In my usual way of obsessing about things, I’ve been on a Charlie Kaufman jag. I just want to say a couple of quick things about Adaptation. It is a fun film, but I tend to think not great. But we’ll see.
Duality of the Artistic Personality
There seems to be some belief that Kaufman created the twin brother Donald Kaufman character so that he could express his concern about Hollywood at the same time he was lampooning it. This may come from a statement by Kaufman himself. As I always say, few people understand a piece of art as little as its author.
The characters are the two sides of the artistic personality. On the one side, you want to use your creativity to create something new and wonderful and meaningful. On the other, you want to use it to create cool genre crap. In other words, we all want to be Graham Greene.
In Adaptation, Kaufman uses these two sides of his personality to create two halves of a film: the first is artistic and insightful; the second is cool genre crap. And no one gets to blame him for slumming, because he didn’t do it; it was Donald—who, incidentally, he gave screenwriting credit to.
Not What Loves You
I thought this was just too wonderful:
Donald: Oh, God. I was so in love with her.
Charlie: I know. And you were flirting with her. And she was being really sweet to you.
Donald: I remember that.
Charlie: Then, when you walked away, she started making fun of you with Kim Canetti. And it was like they were laughing at me. You didn’t know at all? You seemed so happy.
Donald: I knew. I heard them.
Charlie: Well, how come you were so happy?
Donald: I loved Sarah, Charles. It was mine, that love. I owned it. Even Sarah didn’t have the right to take it away. I can love whoever I want.
Charlie: But she thought you were pathetic.
Donald: That was her business, not mine. You are what you love, not what loves you. That’s what I decided a long time ago.
Unfortunately: only in art!
@Frank,
Ha, ha! Once again, I felt compelled to comment here (oddly enough, on a Kaufmaan script once more). In general, I hold a very similar attitude towards ‘Adaptation’ as you.
The scene you quote, is one I thought to be, one of the most interesting parts of the film (a film which, in my opinion, has quite a few). I connected with Charlie’s character in that scene, as a nearly (almost eerily) identical incident was witnessed by me. In my case it was between *my* twin sister and a ‘friend’ of her’s; whom she still communicates. Naturally, a real life confrontation with my sister, a la ‘Adaptation’, is as you correctly wrote: "only in art", it would never happen. I couldn’t do it. Of course I realize many people can connect with it in many ways. But, I’ve not heard (nor read) anybody else comment on it, nor its wonderful dialogue.
My sister is also a bit like Donald’s character in that scene (not intellectually or in any other sense, ha, no not at all). But I can easily imagine her saying some variation on Donald’s response, if I were to tell her what I saw and heard.
Cheers to you Mr. Moraes, cheers to you once again!
@karl – I kind of figured you would comment on this. :)
Tell me more about this incident with your sister. It sounds very cool.
My point about it only happening in art was not about the incident. It was about Donald’s reaction. That scene shows him to be a hero. Here’s a guy that the whole movie has made fun of and suddenly we realize that he is everything that we should aspire to be.
Of course, there were indications of this earlier in the film. In particular, Donald took Charlie’s criticisms in stride in a way that I could not. Also, when he succeeded, he gave Charlie lots of credit. I’m reminded of a Bruce Cockburn song, "In the flash of this momment; you’re the best of what we are."
I also really liked the scenes with the screenwriting teaching. It is interesting that both Chris Cooper and Brian Cox are in the film, considering our recent discussion of Tony Gilroy and the Bourne movies. Of course, if you were going to make a film and you could have Cooper and Cox, you would, right?
@Frank,
Ha, yeah, of course I’m gonna comment on this. I was gonna write about the Bourne movies: how they’re like a modern day sanitized (PC) James Bond film-but then I realized I haven’t really seen enough of the movies to speak on them.
