Jump to content
Welcome to the new Earwolf Forums! Read more... ×
JulyDiaz

Sophie’s Choice

Sophie’s Choice  

10 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Does Sophie’s Choice belong on the AFI list?

    • Yes
      5
    • No
      5

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 11/30/18 at 08:00 AM

Recommended Posts

This week Paul & Amy travel back to 1982's love triangle / Holocaust drama Sophie's Choice! They ask whether Stingo is supposed to be an actual good writer, marvel at the energy of a young Kevin Kline, and break down what makes Meryl Streep's work in this film so legendary. Plus: dialect coach Samara Bay (Loving, Wonder Woman) talks to Paul about the intricacies of nailing an accent-based performance.

 

Help us introduce next week's episode on A Clockwork Orange in your own Nadsat-style language! Just call the Unspooled voicemail line at 747-666-5824 with your intro. Follow us on Twitter @Unspooled, get more info at unspooledpod.com, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts.

Share this post


Link to post

At the risk of being unpopular, I didn't really like this movie much at all. It was a chore to get through. I can respect it for its acting. Kevin Kline really surprised me out of everyone. Other than the scene with titular choice and one of the scenes of Kevin Kline viciously berating Sophie, this didn't do anything for me. I can respect it but otherwise a big meh.

I don't know if I just wasn't in the mood for this kind of movie when I watched it. This one just felt like homework.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I’m not done with the episode, but I’m shocked how they feel like Stingo is some kind of interloper into Sophie and Nathan’s relationship. From the beginning, for reasons that are unclear, they are the ones always pulling him into their vortex. Now, if you were to ask Stingo, I’d say *he* would probably say that he was an interloper, but they are the ones coaxing him to play piano with them. He doesn’t just say, Move over, I got this.” They invite him to dinner. They invite him to Coney Island - and not, like, Melvin or any of the other residents of the house. I feel like they see Stingo as being like them - an artist and free spirit- but in desperate need of experience.

I mean, another visual metaphor I would  point to is the three of them in Sophie and Nathan’s sex hammock. To me, it’s not that he’s a third wheel so much as the whole relationship is somewhat open and fluid. 

In my opinion, I also wouldn’t classify  Stingo as “incel” as that implies a certain level of anger and entitlement that I just don’t feel is present in his character. He doesn’t hate or resent Nathan. He doesn’t act like he’s “owed” anything - at least not to me. I don’t feel like he’s just pretending to be her friend in order to get close. He just feels naive, which is something he tells us right at the beginning. He hasn’t had a life yet and is suddenly faced with two people who have lived too much life.

Honestly, I’m still surprised that Amy and Paul (And iTunes apparently) classify this as a romance, but if we are, then I’d say the romance is between all three of them. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Yea, I haven't listened to the ep yet... I usually do it on my commute and today is off, so I'll refrain from too much commentary until I do listen. 

But I agree with Cameron about the 'romance' and categorization of Stingo. I saw some description calling it a 'love triangle / holocaust movie' and I really think that misses the point entirely.  I'd argue Stingo wasn't actually in love with her, and I think Sophie knew this and he probably did too. He was just inexperienced and sucked in and wanted to give her an 'out'.  Maybe there's a little infatuation with 'the girl next door', but still, not love. I don't think 'love' was really in this movie at all, not real romantic love anyway, it was more like, intense relationships just to cover up or distract from feelings/life.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I know she probably won’t see this, but Amy, please call out Paul when he mispronounces names on the podcast -  Stango vs. Stingo.  We don’t need another Ron Silver/Ron Silva situation 😂

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't listened to the episode yet due to Thanksgiving, but if someone could also get the Rick & Morty clip that's referencing Sophie's Choice, that'd be great. I'm pretty sure it was from the Morty Mindbender's episode.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, AlmostAGhost said:

Yea, I haven't listened to the ep yet... I usually do it on my commute and today is off, so I'll refrain from too much commentary until I do listen. 

