Super (2010)

2011 #71
James Gunn | 96 mins* | Blu-ray | 1.85:1 | USA / English | 18 / R

SuperIf Kick-Ass was the fantasy version of “ordinary man becomes superhero” then Super is the hard-hitting, suitably-silly, ‘real’ version. And it’s not often you get to describe a film in which God rips the roof off a house, reaches down with anime-inspired tentacles, slices open a man’s head and plants an idea in his mind — literally — as “hard-hitting” and “real”.

It stars The Office’s Rainn Wilson as odd diner cook Frank, whose wife (Liv Tyler) leaves him for a local drug dealer (Kevin Bacon). Inspired by a cheap TV show starring Christian superhero the Holy Avenger (Nathan Fillion) — and the aforementioned finger of God — Frank sets out to fight crime as costumed hero the Crimson Bolt. Researching power-less heroes at the local comic shop, Frank meets Libby (Ellen Page), whose equal weirdness leads to her helping him and becoming his sidekick.

Super seems ready-made for cult status. Not in the self-conscious way of something like Snakes on a Plane, but in the genuine way of a film that’s quirky and different. It’s a comedy, but one with brutally realistic violence and visions of demons and faces in vomit. Unlike Kick-Ass (the blatantly obvious point of comparison, not least because they were made and released around the same time), He's in your hoodwhich moves fairly swiftly into the fantasy of being a successful superhero, Super stays quite grounded. The ending allows itself to be a little more triumphantly heroic, but not far beyond the bounds of realism (unlike Kick-Ass).

It emphasises the likely real-life difficulties of being a ‘superhero’. Frank has to get out books on sewing to make his awkward patchwork costume; he goes out on patrol, only to find no crime whatsoever; when he finds out where the drug dealers are, he gets beaten up; other crime he fights include “butting in line” (or, as we’d call it on this side of the Atlantic, queue jumping) or car-keying; and half the people recognise Frank despite his mask. No mob-level gangsters played by Mark Strong here.

Realism is the overriding principle throughout, from characters to dialogue to acting to fighting to direction. Obviously Frank’s visions (the tentacles, the demons, the vomit-face) are extremely not-real, but as representations of his mental delusions thy get a pass. Gunn’s direction has a rough, ultra-low-budget feel, yet can be quite stylishly put together when it needs to be, suggesting he’s made a choice rather than isn’t capable of something slicker. It’s even more effective at making the film seem real-world than the usual Hollywood handheld-and-grainy schtick that passes for realism.

Gunn says that his film is “about the deconstruction of the superhero myth. Who is Spider-Man or Batman? We assume that they are heroic characters but, Messed-up heroesreally, they are deciding something is right and something else is wrong”. The psychology of superheroes has been a factor to one degree or another for decades now, not least the Batman films making the parallel between the hero and his villains, but the difference in Super is it’s not a parallel — it’s primarily the heroes who are messed up. The villains are criminals and quite nasty at times, but they’re mostly quite normal. They may deserve their comeuppance, but wisely — and interestingly — they’re not over-written or over-played to heighten them to the level of the psycho-hero. The Crimson Bolt is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, even more so than Batman in Begins or (of course) Kick-Ass. Those two are at least going up against the top of big organised crime; Crimson Bolt just faces a local drug dealer.

The heroes are disturbed even outside their chosen vocation: Frank has weird visions, odd catchphrases, extreme reactions to relatively trivial things; Libby is secretly ultra-violent, gets off on their costumes, etc. Gunn says the film asks if it’s “psychotic for someone to put on a mask and a cape and go out and battle what they perceive as being ‘evil’?”, but I don’t think it sets out to specifically psychoanalyse these people. Still, it makes clear how barmy you’d have to be to give the superhero thing a go yourself. That said, Gunn argues that “I don’t think [Frank] necessarily is crazy.Boltie Super is about a troubled human being and his relationship with faith, morality and what he perceives as his calling… I think that is part of why we gave him Ellen Page as a sidekick — because her character, Boltie, actually is insane. The Crimson Bolt is not doing what he does because he enjoys hurting people but Boltie is and that is the difference between the two of them. It starts to become a concern when you enjoy the violence.”