Sure, I can expand on the incident that happened. I took lunch in school at a different time than my sister did. And this one gal she knew, who was in the same lunch as myself, my sister came in and talked to her (the girl’s friends were there) and the girl talked with my sister nicely to her face, but when my sister left, I could overhear her and all her friends making fun of her-now my sister wasn’t part of the ‘cool crowd’ (neither was I for that matter, but I was a part of a different ‘crowd’-in our school if you didn’t have a money, you were pretty much ‘shit’-and we all splintered into different groups) and this girl she was friendly with, was really more of a ‘friend’ to her when they were younger-but since the gal was a part of the ‘cool rich crowd’-they had essentially stopped hanging out together, but for some reason my sister never saw that as a ‘slight’ against her, I would have. And I don’t think my sister was trying to curry favor with her in order to be ‘a part’ of this ‘cool crowd’ (neither of us are ‘joiners’) and it’s not really her ‘style’ anyway. I think she genuinely felt she saw something in this gal that most of my sister’s friends-and myself-simply didn’t see. To me, the gal was simply the most shallow, hollow, manipulative and superficial person I’ve ever seen! It’s even hard for me to recall now, because I still feel a pang of the same hurt/shame as I did the time it happened. I really felt, in a way, like I was being betrayed myself-but that was probably more a familial ’empathy’ or connection, than what the characters in the movie describe, being identical twins. So that’s pretty much it, that’s what made me always like that scene-because I knew exactly what they were talking about.
Ya know, I kinda thought you weren’t really talking about the ‘details’ of the conversation (and was almost going to comment on it), I agree with you, it is one really precise scene of a character’s transformation-though, like you said, it is referenced to earlier in the film. Also, oddly enough, when my sister saw the film, she thought the Donald character was much more sympathetic than the Charlie character. Which I thought interesting since I felt completely connected to the Charlie character, it didn’t even occur to me really to think that way. But my sister’s much more empathic than I am, she tends to be overly sensitive to things of that nature. Now I wonder if she had some experience over-hearing me being humiliated by someone at school? ha!
Oh, yeah I *love* the scenes with the screenwriting teacher (and I always thought Brian Cox was *highly* undervalued. Chris Cooper too) there are two parts I love with him. One) where he’s warning the ‘writers’ at the conference against using narration in their script, while the film is being narrated. Two) is when Cox tells him: "God help you if you use a ‘deus ex machina’!" ha, it gets me every time. I think Chris Cooper was particularly good in ‘Adaptation’ because, I live in Florida right now, and he pretty much ‘nails’ the ‘Florida White Trash’ look, movement and patter-they’re like carnies without a game or ride to run down here. And that story his character tells about the ‘legal case’ of the Seminole Indian Chief and the killing of a Florida panther is something I’ve heard from Floridians since I’ve been here! There are two types of (native) Floridians, those that think the Chief is ‘cool’ for (in essence) saying ‘fuck you’ to the ‘white authority’ and those who whine, bitch and moan about how much better the Seminoles have things over them-ya know, typical ‘white trash’ talk about minority issues?. . .anyway, got way off on a tangent. Suffice it to say, I would *definitely* put Brian Cox in any movie I made, hell I’d write a part for him if I had to (I liked his Hannibal Lector more than Anthony Hopkins) and I’d put Chris Cooper in my movie if I had either some kind of ‘scuzzy’ character or someone who’s in position of ‘authority’. I find him best in those roles.
One of my favorite scenes in the movie is right in the beginning, when Charlie is talking with the female movie executive (played by Tilda Swinton, whom I always find interesting-interesting face) and he’s sweating, nervous and proceeds to tell her the type of movie he’s NOT gonna make. As the movie progresses and unfolds, it becomes everything he said he *definitely* didn’t want to make. There’s something very succinct and precise about that scene. Like it contains everything, right there?
@karl – Tilda Swinton brings us back to Tony Gilroy again. Two degrees of Tony Gilroy? She is a wonderful actor. I really loved her as Gabriel in the almost good Constantine. Peter Stormare is really great in that, too. He’s also great in "Minority Report." Well, he is usually really good. I wish he had played The Dane in Miller’s Crossing, but it was not to be.
Your story is very similar. In fact, emotionally it is exact. What I think is brilliant about that particular scene (seeing Donald ridiculed, not them talking about) is that he simply makes concrete what is always in someone like Charlie’s mind. Despite my age and having gotten much better, I still worry about public humiliation. And this is a thread that runs through this film, ES and SNY.
Age does help a lot, though. In general, I know what it is to be super cool: me with more money. I know some people think I’m a joke in that I have very little knowledge of pop culture and sports. But I think it’s a joke that they’ve not read Don Quixote and don’t want to. And I’m right! I call that wisdom.
