Joe (2014)

31 Aug


I’ve made my complaints previously, so there is little need to reiterate. I went off Cage for a while. I really loathe vigilante films, with few exceptions. Cage played the wronged law-abidin’ citizen protagonist in both Trespass and Seeking Justice in the same year (2011) and I could not be fussed with that noise. But I’ve recuperated and so, it seems, has Cage, because he’s on form in David Gordon Green’s brutal and only moderately overcooked Joe.

*Trigger warning*

I’m not going to spend much time on the subject, but Joe is a card-carrying Serious Movie and, as such, ventures into the territory of sexual violence and incest, without the depth and sincerity that I feel those topic deserve. Certainly, the film is not explicit. But neither is it an easy watch.

Joe is the story of one man’s redemption through his relationship with damaged but plucky 15-year-old boy, Gary (Tye Kayle Sheridan). Gary and his embittered, loathsome father, Wade (Gary Poulter) trek their way across the back-woods of Austin, Texas, with Gary taking jobs to earn money to support his sister and mother – money that Wade invariably steals and drinks away. Gary takes a job with Joe (Cage) hammering poison into the trunks of trees so they can be legally cleared for deforestation. Joe becomes something of a surrogate father figure for Gary but, as an ex-con, he is a man with enemies and a violent temper to keep in check.

So, the story is a furrowed-browed examination of what it means to be a man. The characters are all a little stock Southern Gothic, with scant examination behind the evil that men do, apart from the sense that there are men whose goodness is ossified through poverty and drink. Indeed, as a wounded protector figure, Cage is not miles away from being the vigilante archetype that tends to arouse my suspicions – the bad man less bad than other bad men by virtue of certain masculine-coded qualities (decency; bravery; strength) not possessed by the more feminized villains. The healthy sexuality of the ‘hard man with a heart of gold’ (as illustrated through thrusting, manly heterosexual intercourse) is set against the twisted deviancy of the male antagonists. There is an implication that Wade is an incestuous child rapist and while I was grateful for the lack of exploitative detail in this regard, I never had the sense that his daughter’s victimhood was important for anything other than to illustrate the depths of evil of her father and the comparative righteousness of Cage and his surrogate son.

Which is not to say that Wade is anything other than an entitled, scrawny shit of a man. There is clearly no goodness in him and Poulter’s performance is quietly terrifying. However, for once I’d like to see a film about masculinity in which the hero is somewhat less brooding and muscle-bound and heterosexual, but still a decent human being. Not all deviancy from the norm is evil and an audience can recognise that a man is a nasty piece of work without making him a child rapist to seal the deal. More homosexual action heroes please! Perhaps I am channelling Anita Sarkeesian’s brilliant commentary on gendered violence as background decoration here, but I think it is important not to use incest or rape as little more than flavour text to add a gritty atmosphere to a film and cement the evil of a villain, especially if the emotional and psychological fall-out upon the victim is neglected and ignored. Indeed, in Joe, we see very little of Gary’s mother and sister (Brenda Isaacs Booth and Anna Niemtschk) except glimpses of their perpetual victimhood. The horror of their lives may be accurately portrayed, but I wanted to know more about these characters, who deserved more than being made mere props in other men’s stories.

However, while I have my problems with Joe as a film, Nic was on fine form. The character of Joe is first introduced sitting behind the wheel of his car, his face obscured by a rain-spattered windscreen. This is appropriate, because Joe is a man who chooses to keep his past well hidden. We have discussed here before how Cage is a gestural actor, who resists a lot of the truisms of the Stanislavski or method actor school. He crafts his characters around tics, mannerisms and obsessions, sometimes working through imitation (as in his wonderful Elvis channelling performance in Lynch’s Wild at Heart), often giving external expression emotional states that more traditional, ‘worthier’ actors would leave internal. This isn’t to say that Nic never gets inside the mind of a character, but that he does so with an odd, almost child-like literalism (Ghost Rider listens to The Carpenters and enjoys jelly-beans; Sailor in Wild at Heart loves his snake skin jacket; etc.)