A great cast brings these factors out with ease. Wilson does deranged hero well, not overplaying the comedy side of it. Page is suitably hyper as Libby, capturing a particular facet of The Youth of Today perfectly (again). Bacon is a fantastic villain, not so much menacing or psychopathic as just… I don’t know. That’s almost why it’s so good: it’s hard to say where he’s gone with it. Also worth singling out is Michael Rooker, playing Bacon’s top henchman, Abe. It could have been quite a basic henchman part, but he makes it more with expressions and line delivery (certainly more that than the lines themselves). He’s the only one on the villain’s side who realises the Crimson Bolt might actually be a threat. You kind of want him to cone through in the end, to turn good and live; but he does his job, which is probably truer.

All-action climaxFor all its grounded reality, Super lets loose in the final fifteen minutes, creating a punch-packing sequence that’s the rival of any comic book movie. It’s emotionally-charged action, all the more powerful for its semi-amateur-ness and realistic brutality. It climaxes in a face-to-face between our hero and the villain which is as good as any you’ll find in such a film. Is it revelling in the extremity of its violence? You might argue it is, but I don’t think it’s celebrating its gore so much as the triumph of its hero. And that’s followed by a neat epilogue, which I won’t reveal details of but is a kind of ending I’ve been wanting to see for a while.

Between the comedy, the ultra-violence, the rough edges, the slick climax, the characters’ silly catchphrases, the well-worded climactic face-off, you could argue Super has an uneven tone. I would disagree, as would Gunn: “I agree that the structure and tone of this film is very atypical… I enjoy films that surprise me and which are not formulaic and take twists and turns that I do not see coming. My life doesn’t roll along to just one ‘tone’ — one day it might be a comedy and the next a tragedy”. I’ve said in the past and I’m sure I’ll say it again: I wish more po-faced dramas would realise this.

All the technical elements come together to support the film’s main thrust. There’s a great soundtrack, mixing some choice bits of score by Tyler Bates, finding the appropriate quirky tone generally but adjusting to an action vibe for the climax, with an obscure selection of songs that seem well-chosen but not too heavy-handed. As an example, it includes Good eggsa decade-old track by Sweden’s 2007 Eurovision entry (they came 18th of 24. Don’t laugh — we were joint 22nd). And, despite the low budget, there’s great special effects. The tentacles are the rival of any big-budget movie; the blood and guts are all gruesomely realistic, not filmicly censored or reduced or cheaply fake; handdrawn-style Batman “kapow”s (etc) are very effective. The title sequence, in a similar style as the latter, but with a dance routine, is also a ton of fun.

So, to the big question: is Super better than Kick-Ass? I’m not sure. Personally, I loved them both. Some people will hate both, perhaps for different reasons. Gunn acknowledges there’s a definite connection: “I understand why people keep mentioning Kick-Ass… but let me clear this up. I wrote the script to Super in 2003 and worked on it for a long time… I think that the similarities are apparent, but I still wanted to get this story out there. I think what works in our favour is that people think it looks like Kick-Ass on the outside but when they see it they realise that we are less cartoonish and maybe a little more unpredictable.”

I certainly agree that it’s to Super’s advantage that it’s quite different to a regular film; more uniquely styled than Kick-Ass’s mainstream aims. Indeed, as Gunn also says,Fight! “I think that so many movies today try to be everything to all people and I’m a little sick of it. Super is not for everyone. It is for some people.” And for the people it’s for, I think it’s exceptional. If you were to compile a list of the greatest superhero movies, I believe Super’s unique style and perspective — plus its excellent climax — would earn itself a place right near the top.

5 out of 5

Super is on Sky Movies Premiere from tonight at 12:15am, continuing all week.

Super placed 5th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2011, which can be read in full here.

All quotes taken from an article by Calum Waddell in Judge Dredd Megazine #313.

* I first watched Super on the UK Blu-ray, where it runs 92 minutes thanks to PAL speed-up. The US BD (my second viewing) runs the correct 96. Image quality was better too, I thought, though if you’re considering a purchase do note it’s Region A locked. ^

Catwoman (2011)

aka DC Showcase: Catwoman

2011 #85a
Lauren Montgomery | 15 mins | Blu-ray | 1.78:1 | USA / English | 12

CatwomanIncluded on releases of Batman: Year One, Catwoman is an action-orientated short starring Catwoman (obviously) chasing down gangster Rough Cut because two of his goons tried to shoot a puddytat. OK, there’s more to her motivation than that, but that’d spoil the ending.