When I was watching the film, I was drawn to the schizophrenic nature of Donald and Charlie. Their arguments are so like the arguments that go on in my head. "I have an idea!" "That is such a lame idea and now I’m going to list all the reasons why…" I definitely feel that the Charlie is dominant, but I would love to kill him off. I would be so much happier!
Both Cooper and Cox tend to type cast, but I think they are both able to do anything. Before seeing Seabiscuit, I would never have thought of Cooper in that kind of role. Speaking of which (another Tony Gilroy thing), I love Tom Wilkinson. He is amazing. He’s great in everything, but the main reason I like "Michael Clayton" is his performance. The man is over 6 feet tall, and in that movie I would swear he’s 5’2". In general, I think English actors are better than American actors. That whole Actors Studio stuff is nonsense. It doesn’t make the great actors greater and fails to teach technique to the rest.
On the political point, I see the same thing here (California) regarding Latinos. People have this idea that their lives are so easy. No. I’ve spent a lot of time around them. I *prefer* to spend time around them. And I can assure you that their lives are anything but easy. But there are some very nice aspects to living in the Latino ghetto. It reminds me of the way life was when I was a kid. Where I used to live, a produce van came by every day at 4:00. And there were street merchants. And my next door neighbor ran an illegal restaurant out of her apartment. These "illegals" living on the margins of society are the best of what we are. I could lose the white suburbs…
@Frank,
I’ve always admired Tilda Swinton. I think she can make even a ‘bad’ film moderately more tolerable? Plus, I can’t believe how much better looking she got, as she got older. I saw her in an early work that Derek Jarman made, and I barely recognized her. She looked plain, ordinary and not all that interesting looking-today, she has such a fascinating and unique look and I think it only makes her look prettier. I too enjoy watching Peter Stormare, I love when he pops up in a movie, always enjoyable. I’d read that he was supposed to be in "Miller’s Crossing"-I wonder how that would have turned out? Ya know, I usually *love* the Coen Bros., but for some reason ‘Miller’s Crossing’ has always seemed to miss me? I always thought it wasn’t quite as good as people made it out to be. Then again, many Coen Bros. films are ‘hit or miss’, and I can’t seem to pin-point where/when they’ll miss the mark? They’ll do ‘made for money’ films and they’ll be good (other times not so good) and they make a movie that’s ‘personal’ and they’re not so hot (other times the films fantastic), so i have no idea when they’ll ‘go wrong’?
Oh, yes I think one of the major ‘themes’ in Kaufman’s work is ‘humiliation’ (public or private) he definitely seems talented at depicting various types and forms of humiliation. Without question, it seems to be a major part of his cinematic world.
Ach, really people think of you as a ‘joke’ because you aren’t familiar with ‘pop culture’ and ‘sports’ (maybe it’s because I can relate, I have *no* idea what’s happening in the world of ‘pop culture’ or ‘sports’)? I’d say ignore them, who the hell really cares about what’s happening in popular culture? It’s become complete tripe anyway. And sports? Sports?! I don’t think they were *ever* interesting? Watching a group of men playing a symbolic game with each other, that’s interesting? Yuck! Let them have it, you stick with Don Quixote and your other interests, trust me, you’ll be 10 times as interesting as anybody else. . .and so far, you already are.
Absolutely, both Cox and Cooper tend to be typecast (hell, even I attempted to typecast Cooper-it’s really hard *not* to typecast ‘character actors’; but honestly I think ‘character actors’ are often better than the ‘leads’ they ‘support’… even back when people like Peter Lorre and Akim Tamiroff were around, they too were type-cast, yet many times they’re at least as good-if not better than-the actors they’re ‘supporting’), I’ve seen Cox play the most varied of roles, and he always hits the mark, every time! I think I put Cooper in such a narrow box because I haven’t seen as many films with Cooper in it, though he does appear to be a nearly ‘invisible actor’-in that he blends quite effortlessly into the roles he plays. Perhaps I *have* seen him more than I think, I just didn’t notice? ha!
Ah, yeah I like Tom Wilkinson as well. I haven’t seen Michael Clayton, but I always enjoy watching him act too. As is the case with most of the actors we’re talking about here-they’re literally enjoyable to watch acting.