As such, Cage’s performance as Joe signifies emotional depth, without there being any indication of what this depth might entail. It’s all brooding scowl and knotted brow. And yet, this cypher-like quality to Cage’s performance works perfectly. Clearly Joe doesn’t let anyone get too close – the authentic Joe is hidden behind a carefully constructed mask of masculinity. Moreover, this plants a seed of (unintentional?) deconstruction within the performance. The shitty villains of the film seem to be play-acting their masculinity and they are no good at it. Joe’s main antagonist is a leering hyper-aggressive pervert called Willie (hah!) who is always spoiling for a fight. However, when push literally comes to shove, not only is he a rubbish brawler easily bested by a 15-year-old boy, but his expression of masculinity comes across as weirdly inauthentic, desperate. Almost every time he pops up in a scene he asserts with laughable grandiosity “I went through a windshield and I don’t give a fuck!” It fails to impress.

Likewise, old man Wade mostly beats up his young son and succeeds only in killing a poor, destitute homeless man, who can offer no resistance to his assault. It is not that he is all bark and no bite, but that his bite is solely directed at those much weaker than himself. He is a bully and his attempt at body-popping break-dancing moves also exposes him as dangerously uncool. As Stella Papamichael writes in her review for Digital Spy:

“Violence is offered as an integral part of masculine identity. Joe and Gary both share the philosophy that sometimes a man’s gotta do… Wade is an example of where it is completely unnecessary and sometimes downright evil (eventually spiralling into a shocking scene from leftfield) while another cowardly loudmouth (Ronnie Gene Blevins) tries to up his currency in town by playing the hard man.” 

So, where does this leave Cage’s masculinity, so triumphant and righteous in Con Air? On the bar-room floor. Joe is a man gone to seed, whose masculinity has been humbled, who has had to learn how to channel his manly anger. There is a genuine pathos to Joe’s job as a man who poisons trees, striking blows with a hammer against the strong, weary forest. The trees, firm and irresolute, are the pinnacle of phallic masculine – yet how easily are they poisoned, how sad and old they look. It is difficult to say whether Joe is jealous of the trees, or whether he senses in them kindred spirits to match his own. Notably, while both Joe and the resilient young Gary are able to poison the trees (and do so with serious vigour, energy and violence) nasty old Wade is badly able to raise a hand against them. He strikes his son instead.

Joe is given to the moody brooding, that has a certain existentialist quality, that could be read either as the defeated wisdom of manly experience, or the nihilistic angst of a petulant teenager. Replying to the soothing susurrus of a lover he says, with a frustrated weariness, “I like you too, but what’s the point in any of it?” And yet there are moments in which happiness catches him off-guard, against his better judgement. The most playful, Cageiest sequence in the film involves Joe and Gary doing a bit of father-son bonding, drinking and driving together as buddies, off in pursuit of Joe’s loyal bulldog (who, like Joe, is seemingly ferocious but with a heart of gold). This gives Cage room for some goofy improvisation and that winsome, toothy smile of his breaks through. He’s like the hero from a Johnny Cash song, beaten down but possessed of spirited dark humour in spite of it all. My favourite part of this manly buddy-bonding sequence was when Joe shows Gary how to make ‘the pain face’. This involves smiling, but allowing the pain to show through underneath. You give a big grin but keep the pain in the eyes. It was like a little acting lesson from Cage, teaching the younger actor, the rather brilliant Tye Kayle Sheridan, one of the tricks of the trade. The manufacture of the synthetic mask of manly pain. I sometimes like making this face myself! Give it a go sometime!

Cage looks old (although not creepy or smarmy) in Joe. He is in his 50s now – getting on. Although it would be absurd for me to say that Nicolas Cage is my cinematic father, with Birdy (1984) he heralded me into the world of adult films. I was only 13 or 14 at the time, younger than the character of Gary. In the Coens’ Raising Arisona from 1987 Cage had a Thrush Muffler bird tattoo, signifying his speed, youth and cartoony acting style. In Joe, Cage has the tattoo of a wildcat, faded and grown over with white hair.


12 Responses to “Joe (2014)”

  1. MissHawkline September 2, 2014 at 4:04 am #

    I totally agree- the more action heroes that challenge our ideas of what masculinity is, the better. 🙂

    Have you ever read the novel Vurt by Jeff Noon, or Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami? Both of them deal with incest in a sympathetic light, and are two of the best books I’ve ever read.