Being a short it has a brief plot, especially as Montgomery seems to have decided to make it all about the action, be that a car chase, a punch-up, or a striptease — of which there are two. But this is PG-13-ish animation, so don’t fret, it’s all cleavage and conveniently draped hair. That said, such gratuitousness could just add fuel to the fire of those who objected to DC’s controversial portrayal of Catwoman in her New 52 title the other month. This emphasis works well for a short — the plot is slight because there’s no time to develop it, there’s not much dialogue, just a visual feast of fluid fighting.

The titular womanThe quality of the action sequences outweigh anything seen in the main Year One feature. They’re original, exciting and very fluidly animated. Apparently Montgomery is known in fan circles for liking a bit of violence and trying to add it to the action in DCU films she’s worked on, and that’s in evidence here too. It gives it an edge, I think.

If you like a bit of animated action, this is a satisfying and well-staged piece.

4 out of 5

The Gruffalo’s Child (2011)

2011 #94a
Johannes Weiland & Uwe Heidschötter | 26 mins | TV | 16:9 | UK / English | U

The Gruffalo's ChildShown on BBC One over Christmas, this animated adaptation of Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler’s The Gruffalo’s Child is the sequel to the Oscar-nominated adaptation of Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler’s The Gruffalo (of course). For my money, it’s every bit as good as the first film.

Indeed, you could re-read my review of the first film and apply the same comments here. The pace is still considered — or, to be less polite, slow; but beautifully so. Though this time they’ve thrown some action sequences into the mix (yes, action sequences) to help round out the short picture book to a full half-hour film. Perhaps surprisingly, they work. The voice cast are the same, with the addition of Shirley Henderson as the titular girl-beast, and she fits in perfectly.

The CG animation retains the original’s “is it claymation?” feel, though the wintry setting allows the animators to really show off with some truly stunning snow. Most of the film goes for an appropriately cartoony style, but the various types of frozen water on display could pass for the real thing.

Lovely stuff, then, and thankfully every bit the equal of the first (which, in my opinion, the book isn’t). There was no nomination forthcoming at this year’s Oscars, but then with their complicatedly specific eligibility rules maybe it wasn’t released soon enough to qualify. Maybe next year.

4 out of 5

Faintheart (2008)

2011 #97
Vito Rocco | 88 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | UK / English | 12

FaintheartApparently MySpace had some hand in the creation of this movie. Remember MySpace? It’s what there was before Facebook. It was always rubbish, it just took a lot of people a long time to realise that. Anyway, some reviews seem to dwell on its involvement in the production of this movie — whole articles exist asking if it’s just a gimmick — but, looking at it as a finished film, I don’t know why: if you didn’t know (and, to be frank, even if you do) you’d never tell the end product had anything to do with that antiquated social network.

Faintheart isn’t about social networking… at least, not in any modern sense. It’s about battle re-enacters; or rather, it’s a Brit-rom-com that uses battle re-enacters as its USP. “Brit-rom-com” should give you a fair idea of the territory we’re in, although this has a geekier edge than most, which plays to the sensibilities of someone like me. One character owns a comic book store, for instance. It doesn’t play an overt part in the plot, but battle re-enacting stands in for any kind of niche pursuit. And it does make for a better-than-average climax. Swords always do.

Not-so-recognisable facesMost of the cast is drawn from the pool marked “British character actors” — you may or may not know the names, but you’ll probably know most of the faces. The lead is Eddie Marsan (Lestrade in Sherlock Holmes and A Game of Shadows; all sorts of other stuff, too much to even begin mentioning), his wife is Jessica Hynes (Spaced; all sorts), Ewen Bremner is his mate (Trainspotting; all sorts), Tim Healy (Auf Wiedersehen, Pet; all sorts), Anne Reid (dinnerladies; all sorts), Kevin Eldon (all sorts)… You may see a theme developing. And there are others, but they had even fewer things they were known for, or I didn’t recognise their names on the IMDb cast list.

Anyway.