Generally, I agree with you that British actors tend to be better than American ones. I think the ‘Actors Studio’ crap does play a part in the problem? But, I also think it’s how serious they take their craft? Brits seem to work really hard at what they do, whereas most American actors (esp. nowadays) seem to focus more on their ‘image’ and ‘fame’ than on their ‘craft’ and/or way of working? So, things like ‘The Method’ and ‘Actors Studio’ may have been a good and freeing addition to an actor’s craft in the past, but nowadays it seems to have become a predictable ‘fad’? And I think that’s the main problem? IMHO. . .
I bet you do see precisely what I’m getting at with the ‘minority population’, since you’re in California? I totally agree with you, I’d rather live with the ‘illegals’ in this country, than around the white suburban families who live behind gates, filled with fear. Have you noticed how irritated people get when they ‘think’ that somebody, somewhere out there is (perceived to be) having a ‘good time’? Mainly they appear to be jealous-oddly enough the people they think are ‘living it up’ are so obviously *not*. Whereas the CEO of a Bank (who actually *is* living it up) ah, he ‘earned the right’, etc., Uggh, people seem so easily manipulated, even to the detriment of themselves.
@karl – I’ve written about the Coen Bros. quite a lot. I’m afraid they’ve lost their edge, but we’ll see. I’ve always felt that they made worthy films, even when they failed. For example, I’m not keen on *Raising Arizona*, although pretty much everyone disagrees with me. One of the more popular pages here is my discussion of *Miller’s Crossing*, apparently because I’m one of the few people who have written about homosexuality in it. It’s strange because there are these two love triangles and one of them is gay. As such, it has a kind of *Boys in the Band* homophobia. You have to ask, do these people really think gays are this screwed up? I personally think that MC would have been a great film if Stormare had played the Dane. (Funny, I just realized that: the Dane, the Dude. They must like that, even though they claim "The Dude" is based on a real guy.)
Thanks for the encouragement regarding pop culture, etc. One does want to keep up on things to some extent. I hate it when I don’t get a joke. But mostly, I don’t fret it. If I could afford it, I’d be a Luddite.
I love Akim Tamiroff, especially in those Preston Sturges’ films. I really like *The Great McGinty*. I’m not sure what was going on in "Don Quixote" with Welles doing the voice. But I thought he was well cast as Sancho.
I think the issue with American vs. UK actors is precisely that in the UK they see acting as a craft. There is too much "getting in touch with your feelings" here in the states. I think this has been changing, however. Although I agree with you about stars, I think actors by and large are very serious here. I don’t understand actors who choose to be in film, however. If I were an actor, I would want to be on the stage doing a whole piece. I don’t get how working in film can be that fulfilling under most circumstances. There are certain actors who people wonder, "Why didn’t they do more film?" People like Wendy Hiller and Micheal MacLiammoir. It seems perfectly obvious to me.
Ezra Klein recently linked to a study that showed that people did not mind their tax dollars going to, for example, the "deserving poor." Of course, the whole concept collapses into racism. People can understand people like them having problems like they’ve had. My favorite example is Reagan’s mythical "welfare queen in a Cadillac." Is there any doubt she’s black? That’s what that was all about. I even think the Cadillac was a racial cue, because by that time, Cadillacs had fallen out of favor among whites as status symbols. Maybe today the image would be of a Latina, but the result would be the same and the racism is the same.
@Frank-I must have read your article on "Miller’s Crossing" and somehow it mingled with everything else in my head? I actually agree with you on "Raising Arizona", and I’ve always found myself at odds with most people who think it one of the funniest and ‘best’ Coen Bros. film ever made. To me it’s another film where I feel like I’m ‘missing something’ that everyone else seems to be ‘getting’.
As far as ‘pop culture’ goes I think what it is is that I don’t think there’s much you’re missing out on? I used to believe that a person should know a certain amount of ‘popular culture’-but lately, I don’t see it as interesting enough to even bother. Now sports, I never really understood why people enjoyed it at all and that has usually caused me to be the outcast. But I never cared much, what’s the alternative? Watch something I hate? Ha, yeah I’ve often fantasized about becoming a Luddite myself, but you’re right-it would actually take *more* money to be one than not.