    • cagewisdom September 2, 2014 at 11:42 am #

      EDIT: This turned out as a long and rather serious consideration of incest and abuse. Don’t read if you don’t feel like it, by all means!! 🙂

      I haven’t read either ‘Vurt’ or any Murakami outside of short stories. Rachael’s read a lot of Murakami, but doesn’t think he is very good at writing female characters. Adam Cadre’s ‘Ready? OK!’ provides a sympathetic defence of sibling incest, which was provocative but not entirely alienating.

      I think any kind of father- or mother-child incest is morally abhorrent because it would involve an inherent violation of trust and the power imbalance between a parent and a child (or, indeed, an adult and a child – though I’ll get to that later) is simply too vast to be safely crossed. Incest between siblings seems to tend towards abuse because it is often an older sibling acting upon a younger sibling who doesn’t quite understand what’s going on. However, for siblings who are close in age and equally willing and of a similar mental capacity, I could see an argument that it isn’t automatically damaging (or rather, that the damage comes from the social taboo, rather than the act being inherently abusive).

      I’m certainly against any morality based solely within a reactive intuitive attitude of ‘eww gross’. A lot of people have that reaction to homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean that homosexuality is wrong, since it doesn’t cause any harm. Peter tends to be pretty resolute on this point and has argued quite convincingly that cannibalism without murder is not morally abhorrent.

      On the mental health forums I frequent there are a lot of people either scarred by or consumed by guilt over sibling incest. It seems more common than one might imagine. To an extent, it’s understandable that it happens. A relationship with siblings can certainly be very intimate, especially in terms of shared knowledge and experience. As with ‘play fighting’, incest at a young age could be a form of testing the boundaries, or exploring sexuality in a comparatively safe space.

      On the forums there are some people who recount sibling incest in which the younger party has seemingly grown up to be entirely well-adjusted and well-balanced and seemingly wasn’t damaged by the experience. Personally, I feel the risks are always too great. However, if I discovered that a friend had engaged with incest with a willing close-in-age sibling, I certainly wouldn’t cut off the friendship, nor necessarily see them as a bad person (of course, if they were a victim of unwanted incest, or had been abused by a parent, I wouldn’t judge them one iota).

      *Trigger warning for discussion of sexual abuse*

      I do think that it is important to hold real life in the micro above ideology in the macro (my thesis is basically one long argument for this, so I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t try to apply this in real life). Organisations like RAINN argue quite understandably that incest is *always* abusive and wrong and traumatic, but while that is almost always going to be the case, I do think there are some examples of close-in-age sibling incest that would prove otherwise. Likewise, I have often seen argued that a sexual relationship between an adult and a child is *always* abusive and motivated primarily but control and violence. Again, I think this is true in the vast majority of cases, but I don’t think it is necessarily true of all 20-year-olds with a 17-year-old partner, say. In California, an 18-year-old who has sex with a willing 17-year-old is just as much as a child rapist as the middle-aged man who violates a 6-year-old. It is true that 6-year-olds and 17-year-olds are both children, but I don’t think it is morally correct to say that both instances are de facto *the same* and as harmful, traumatic and as evil as one another. As mentioned previously, I had a girlfriend who was just turning 17 at the start of our relationship, when I was a few years older. Retrospectively, I think that age difference was ill-advised and there was a power imbalance, but when I became very obsessively guilty about it (as, six years later, I still largely am) and emailed her a few years later, she was very insistent that she had not been a victim of ‘child molestation’ and that she didn’t see our relationship whatsoever as a legal matter, since we had both been comparatively young. I have had several friends who had relationships with 14-year-olds when they were 16 or so and while I don’t think this was advisable or well-judged, I do not get the impression that it left a traumatic impact upon the younger party.

      Basically, with both incest and relationships with teenagers, I think that close-in-age exemptions are important, or at least, should be considered as a mitigating legal factor.

