing camera shots. Usually the problem is simple ignorance, it's not frequently possible for the director & operators to have a strong knowlege of shooting dance, or if they do a lot of archival dance work to have much practice (with trial & error) of catching a particular piece in a particular theater with several cameras. Budgets do exist after all. There's a degree of improvisation often in the camerawork, and sometimes it's on... and sometimes it's off... just as with all improvisation situations... Also, it's quite possible for a director to notice something and then try too hard to "set it off" for the viewer, just as it is possible for a dancer to do the same thing with a piece of choreography by "over dancing" it.

Another thing is, what looks good on one medium (say a small black & white viewfinder) might not register the same way on a large color screen... I think HD must be tremendously freeing for videographers... both in the possible closeness of the wide shot, and in the level of detail that is retained. (With that detail is often a great deal of nuance.)

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...