Ah, that’s exactly the character I had in mind when I wrote Akim Tamiroff here (other than, obviously, his roles in Welles’ films). I was thinking of his gangster character in the Preston Sturgess films. Yeah, Welles would often go ‘a bit mad’ with his use of ‘overdubbing’. In fact, it was *so* common it became an ‘inside’ joke with people working in film, at least it was at the places I worked for? I think mainly he did it because his ‘bohemian filming method’ didn’t always allow him to be able to get the actor when he needed them, and a little because he was a bit of a control freak and knew he could do what he wanted the actor to do much easier if he did it himself? The only times I couldn’t figure out why he did the overdubbing was when he did it to Akim in ‘Don Quixote’ and with Joseph Cotten in his small role in ‘A Touch of Evil’. My guess with ‘Quixote’ was that he wasn’t able to get Akim (for whatever reason) and laid down a ‘temporary’ track with his voice. When J. Franco finished it he left it that way as there may not have been one with Akim? But that’s a wild and unfounded guess-I really have no idea?
Right, Ezra Klein makes a good point there and I believe he’s right. Of course, there’s no question (at least in my mind) that the reference to a ‘Cadillac’ is most certainly supposed to ‘trigger’ the idea of a ‘black person’ in the mind of those who hear it, it seems *so* obvious to me. Oh they most certainly do the same thing today, different analogies (they can’t use ‘welfare’ anymore, as it doesn’t really exist) so it’s ‘food stamps’ and different ‘racial cues’; but it’s the same thing. It’s the idea that these ‘others’ (not ‘real Americans’) are ‘living it up’ (right, ‘living it up’ on barely enough money to live) and they’re doing it all on ‘your dime’ while you work your ass off. What always gets me, is how easily people are hoodwinked by this. I know I shouldn’t be, and I shouldn’t be surprised by the poor and middle class voting against their own interest, but I still am.
@karl – I figured that Welles shot a lot MOS, perhaps influenced by the Italians. He may have put his own voice in as a scratch cut, but since Tamiroff died about 15 years before Welles, it was probably that. I thought he did an okay Sancho. I don’t think Welles cared that much about dialog. For all his love of Shakespeare, he was visually oriented. (Look at Othello!)
I figure that Welles saw most of his later work as rough. He just wanted to get it so it worked, figuring that he could work out the details later. I know that’s the way I work on video. The difference is that I never get anything that works…
@Frank-Ya know, I always maintained that Welles was a ‘visual storyteller’! The people I discussed it with (usually those in the ‘film world’ and ‘above’ me in age, rank, experience and education) would disagreed adamantly with me. Trying to ‘correct me’, they’d state that, since Welles was ‘from the theater’ he *was* interested mainly in dialogue, and his ‘visual’ interest was solely in the ‘production design’ of his work. I continued to believe Welles was primarily interested in the ‘visual’ aspect of film making (his ‘look’ always reminded me of Eisenstein and I believe he openly admitted his influence on him), Welles understood the ‘craft’ of film. He understood that images spliced together are the foundation of good film making. I’m pleased to know you see this in Welles’ too.
Yeah, in addition to what I said above, Welles also knew the ‘limitations’ he was working under and how to utilize it to his best advantage. Being forced to work ‘unconventionally’, I believe he tried to ‘hammer out’ as much of the film as he could, when he could and left anything that could be worked on later to…well, work on later. People always say "Welles didn’t finish anything…" (*not* true, as we’ve discussed) and "Welles’ problem was that he was too much of a perfectionist", but I believe he was more pragmatic than people think? He may have ‘wanted’ things to be ‘perfect’, but it didn’t hinder him from finishing his films.
Ya know, I wish I was more like that? Because I really *do* get ‘bogged down’ in the details of making a film and wind up having trouble completing or finishing them. You should post some of your video work up, I’d like to see it.
P.S.,@Frank-Right, Welles shot MOS-er, uh actually some MOS and an unique method that I’ll get into more detail about below. I’ve read a number of Wellee’ reasons he did this and will try to distill it down, and give the most probable reason. . .
Welles actually *did* shoot a lot of his dialogue sequences with ‘in sync’ sound, but his ‘on the run’ style meant he was forced to use mainly small, light weight and portable 35mm cameras (he’d even use ‘newsreel’ cameras sometimes, for the same reason) and they were perfect for his unique way of shooting films. The ‘rub’ with these cameras however, was that they are almost always: EXTREMELY loud! So, all ‘on set’ audio was rendered practically useless by the interfering noise of the cameras. It couldn’t be used for a finished film. What Welles did was, he recorded as much ‘on set’ audio as possible. Then later, during ‘post-production’ he used the ‘noisy-on set’ audio as a kind of ‘template’, physical record of *precisely* what the actors said and how they delivered their lines, so that finally he could use the same ‘noisy’ track as a ‘rough guide’ to assist him in ‘overdubbing’ the final, ‘clean’ audio he could then use for a finished film-a clever way of getting around the problem of those damn ‘noisy camera’, for sure, but ‘overdubbing’ is the most grueling, difficult process in post-production. Take it from me, I’ve done ‘overdubs’, it’s without a doubt the most maddening thing I’ve ever been a part of! For that alone, I give Welles a TON of respect.