      I also don’t like branding a person for life with something they did wrong as a child. I get the impression that many or most people in Britain would disagree with me considering the common reactions to the adult release from prison of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. Personally, I don’t think that a 12-year-old kid who commits incest against their little sister should be on the sex offender’s register for decades into their adulthood, or life…

      TL;DR – incest is generally abusive because of power imbalances so I don’t think that a parent-child incestuous relationship could ever be anything other than abusive. With close-in-age cases of sibling incest in which both partners are willing, I think it could be non-abusive and non-traumatic. I believe that real life > ideology is important – there are always going to be exceptions to a given rule. Likewise, I don’t think that an 18-year-old with a willing 17-year-old partner should be put in the same category as a 40-year-old violating a 12-year-old, even though both are technically examples of an adult interacting sexually with a child. Generally, I think young people should be afforded a bit of slack by the courts. I don’t think that crimes or mistakes made as a child should follow a person throughout their adult life.

      • MissHawkline September 3, 2014 at 12:36 am #

        I’m probably quite naive when it comes to stuff like this. 😛 Maybe it’s because of my age, but I feel like I’m a bit too innocent about most things.

        I’d definitely be against anything that harms somebody, especially children. It actually really worries and upsets me that horrible things like child abuse can even exist.

        Incest between siblings seems like more of a grey area, though. I think it’s unfair for people to be against something just because it’s a taboo. It seems like a lot of people are instantly opposed to something like incest only because it’s what they’ve been taught, but they’ve never thought that much about why it might be wrong. If there was a big age difference, or if it was non-consensual, or the siblings were too young to understand what they were doing, I’d be totally against it. But if they were both consenting adults who were very close in age, I’d be a lot more open. I suppose that, for the latter, it would all depend on the situation, and if they did genuinely love each other (In a romantic way, not a sexual one), I don’t think it would be fair for them to be punished for it.

        I just wish that something like bullying was so big a taboo.

        I probably shouldn’t have brought something like this up, because I don’t understand the issue enough, and as I said I’m pretty immature. This has been on my mind for a long time, though. 😛 I usually avoid real-life stuff and just stick to art, which I feel I understand a lot better.

      • cagewisdom September 3, 2014 at 1:51 am #

        That’s okay! It’s a complex issue 🙂

        I agree that bullying should be taken more seriously. It’s certainly had very long terms effects on my own mental health / well-being and while I wouldn’t want to come down too harshly on people who bullied me as young children, some of my year group were still doing pretty nasty things (OCD made me somewhat of an easy target) well into sixth form, when they were 17 / 18 and frankly should have known better. Without going into details, Peter suffered far worse than me on a daily basis and it has had serious implications for his health and happiness in the long-term… I’m very glad we had each other as friends through secondary school, but I wish I had done more to stand up for him.

        Child abuse is a very distressing topic. Because I am literal with language and believe that language defines reality and – in this area – the law has a primarily hold upon language, I guess I see an 18-year-old with a 17-year-old partner as technically being just as much an instance of child abuse as something that might outwardly seem more horrific (even while my emotional and moral response to those two things would definitely not be the same). It’s very confusing to me as I think that people have specific mental image-concepts in mind when they think of ‘child abuse’ (perhaps a child younger than 14 abused by an adult past their adolescence?) but the fact remains that in this country 16 is the age of consent, so people I know who at sixteen slept with 14-year-olds are just as much ‘child abusers’ as adults who do the same. Likewise, I now recognise that anyone under 18 is a child, as per the UN’s ‘Rights of the Child’ (whereas when younger I used to think more in terms of 16 being the age of consent, so never crossed that line). As someone who was over 18, dating someone who was 16 / 17, I technically committed child abuse … though it’s probably not what people would imagine when they think of the term. As said, my ex doesn’t see the matter whatsoever like that herself (and seemed surprised when I framed the relationship in those terms in an email a few years back), but this does not change the facts as defined by language and law. Sometimes I can take respite from the fact that several psychology and sociology journals define ‘child abuse’ as involving victims under 16 with perpetrators over 5 years older, which would excuse me on both counts.

        I think harm is the most important thing, though. And if someone says they’re ok, they should be listened to. It’s very tricky and confusing for me because I believe in respecting other people’s narratives, but at the same time, the law brooks no ambiguity. Anyone over 18 is an adult. Anyone under 18 is a child. Really, with that distinction, it doesn’t even matter if there is only a day of difference between the ages.