But I agree with Cameron about the 'romance' and categorization of Stingo. I saw some description calling it a 'love triangle / holocaust movie' and I really think that misses the point entirely.  I'd argue Stingo wasn't actually in love with her, and I think Sophie knew this and he probably did too. He was just inexperienced and sucked in and wanted to give her an 'out'.  Maybe there's a little infatuation with 'the girl next door', but still, not love. I don't think 'love' was really in this movie at all, not real romantic love anyway, it was more like, intense relationships just to cover up or distract from feelings/life.

Exactly. Most of all, I think the movie as about survivor’s guilt. Sophie not only survived when her entire family was killed, but at least partially did so by employing morally murky methods, and Nathan is a Jewish man who, most likely due to his mental issues, wasn’t able to fight in the war. The subsequent rage that he feels he takes out on his non-Jewish girlfriend.

As I said in my Letterboxd review, the movie seems to be making a point that sometimes the cruelest fate is to survive. How do you move on?

At the end of the movie, Stingo finds himself - for the first time in his life - faced with the same dilemma. He’s the survivor. “My loved ones are dead, how do I possibly move on?” But he gives us hope with the new sunrise.  And we discover that he makes himself the writer he’s always wanted to be (derivative or not). His journey suggests that while we may never fully heal, if we take the lessons we learned from our loved ones, it is possible to live life again.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

In my opinion, I also wouldn’t classify  Stingo as “incel” as that implies a certain level of anger and entitlement that I just don’t feel is present in his character. He doesn’t hate or resent Nathan. He doesn’t act like he’s “owed” anything - at least not to me. I don’t feel like he’s just pretending to be her friend in order to get close. He just feels naive, which is something he tells us right at the beginning. He hasn’t had a life yet and is suddenly faced with two people who have lived too much life.

I was really surprised that Stingo was labeled an incel and came here to see if anyon else picked up on this.  I can’t say that I’m an expert on the subject, but aren’t incels usually characterized by their contempt towards humanity?  I feel like if anything, Stingo had a huge heart and he genuinely loved both Sophie and Nathan.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, tomspanks said:

I was really surprised that Stingo was labeled an incel and came here to see if anyon else picked up on this.  I can’t say that I’m an expert on the subject, but aren’t incels usually characterized by their contempt towards humanity?  I feel like if anything, Stingo had a huge heart and he genuinely loved both Sophie and Nathan.  

Stingo didn't come across as an incel to me either. You're right that incels, at least on my understanding, are pretty misanthropic (with a pretty strong focus on hating women). There's a world of difference in my mind between an incel and guy who is inexperienced with sex. Stingo strikes me as the latter.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, grudlian. said:

Stingo didn't come across as an incel to me either. You're right that incels, at least on my understanding, are pretty misanthropic (with a pretty strong focus on hating women). There's a world of difference in my mind between an incel and guy who is inexperienced with sex. Stingo strikes me as the latter.

My understanding is that there's also a decent amount of disagreement even within the "Incel" community on what qualifies someone as an incel.

Maybe you could call Singo a potential incel recruit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

My understanding is that there's also a decent amount of disagreement even within the "Incel" community on what qualifies someone as an incel.

Maybe you could call Singo a potential incel recruit.

Maybe...but he doesn’t seem to me all that interested one way or the other. He seems to legitimately care for Sophie. I feel like incel-ism is inherently narcissistic (e.g. If women won’t have sex with me they must be evil) which I don’t feel like Stingo projects at all. I’d say he’s, at best, mildly frustrated in love, but not debilitatingly so.

And it’s not like Stingo is secretly plotting against Nathan the whole time. He loves both of them. It’s not like he’s like, “Of boy, now’s my chance to make my move.” I think he would have been perfectly happy if Nathan and Sophie were together forever. He’s crying just as much for Nathan at the end as he is for Sophie. 

I just found the whole love triangle take really weird. I never got that at all. And I feel like “Stingo as incel” is really cynical. Not that there’s anything wrong with a healthy dose of cynicism, but sometimes things just are as they appear. There aren’t always ulterior motives. He loves her. As a friend - and maybe more. But he does love her.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, now that we've defended Stingo from being categorized as some kind of angry, misogynistic creep there was another take I kind of had an issue with.