Faintheart isn’t exceptional. Apparently it didn’t even get a theatrical release (though I remember someone coming on some chat show to promote it). Even if it was crowd-created through MySpace, that hasn’t made it something especially different, nor too stereotypical that it’s ruined. It’s not likely to be remembered in the never-ending pantheon of Brit-rom-coms, but for one with a slightly different edge I think it deserves better than it’s got.

3 out of 5

(I originally gave it four stars. Looking back, that felt generous. For once, I tweaked it. Guess I ought to go fiddle with my stats now…)

RED (2010)

2011 #88
Robert Schwentke | 111 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

REDRED here stands for “Retired, Extremely Dangerous”, a description bestowed by the CIA on a group of former agents who, for reasons I won’t go into — because, quite frankly, I can’t remember — fight back against the Agency when someone starts trying to kill them.

RED is just one in a recent array of tongue-in-cheek action films; films that aren’t strictly comedies but aren’t wholly serious either, meaning they can push their action sequences to ludicrous extremes and get away with it. They’re also a lot of fun and I love them. I love a gritty and serious Bourne as much as your next man, or a traditional action film too, but there’s also room for films that are daft, fun, knowingly silly rather than just ridiculous. Films like The A-Team, Knight and Day and RED — and I’ve enjoyed all of them.

So (to slightly repeat myself) it’s all daft, but it’s all fun. The action is thoroughly OTT, but inventive with it. It manages to be very amusing as well as quite excitingly action-y. It even begins as a rom-com, which is an interesting tactic. It’s not what you’re expecting from an action movie, but surely no one is ever going to watch this and be fooled? Does anyone watch films completely unaware of what they are?

Mad MalkovichNaturally, considering the theme, the cast is made up of older actors — a neat twist on the usual action movie format of making people younger and younger. Expect this to spread, especially as anyone that could still just about be dubbed a movie star is ageing, replaced only by flash-in-the-pan teen idols. They’re all great because they’re all great actors. Well, Bruce Willis isn’t a Great Actor like Helen Mirren or Morgan Freeman, but he can do an action movie and he can do humour well enough. John Malkovich is as barmy as he always is, but here it works. Sometimes things just line up like that. Karl Urban also gives another solid supporting turn. I’m sure he’s had a few lead roles at this point, but maybe this autumn’s Dredd will finally cement him as a viable action leading man.

Stray thought: it’s set at Christmas, despite an autumnal release date. An extremely subtle Die Hard reference? There doesn’t seem to be any other reason for it.

If I have one criticism it’s that it’s perhaps too long. It begins to drag a little in places and is unable to sustain its own craziness throughout the third act. But until then it’s a lot of fun, and after decades of Very Serious action movies, isn’t it nice to be allowed to have fun?

4 out of 5

5 Years of 100 Films, Part 6

7x7 Link AwardAs a final salvo in my fifth birthday celebration (yes, normal service resumes next week), here’s something I was kindly awarded by Colin of Riding the High Country… back in December. Couldn’t find quite the right outlet for it. Or, to be more honest, couldn’t think of the answer to one of the questions. You’ll spot my solution.

But now is most appropriate, because what better time for such a self-reflective award than when I’m already looking back at five years of my own blog? Hurrah! Thank you, Colin.


1) Tell everyone something that no one else knows about.

100 Films is certainly my most successful blog, in terms of both longevity and readership, but over the years I’ve set up loads of others for various reasons. To give you some idea of how good I am at sticking at them, there are nine blogs currently associated with my Blogger account and here’s how long each lasted, arranged from shortest to longest:

0 posts
1 post
1 post
1 post
29 posts
40 posts
91 posts
3,749 posts

OK, one other I stuck at.


2) Link to one of my posts that I personally think best fits the following categories:

Most Beautiful Piece
I suppose there’s an element of interpretation involved when applying this category to a film review blog. I toyed with a few where I got clever with the pictures (try the filenames on that last one), but decided that was too literal and I should look at the writing. So I say Is Anybody There?, because I think I did a decent job of tapping in to and explaining the film’s own beauty.

Most Helpful Piece
I don’t know if I’m ever particularly helpful, but my review of Inception is ludicrously long and detailed and was described as “great” — that must have something useful in it, right?