        Frustratingly – to return to the topic of bullying – I’m pretty sure that the 18-year-olds in my sixth form who shared a video of a 16-year-old in year 11 having sex, resulting in her having to take all her classes on her own, such was the abuse she received, don’t consider themselves to be ‘child abusers’, when they probably should. The idea that people like that who are now in their 20s and have jobs see themselves as “law abiding citizens” really bothers me, since I feel that such bullying behaviour was deeply abusive and clearly resulted in a lot of harm for the victim. I can’t cope with cognitive dissonance and the way some people seem to be possessed of a scary lack of self-awareness. I don’t know if I’m much better, but I try really hard to self-analyze and consider my own actions and any harm I’ve caused.

        Sorry for the serious reply. It’s totally okay to bring up such topics, though!

        P.S. I don’t get the impression that you’re immature! And it’s no bad thing to be naive! People are too keen to be experienced and cynical and wordly. I’d much rather a whole world of naive and earnest people who don’t hurt anyone, than a world of mature, experienced people, who do 🙂

  2. MissHawkline September 6, 2014 at 10:43 pm #

    I don’t know much about the law, but I’d agree that language is a hugely important thing when it comes to stuff like that. The more I know about how to use it, the more secure I feel. It can be a little scary, too, though, because you need to make sure that everything is totally accurate. One of the things I find quite comforting about fiction is that language can be used in a more abstract way.

    Bullying is something that I really can’t stand at all. To me, it’s one of the worst things a person can do, especially because of how petty it is. My own experiences at school affected me in a very negative way. For years, I had a really bad attitude towards a lot of things and there are times when I’m still like that. I’m actually quite worried at the moment, because I’ve just found out that my new room-mates for this year are all boys, and I’m afraid it will be like school all over again.

    I’m sure you did as much as you could for Peter. 🙂 In general, you seem like a moral person, and the most anyone can do when it comes to bullying is to be there for someone. When I was in school, it was pretty obvious to everyone there that I was being bullied, but nobody took my side at all. It’s true that I kept to myself and didn’t have any close friends, but the few acquaintances I did have put most of the blame on me. But I’m trying to just forget all of that.

    People can be weird about what they consider right or wrong. My crossdressing would be seen as inappropriate or creepy by a lot of people (it’s something that I often feel strongly ashamed of because of this), yet serious crimes like harassment or verbal abuse are seen as more acceptable.

    P.S. Thank you so much! 🙂

    • cagewisdom September 7, 2014 at 4:20 pm #

      But you are in the leagues of cool people like Simon Hanselmann! 😀 Cross-dressing and anything that subverts gender norms is ace!

      I think the way people think about crime and morality can be very odd and selective, sometimes. I was really horrified and shocked to see so many people I know (mostly on the forum I use, but also over FB) looking at the recently stolen celebrity nude photographs… I mean, curiosity and boredom are no reasons to partake in abuse (not that there are any good reasons, but there’s something about the banal pointlessness of it all that depresses me deeply). I guess when lots of people do something, people start to worry less about being judged… it often seems to happen that way with bullying.

      I had a really lovely weekend with Peter actually. I’ve been trying to finish my thesis and have felt quite low recently so it was lovely to spend time together, even though we didn’t do very much. 🙂 I hope you’re not too anxious about the new year? Have you joined any societies?

      • cagewisdom September 7, 2014 at 4:32 pm #

        P.S. I hope that I am a generally moral person. It may be due to my OCD, but I am quite relentlessly guilty about having dated someone under 18 even though my ex herself told me a couple of times that she is ok and that I was seriously over-reacting… although I was only a few years older, some states have very serious laws in this area, compared to Europe (where the age of consent is always 16 or below) and I think growing up in England with the AoC at 16 meant that I didn’t think that much about it at the time. Sometimes I get quite despairing over it, but the main thing is that she doesn’t feel hurt or exploited or that she was a victim… but I’d certainly advise anyone who is still a teenager to date people within a couple of themselves; certainly if one is still under 18. I think once you get into your 20s it starts to matter less.

  3. MissHawkline September 14, 2014 at 2:07 am #

    Aw, thank you. 🙂 I’m trying to not feel that way about it, because I think I’ve ended up annoying a lot of people with my worries. 😛

    All that stuff about the nude photos was pretty awful. It’s scarily easy for people to end up doing something immoral like that. Too many people don’t seem to understand the consequences of doing something like that, or how big a moral failing it is.