I believe Paul was putting forward the idea that Sophie "didn't actually need anyone" and was kind of manipulating people to take care of her. Did I mishear that? Because, man, I feel like that's a really bad take. I'm not saying Sophie isn't smart, or isn't capable, but I'm not sure that she possesses that kind of guile. I think she needs Nathan and Stingo insofar as they give her a reason to live at all. If it wasn't for them, she probably would either be dead from all of the things she was afflicted with or finally committed suicide.

I don't know that we need to make her some kind of Machiavellian super hero who just uses the men around her for survival - if for no other reason than I don't feel like after the war survival is her goal. I think Sophie wants peace and forgiveness. Sophie is supposed to be us if we were in that situation: flawed and scared and desperate. And imbuing her with some kind of supernatural ability to exploit people in that way seems to really be missing the point and actually lessens the impact of her story. Yes, she absolutely tries to manipulate people, but I'm not sure if it ever actually works. She tries to use her race, education, and background to save her kids, and ends up getting her daughter killed. She tries to use sex and her background to save her son, and she ends up losing him as well.

Also, since I've finished the episode now...I'm not saying Eternal Sunshine isn't a good movie, but if the suggestion is that they are somehow comparable, that's crazy. I cannot stress enough that Sophie's Choice is definitely, 100% not a romance. (No more than The African Queen is a wacky, buddy road trip movie). Just because two people are in a relationship in a movie, doesn't mean it's a romance. That would be like saying Starship Troopers is a porn because there's sex in it. What makes Sophie's Choice special is that there really aren't parallels. As I mentioned in my Letterboxd review, I can't think of another movie, or book for that matter, that really captures that time in history. Usually when we deal with holocaust movies, we're either dealing with it directly or as something that happened in the past. Sophie's Choice is immediate. Here is a survivor. She is two years out of an unimaginable nightmare, what does she do now? Here's a young Jewish man who didn't fight in the war, how does his guilt affect him and his relationships? Here's a writer who has been blessed with a life of blissful ignorance, how does he react when faced with the ugliness of the real world?

What it's not about is falling in (romantic) love, dating, and kissing under the moonlight.     

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

As I mentioned in my Letterboxd review, I can't think of another movie or book for that matter that really captures that time in history.

Not survivor of the Holocaust story, but Hiroshima, mon Amour came to mind in terms of comparable movies of what does do when what they cared for is lost.

It doesn't have the guilt-ridden, and I'd say self-destructive qualities of Sophie for hating herself for actively choosing her daughter to die. (I haven't listened to the episode yet, but Sophie's relationship is an abusive one, and her return to it seems driven by self hatred).

I wish I remembered Jules et Jim better (or at all, beyond just not clicking with it/was just expecting something else.  It's been a few years since I've seen it and it just didn't stick in my mind) for a weird (emotional) throuple-like situation.

Since I noticed Sophie's Choice is on filmstruck, I noticed it listed Au Revour, Les Enfants as a related movie.  So I'm trying to get through that as well, before filmstruck goes away, just for another point of comparison. Because, also, I didn't actually like this movie. Amongst other things, I don't really care for 80's melodrama, so I'm kinda of wondering if 80's French drama plays differently to me.

What I'm saying is, this movie is starting to seem like an almagan of other movies I've seen and I felt like the various parts might have been underserved because of it.

I also think all the lying Sophie does is as much for emotional coping with herself (not having to face the past) as much as it is to be considered acceptable to Kevin Kline's character.  I'm not sure how well the movie would play a second time with that knowledge. Since I didn't enjoy the movie overall, it probably wouldn't help too much, but it might enrich repear viewings for people who did. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

Okay, now that we've defended Stingo from being categorized as some kind of angry, misogynistic creep there was another take I kind of had an issue with.