Most Popular Piece
I looked to my hit stats for this, but the top few are bolstered by regular spam hits (based on where my spam comments go) so I thought I best discount them. Instead I’m going to say my reviews of The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight: The IMAX Experience, a connected pair that sat pretty atop my list of most-viewed posts until the spam started flooding in. (Neither are in the top 10 any more, but, as I said, I don’t trust that.)

Most Controversial Piece
I wouldn’t say I’m all that controversial… though I did put the widely reviled Alien Resurrection in a top ten, so… But it’s not my love for that I’ve chosen, but instead Sucker Punch. It was slagged off by everyone, but I was impressed enough to defend it for over 1,900 words.

Most Surprisingly Successful Piece
Looking back, this one surprises me even now: Wallander: The Revenge, the theatrically-released second season premiere of the Krister Henriksson Wallander series. It got three comments — that’s a lot for me anyway, especially on something like that — and is the second most-viewed post. But that might be spam.

Most Underrated Piece
All of them! No, I jest. There are a few lengthy in-depth ones I could choose, but maybe I’d go with Trainspotting — I was very pleased with the concept behind that one.

Most Pride-worthy Piece
I could say the fact that I’ve written lengthy reviews of all seven Saw films, but that would be seven posts not one. Looking back, I surprised myself with how many of my reviews I’m actually quite proud of, so I’m going to really cheat and say two, for different reasons: Ministry of Fear, because I liked the idea of how much I go on about the cake and I think I nailed it (unlike some of my other attempts at humour), and Watchmen, because it’s rare one gets to write a well-informed review on a blog all about first viewings, and I think that (and its companion Director’s Cut review) are exactly that.

I feel like I should now go on to highlight seven that fail in these regards (especially as I’ve basically cheated and linked to 23 posts across those seven categories), and I’m sure I could, but maybe that wouldn’t be in the spirit.


3) Pass this award on to seven other bloggers.

This is where I once again realise I don’t read enough blogs. It rather defeats the object to leave this one out (it’s called a “link” award, after all), but I fear I shall have to return to it at a later date. But I will — I’m making a list, and checking it twice.

(That I’m actually Santa would’ve been good for that first fact, eh.)


That’s it!

Time to stop patting myself on the back and get back to regular business. And so, I shall.

5 Years of 100 Films, Part 5

100 Films in a Year is five years old this week, and to mark the occasion I’m having five days of top fives from the past five years. On Monday I bemoaned the five worst films I’ve seen as part of this project, on Tuesday I slammed the five most overrated, on Wednesday I lamented the five most underrated, and yesterday I selected the five best.

For today’s final list, then, I’ve chosen…


My 5 Favourite Films

Dark CityDark City
A strong contender for “most underrated” — despite being championed by the likes of Roger Ebert, Dark City still seems to have slipped largely under the radar. It’s a dystopian sci-fi tale that thematically prefigures The Matrix trilogy, without getting as bogged down in its own self-importance as those sequels did.

The Dark KnightThe Dark Knight
I haven’t seen this since the cinema, so maybe there’s a degree of nostalgia in my love for it. Or maybe it’s just a great action-thriller that happens to star a man who dresses as a bat (not that Batman actually looks like a bat). At the time I asserted it was one of the greatest films ever made, and IMDb’s Top 250 continues to bear that out: it’s currently 8th.

Kick-AssKick-Ass
Controversy dogged Kick-Ass‘ release, both for its foul-mouthed murderous pre-teen and geek hype not translating to box office dollars. Those who dismiss it underrate it (some high-profile critics were shockingly blind to its intentions) and only a US-centric view holds it a flop: it did OK Stateside, well worldwide, and was a huge hit on DVD & Blu-ray.

Sherlock HolmesSherlock Holmes
After placing this 8th on my 2010 favourites (behind six not included here) and seeing it again, I’ve realised I love it. Funny, exciting, with some of the best-directed examples of how it would feel to be Holmes. Plus it’s got a proper mystery with a proper solution. It may not be a traditional take on the character, but it’s surprisingly faithful and bloody good fun.

Zodiac Director's CutZodiac: Director’s Cut
I love David Fincher’s work, and this was a toss up with The Social Network, but I think I prefer his methodical examination of the real-life hunt for a serial killer and how it affected the lives of the people hunting. With some top-flight performances and virtuoso directing, this might actually be Fincher’s best film. And that’s saying something.