Now, why he also used it so much on ‘bigger budgeted’ movies (where he had perfectly silent cameras) like "Touch of Evil" is a mystery to me? I can only guess he got used to it (though I can’t imagine how, but with as many times as he engaged in the process, perhaps he got really good at it, if anyone would have, it would have been him), and he probably enjoyed being able to ‘touch up/fix’ any bit of dialogue, whenever he wanted to? If the actor isn’t available. . .or dead? Welles would do it himself. Why on earth he’d voluntarily put himself through such an awful process? That, I can only believe went to the grave with him.
@karl – Thanks for the info about Welles and the sound process. On the "Mr. Arkadin" DVD (the one with the 3 versions), it has two shorts: "Welles Directing" and "Welles Acting." They are very interesting, however, I’m mentioning it because you can hear the camera clattering away. BTW: in my video making, I find the camera noise very disrupting, and it sounds very much like a film camera.
He may also have dubbed because he wanted to improve the performances. From the two shorts I mentioned above, he does seem very demanding of actors.
I can’t believe anyone would doubt that Welles was a visual filmmaker. If you look at his theatrical work, he was clearly trying to make films on stage. This work was known for being as much spectacle as theater.
My video work would have been great if I had done it ten years ago. Unfortunately, the competition is really steep. The Green brothers, for example, set a very high bar, even though more and more I think they don’t succeed at what they are trying to do. In particular, John Green’s videos tend to be too dense. Add to this I look my age and that I’m not an actor. They work well enough, I suppose. Some day perhaps…
@Frank-Huh, that’s interesting about your video camera make a noise like that. What camera is it? Because, that’s exactly one of the reasons for using video, is that they are *so* quiet (and of course, fast and cheap). But, that doesn’t sound right to me, that a video camera should be making that kind of noise.
Oh, I think without question he was always striving for a better performance, and I think that’s a *big* part of the reason he did so much over-dubbing. I think it’s why we hear his own voice used so much? With his method of shooting, it seemed he wouldn’t have easy access to many of the actors once the film was shot. But, yes, I noticed the same thing you did-he seemed *extremely* demanding with the actors! I mean, it was a constant, steady, stream of ‘head up, a little more to the right, more energy, less emphasis at the end of the line, etc., etc.," He was being *so* detailed and demanding it *so* fast, that I even remember thinking to myself, I can’t imagine trying to act in front of Welles, I’d probably have a mental breakdown? Ha, but then I had to take into consideration that he was often: pressed for time,over-worked, over-tired and trying to get it all ‘in the can’ as fast as he could-so, I can understand it a little better-but still, *very* demanding indeed.
Yeah, I was surprised by their reactions as well. But up to that point, I’d never discussed film (let alone Welles) with anyone-I just sort of assumed I must be ‘seeing something’ that nobody else is? But I heard that from a number of people. One person was even a ‘cinematography teacher’-I thought he’d notice the ‘visual quality’ immediately? And there were many others too-most would conced with me on ‘Citizen Cane’, but they were talking mainly of the ‘unusual lenses’ ‘camera tricks’ and ‘rule breaking’ he was employing, I was talking about how he shot his films, the lighting and the effort he put into the ‘look’, etc., BTW, yes, "Othello" is a prime example of this!
I’m not familiar with the ‘Green Brothers’. Are you trying to enter into a competition? Sometimes you can do really interesting work with very limited supplies, I’ve seen it many times. Especially if you really simplify everything down, but then I don’t think I know enough about what you’re attempting to do? So what if you ‘look your age’? What’s wrong with that? And as far as ‘acting’-in film anyway-you can get away with a lot more if you, once again, simplify (ha, it’s starting to sound like that’s my mantra of the moment)-well, at least that’s my two cents?
Sure, let me know when/if you decide to put any of your project up, at your convenience naturally.