While I agree fully he isn't the angry incel creep, if we want to go with modern internet terms, I think he qualifies as a bit of a 'white knight', which is a bit of a misogynistic thing itself.  I mean, it's tough, because almost certainly she needed saving. But that's not for Stingo to determine. It's also a fairly youthful, naive attitude, though, so it fits, imo.

Also further, I just got to Amy describing Sophie and Nathan being so madly in love, but I truly don't think so there either. Nathan built their entire relationship on lies, and she was just trying to feel something different/bury her past. That's not love, and I have a hard time seeing it as romantic in any way, or getting over analysis that leans on that. *shrug*

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

It doesn't have the guilt-ridden, and I'd say self-destructive qualities of Sophie for hating herself for actively choosing her daughter to die. (I haven't listened to the episode yet, ut Sophie's relationship is an abusive one, and her return to it seems driven by self hatred).

100% It's all wrapped up in this wish to live and a desire to die. He gives her life, but promises death.  

However, I don't agree that she hides it from Nathan to be "more acceptable." I think, without necessarily knowing it, she senses that he's not exactly stable. An analogy might be that we have some friends we share certain aspects of our lives and others we just go out to clubs with or whatever. She shares her story with Stingo because she trusts him. She doesn't share it with Nathan because that's not the role he plays in her life.

I am pretty sure, though, that Nathan is at least partially with Sophie as a kind of a holocaust trophy. Like, he wasn't put in a Concentration Camp and feels guilty about it, so he kind of gets off on being with - and being the savior of - someone who has. You know...like in all the great romances. 🙄

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

While I agree fully he isn't the angry incel creep, if we want to go with modern internet terms, I think he qualifies as a bit of a 'white knight', which is a bit of a misogynistic thing itself.  I mean, it's tough, because almost certainly she needed saving. But that's not for Stingo to determine. It's also a fairly youthful, naive attitude, though, so it fits, imo.

Also further, I just got to Amy describing Sophie and Nathan being so madly in love, but I truly don't think so there either. Nathan built their entire relationship on lies, and she was just trying to feel something different/bury her past. That's not love, and I have a hard time seeing it as romantic in any way, or getting over analysis that leans on that. *shrug*

Of the two, "white knight" is definitely the more appropriate term. I think Stingo is a good person. I think his heart is in the right place. I also think he is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of his depth. I think he is doing the best he can from the perspective of his insulated, middle-class, white boy world - whether that's helpful or not is another thing.

re: "Romance" That's how I feel about it, too (clearly :) ) I was talking to a friend yesterday about iTunes sales and told her that Sophie's Choice was listed under "romance" which I felt was insane. And then the episode begins with Paul and his "You got your Romance in my Holocaust movie..." bit and I was like, "Oh no..." 

::pushes Sophie's Choice across the table back to Amy and Paul:: Why don't you show me where you think the romance is...   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

What I'm saying is, this movie is starting to seem like an almagan of other movies I've seen and I felt like the various parts might have been underserved because of it.

That's also kind of how I feel about it. I certainly don't think it stinks or anything. Meryl Streep's performance is brilliant and unassailable, and the most effective scenes (which I found to be the flashbacks to Sophie's past) do indeed carry a lot of power.

But to me the movie feels unbalanced, with everything in Sophie's flashbacks carrying a ton of stakes and everything in the "modern" story with Stingo feeling comparatively weightless and unimportant. The modern relationship stuff could carry its own movie, but the juxtaposition with Sophie's Holocaust story feels awkward to me. It really comes to a head when the scene revealing the nature of the titular "choice" is immediately followed by a scene of Stingo and Sophie going to bed and Stingo's syrupy voice-over describing it. To me it feels a bit like they are trying to equate or compare the climaxes of these stories, and it feels like the wrong choice.

Again, not terrible. Better than the average movie. But I would personally not vote for it to stay on the list.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think the difference for me is the past/present is less a "juxtaposition" and more as a continuation. The later 'romantic' story is just as much a story of her surviving as the Holocaust scenes are.  That is tragic too.  And in the end, she didn't die in a concentration camp, she died trying to survive after the War ended and just could not get through it.  The stakes were still high, life or death.  I get the critique of Stingo, he is indeed syrupy and fairly weak, but I don't think halving the story in to parts A & B is how its meant to be viewed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, AlmostAGhost said:

I think the difference for me is the past/present is less a "juxtaposition" and more as a continuation. The later 'romantic' story is just as much a story of her surviving as the Holocaust scenes are.  That is tragic too.  And in the end, she didn't die in a concentration camp, she died trying to survive after the War ended and just could not get through it.  The stakes were still high, life or death.  I get the critique of Stingo, he is indeed syrupy and fairly weak, but I don't think halving the story in to parts A & B is how its meant to be viewed.

I don't think it's supposed to be viewed as two different halves, but that's how it feels (and actually, more like 2/3rds and 1/3rd, but still discrete).  And my guess is it comes from so much time being spent on Stingo and his perspective.  I can understand the idea of having a naive person coming to terms with realizing how emotionally complex another person's life is (or two, if we count Nathan), but something in the execution of it all just really doesn't seem to work.  Currently I'm attributing it to Stingo's point of view, which due to his sexual inexperience takes up and feels like it frames too much of the film. (for example of how the movie is focused on his love interests; apart just from him being a narrator, we get the whole story of the one woman "who was really horny after she got into analysis."  If his point of view wasn't supposed to be a focal point or lens of the movie, then that scene becomes superfluous.  Stuff like that).

This is really starting to contrast in my mind to Hiroshima, mon Amour*, which is a movie I really need to rewatch, because that's one of those, "I watched it much longer ago than I now realize, only once, but really liked it" movies.  I would watch it on filmstruck, but I think I actually bought it on iTunes at some point, and I want to focus on the filmstruck movies I'm likely to not be buying before it goes dark for some months.

*: Just for the people who haven't seen it, it's about two people who have just become lovers in Japan, a French woman and a Japanese man.  They have both lost someone in the war (here's a hint, for the man, the movie is called Hiroshima, mon Amour. The woman's case is more complicated), and the movie is about how and if they can move on from their losses and dealing with the memory of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

 Currently I'm attributing it to Stingo's point of view, which due to his sexual inexperience takes up and feels like it frames too much of the film. (for example of how the movie is focused on his love interests; apart just from him being a narrator, we get the whole story of the one woman "who was really horny after she got into analysis."  If his point of view wasn't supposed to be a focal point or lens of the movie, then that scene becomes superfluous.  Stuff like that).

 

I'm not sure I'd consider two brief scenes as “too much” in a two and a half hour movie. Especially since I feel like - as parallel scenes - they are important in showing Stingo's maturation. 

I think people might be placing too much emphasis on Stingo's sex life, or at least, emphasizing the wrong things about the sex scenes. Sex as a metaphor for the transition to adulthood - for both genders - is such an old concept that's it's cliche. Once Stingo is presented with the entirety of Sophie's story, he himself is no longer innocent. He is confronted with the atrocities of the world, he can put his childhood behind him  - physically, emotionally, and intellectually.

I think what might be a big part of people's problems with the scene are two lines in the voice over. The part where he says he was "22 and a virgin" and the part where he holds her up as a "goddess." And I think this might come down to a misinterpretation based on modern sensibilities. While it might come off to modern ears as "And at long last I was having sex!" it's really about crossing over the threshold into manhood. I feel like him mentioning he was 22 in that context would be like if in a modern film the character said "I was 18." The point of both of the scenes isn't about sex exactly, but his personality growth. The sex is just a metaphor. 

As far as holding her up as a goddess, while it might seem a bit condescending and chauvinistic, if we look at it with less cynicism, Stingo is saying - after hearing all of the terrible things that Sophie did and had done to her - that he still sees her as he ever did. He sees her for what she really is and he doesn’t care. To him, she's still perfect.

Essentially, her story is the refutation of the fantasy "If I had been there with my gun, that shooting wouldn't have happened" and the confirmation of "If you want to know what you would have done when Hitler rose to power, you're doing it now." Sophie was oblivious to what was going on until the day she actually listened to her father's lesson. Once she did, she visited the ghetto and realized that she hated her father, and by extension, her husband. However, despite her progressive views regarding the extermination of the Jewish people, she repeatedly sells them out in order to save herself and her children. So when Stingo admits, after hearing her full story, that his feelings haven't changed, it gives Sophie, a lapsed Catholic, a modicum of absolution. (I don't think the fact that the love scene begins with her on her knees is an accident.) However, even though she might be forgiven by Stingo, and by extension the viewer and perhaps God, she still can't forgive herself - which is what drives her back to Nathan. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say that I mostly agreed with Amy and Paul on this one.  I think this is a really great movie, and I think it's my toughest call yet on whether or not I think it belongs on the list.  As great as I think it is, I also can see Amy and Paul's argument that it somehow feels inessential.

As far as whether Stingo is an "incel", in terms of the literal origin of the portmanteau, "involuntarily celibate", Stingo is that, undeniably.  If it weren't for the kind of creepy and mostly useless scene with Leslie, the voluntariness might be more up for debate.  As far as the current vitriolic connotation the term has, maybe I wouldn't go that far in applying it to Stingo.  But that said, I still think Stingo is an uninteresting character.

For me, the movie is interesting in studying Sophie's character, and, as Cameron H. put it, how can she move on after surviving what she did.  The way that question is posed and answered in the film, mostly through Meryl's Hall of Fame performance, is why I ultimately come down on the side that this does belong on the list.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

well, I don't know what I was expecting, but that wasn't it. It was definitely an interesting film watching experience. It was much more captial-A "artistic" than I thought.

I couldn't help but think how much like The Great Gatsby it was in set up-- the narrator, first-person, finding himself a somewhat passive wheel among a central trio.  Also, it felt very "European cinema" in some ways. 

my biggest criticism kept echoing in my head throughout the film -- and strangely was echoed by Paul as well. I shouted "I KNOW!" when Paul said how "play-like" the movie was. To me, that's both a praise and a criticism. It makes for a rich experience of art, but notably more for the writing and acting, but lacks a "scale" (yes, aside from the very important flashbacks). This is certainly a personal preference, so I'm not arguing it's a bad movie. It's just that if I'm ranking it against other AFI grand-scale pictures, it by definition will be lower on the list. 

Although I did put All About Eve in my personal top 10. Go figure. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, bleary said:

I

For me, the movie is interesting in studying Sophie's character, and, as Cameron H. put it, how can she move on after surviving what she did.  The way that question is posed and answered in the film, mostly through Meryl's Hall of Fame performance, is why I ultimately come down on the side that this does belong on the list.  

So, then, is it an advantage or disadvantage that Sophie, arguably the central character, is only experienced by way of a first person (and male) narrator? I was really looking forward to a woman-centric film only to grumble in the first few minutes when I realized I was getting "Nick" from Great Gatsby. The service to the story is that it becomes a mystery and allows for some twists of narrative, but the disadvantage is that it really is quite trope-y. Sophie is very un-manic and un-pixie, but she essentially serves as manic pixie dream girl for both Nathan and Stingo.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

That's a tough question.  Seeing this story from Sophie's point-of-view, though, would probably make it triple the level of depressing, no?  Probably better to view her through someone else's eyes.  While I agree with concerns that maybe Stingo was an odd choice for narrator, I'm not sure it should have been through her.

36 minutes ago, DannytheWall said:

Sophie is very un-manic and un-pixie, but she essentially serves as manic pixie dream girl for both Nathan and Stingo.  

Hmm that's interesting.  What did she show Nathan?  If anything, he was the manic pixie one giving her (and Stingo) some sort of life.  

I don't know, I just don't think this movie is quite the trope-filled story as everyone else seems to.  

That said, Amazon Prime is suggesting all these sexy dramas to me "because I watched Sophie's Choice"... so maybe I should have found it more basic and romantic. 🤪

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×