Honourable Mention: Léon (Version Intégrale)
Léon Version IntégraleLéon is one of my favourite films. I’ve loved it since a friend lent me the VHS at some point in secondary school. And that’s why, though the extended Version Intégrale was different enough to merit inclusion on the main list (it’s some 23 minutes (21%) longer), I would feel uncomfortable including it in a list culled from new films I’ve seen in the past five years. But it’s still one of my all-time favourites.


P.S.

I note that all but one of these (plus Léon) were new releases during 100 Films‘ existence. Is it a good or a bad thing that my tastes skew modern? I do like older films — I’ve given plenty five stars and regularly enjoy watching them, as I’m sure you’ve noticed — but I don’t tend to place many on my lists of favourites. I wonder why?


And so that’s that…

Five years, 545 new films (not to mention 28 new shorts and 25 other features I decided to review), and just 25 that stuck in the memory. And if you disagreed with any of my choices, particularly if you felt there was something else I’d reviewed that I should have included, then know that I had much longer shortlists for every category. I could do these lists over and quite easily choose another 25; and probably even over again after that; and for some of them, over a few times more beyond that.

But that’s the joy of films, and why we keep searching out new ones rather than only re-watching a few on loop, and why that’s the driving force behind my entire blog — because there’s so much good stuff out there.

Long may it continue.


Tomorrow…

OK, I’m not quite done. One final anniversary-y post tomorrow, then I’ll leave it be. It’s not some stats, but something else I thought appropriate.

5 Years of 100 Films, Part 4

100 Films in a Year is five years old this week, and to mark the occasion I’m having five days of top fives from the past five years. On Monday I bemoaned the five worst films I’ve seen as part of this project, on Tuesday I slammed the five most overrated, and yesterday I lamented the five most underrated.

Choosing films for all of these lists has been tough, but I think today’s was hardest of all. I could easily list another five or ten or twenty films here (Let the Right One In came closest, for some reason; I could also have had The Greatest Film of All Time, which was one of the reasons I left it out — you don’t need me to recommend it (not that some of these need that either)), but these are what I’ve settled on as…


The 5 Best Films

Anatomy of a MurderAnatomy of a Murder
I’m not one of the hardcore devotees of the crime genre (the many millions who buy the endless stream of crime paperbacks or watch all the TV cop shows), but I love a great thriller, and this is certainly one. Expertly judged by director Otto Preminger, with a barnstorming performance by Jimmy Stewart, this is a procedural tour de force.

Brief EncounterBrief Encounter
Truly a film of another era; one where a romantic affair consists of cups of tea, discussions of the weather, trips to the cinema, tea, guilt, indecision, and more tea. First-class writing, direction and acting convey all the repressed emotions that make it truly British. That and the tea. It may be of another era, but it still shines today.

MM
Inspired by real cases, Fritz Lang’s prototypical thriller tells of the hunt for a child killer by both the police and the criminal underworld. Innovative filmmaking helps tell a story that still thrills today, with themes that have an enduring relevance. Loaded with moments of pure cinema, M is essential viewing for any fan of the medium.

RashomonRashomon
So influential its name has become an adjective, Akira Kurosawa’s film is still the archetypal story about conflicting accounts of one event because it does it so well. There are many imitators, but few have done it with such conviction. Add beautiful cinematography, music and performances and you have a masterpiece.

United 93United 93
Before he got sidetracked into action filmmaking, director Paul Greengrass helmed documentary-esque dramas about real events. Here he brings those skills to bear on ‘the other plane’ from 9/11, the one crashed in a field by its brave passengers. But he doesn’t deify them — these are ordinary people in a horrible situation. For that truth, it’s all the better.


Honourable Mention: Blade Runner: The Final Cut
Blade Runner The Final CutAfter a couple of decades, Ridley Scott was finally able to realise his ideal Blade Runner. Some prefer the 1992 Director’s Cut; some even like the largely-ignored original release; but, unlike his Alien Director’s Cut (which he admits is an older man having a fiddle), this is Scott’s definitive version. It’s a great film, and by finally existing I deemed it eligible for inclusion, but really it’s a tweaked version of the Director’s Cut and I’d seen that before.


To be continued…

Tomorrow 100 Films’ birthday celebrations continue with my final top five: my favourite films from my last five years of viewing.

After that… well, we’ll see.