    It sounds like you had a nice time. 🙂 I just started second year this week, and it hasn’t been as bad as I thought it would be. I haven’t joined any societies, and I don’t really go anywhere outside of my lectures, but I have managed to make some friends. I only get to see them occasionally, and they’re not close friends or anything, but I’m content with that. 🙂 I really can’t stand my room-mates, though. Luckily, I’ve managed to almost totally avoid them so far. 😛

    P.S. You seem like an extremely moral person to me, as well as disarmingly nice. It’s pretty understandable for you to worry about something like that, but I think the fact that you have worried so much about it shows that you’re a decent person. 🙂 Though I understand it’s not easy to just stop worrying about something like that; I tend to worry a lot about stuff, too.

    • cagewisdom September 18, 2014 at 11:58 am #

      I’m nothing if not earnest!

      “All that stuff about the nude photos was pretty awful. It’s scarily easy for people to end up doing something immoral like that. Too many people don’t seem to understand the consequences of doing something like that, or how big a moral failing it is.”

      Yes – this is a good paragraph. As I was saying with bullying… it’s casual cruelty that often upsets me the most. I’m not really scared by figures like Charles Manson because he is so obviously unbalanced – there is no way that he would ever abide by the laws of society because he simply doesn’t seem to have the moral faculties that most people have. I’m glad he’s locked away, but I don’t feel any loathing towards him since he’s so obviously irrational and paranoid and basically unwell. Whereas often bullying or stuff like people looking at the stolen photos are just done due to boredom or curiosity or just to pass the time… I think there’s something really disturbing in the way that such actions can mean so much to a victim, but so little to the perpetrator. It’s like when people who bullied you back in school try to add you on Facebook and you realise how little in meant to them… how they probably forgot about it as soon as they left through the school gates. There’s something really awful about that discrepancy.

      I think about morality way too much though!

      I’m really glad you have friends at uni, though I get the impression that you prefer a sedentary existence, which is fine too! I hope your irritating housemates haven’t been causing you any hassle.

      Are you studying anything interesting this term? 🙂

      • MissHawkline September 21, 2014 at 1:12 am #

        I’d feel the same way about stuff like that. The petty stuff people can do worries me a lot more than something like terrorism. What’s really scary is that a huge number of people just treat it as a joke. I suppose things are a lot better now than they would have been in my parents’ generation, but it still gets trivialised far too much. For example, in the sitcom Parks and Recreation, there’s one character who is constantly made fun of by the others for no real reason. It always unsettles me, especially since I otherwise love Parks and Recreation, and those mean-spirited moments don’t fit the show’s tone at all.

        I think that with cyber-bullying, people also don’t realise how awful it is because they can distance themselves from it. I feel that some of the people who looked at the nude celebrity pictures probably wouldn’t have done that if those were pictures of somebody they knew.
        The reason I left Twitter was because some of the people on it who I (foolishly) believed to be nice people, turned out to be the complete opposite. They refused to acknowledge that cyber-bullying even existed, mostly because they just wanted an excuse to bully people online themselves. The worst part is that they loved to blame their victims for the whole thing, accusing them of being over-sensitive and so on. They were pretty much some of the most disgusting people I have ever encountered in my life, and I feel horrified to think that I was ever associated with them.

        Sorry, I think I went off on a bit of a rant.

        Sedentary is a fitting way to describe me. 🙂 I spend most of my free time either online, writing or reading, which suits me nicely. 😛 I’m actually pretty surprised I managed to make any friends at all. I’m pretty shy, and don’t talk much. I really have no idea how everyone else manages to go out so often, or how they always know where their friends are. 😛
        Luckily, I got to move out of my first flat, and I’m now going to be sharing one with a foreign medical student. 😀 I haven’t met her yet, but I’ve been told she’s nice, and one person is definitely a lot less stressful than four. 🙂

        I’m still studying Creative Writing, which I love. (It’s a three-year course, and I have to also take Philosophy and English along with it.) This year we’re doing poetry. 😀

      • cagewisdom September 26, 2014 at 5:04 pm #

        That all sounds very promising! 😀

        I trust your course has been interesting so far and that you are settling in okedayle into your new flat?

      • MissHawkline October 5, 2014 at 2:34 am #

        Yes, very much so! 🙂 My neighbours are all really nice (and medical students, which is useful), and I’ve got my favourite lecturer again this term!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: