Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Quote

On the first ever live-streamed HDTGM episode, Paul, June, and Jason discuss the 2019 musical Cats. They talk about what exactly is a “Jellicle,” naked cats, magic, the existence of the butthole cut, and much more. Plus, some very special guests share their thoughts on the movie!

 

Listen to the Transformers For Charity episode over at https://www.hdtgminfo.com/

Subscribe to Unspooled with Paul Scheer and Amy Nicholson here: http://www.earwolf.com/show/unspooled/

Check out The Jane Club over at www.janeclub.com

Check out new HDTGM merch over at https://www.teepubli…wdidthisgetmade

Where to Find Jason, June & Paul:

@PaulScheer on Instagram & Twitter

@Junediane on IG and @MsJuneDiane on Twitter

Jason is Not on Twitter

I am really excited to talk about this. The commercial for CATS used to terrify me as a child. Then when the movie came out I paid $20 (!) for it. Why? Because I knew HDTGM would cover it. (And actually, in hindsight, I think the makeup and costumes that scared me so  much as a kid were a plus for the musical. Because if you went, at least you knew they put that amount of effort into it.)

Then I managed to actually miss the live stream.

The PFT opening made me happy. Too bad he wasn’t there for the livestream either. 

I want to talk about Ian Mckellen. I saw an interview with him when they asked him about the cat school. I believe it was Stephen Colbert. Because apparently the actors had to go learn the cat movement, which Paul mentions. And McKellen straight up was like “oh I didn’t go to that. I’m Ian McKellen.” 

I would bet June’s feeling that it came and went is because some actors did not go.

And when I watched the film, he and Jennifer Hudson were my faves. Hudson is obviously for her singing. McKellen isn’t a great singer. But I still liked watching him. I would posit that the “cat school” made people worse. 

Interesting when Jason says he thought kids invented Cats, because it is based on children’s poems by TS Eliot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Possum's_Book_of_Practical_Cats It is what an adult thinks kids want. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have a theory about the different amounts of hair that the Cats had.

If the whole point of this movie, if you can call it that, is for the cats to win the right to die, and then be reincarnated into a better life, maybe the amount of hair the cats had is to signify that they were the "Feline Death Champion of 1996" or whatever year they did it, and the extra patches of hair is used like the star whenever a national football team wins the FIFA World Cup.  So, you had some cats that barely had any, and then you had others that had died a bunch of times, which would also explain why it fit so well, they're not wearing hair that was taken from other cats, it's hair they won for being so good at dying.

That being said, I hate cats, and I hate musicals, so I didn't watch the movie, and I might be wrong.

  • Hedgehog 1

Share this post


Link to post

Right off the bat, I strongly disagree with Paul; This is a bad movie. It is a very bad movie.

IMO the thing that really annoys me is the amount of not-giving-a-fuckness that must have been going around during the writing and filming of this thing, the hubris - They really thought, " Well, Cats The Musical ran for I don't know how many years on Broadway, surely they'll lap up anything and everything we'll throw at them ". That scale thing is a basic thing that anyone ( Tom Hooper ) should have figured out on day one.

Add to that the fact about the FX people having 4 months to finish the whole film vs 6 months for the trailer, + having to work 90 hour weeks on something that was always going to be a trainwreck? Boo. 

giphy.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Based on the 2.5 scale (which would be linear for height but squared for mass) a 6' tall, 180 pound man, for example, would be about 2'5" and 30 pounds. That's still pretty heavy for cats, but you really can't expect cats and humans to have the same proportions.

Share this post


Link to post

I’m still listening, so maybe they get to it, but here’s what a jellicle cat is:

A jellicle cat is a cat who is destined to fulfill a specific purpose - railroad cat, theater cat, kitchen cat, etc. Even Macavity fulfills a role as an evil cat. To put that in human terms, Paul Scheer is a human being. Paul Scheer the human has free will and can be anything he chooses to be, but the “jellicle” version of Paul Scheer might be be Actor/Comedian Paul Scheer. In other words, that identity is the fulfillment of his destiny.

Essentially, the cats are striving for self-actualization and eventual reincarnation.  To use Paul as an example again, “Actor/Comedian Paul Scheer” might be his jellicle identity, but to qualify for the Heavyside Layer, Paul would have to be the BEST Actor/Comedian Paul Scheer he can be. Note: this doesn’t mean he has to be the best actor/comedian out of all actor/comedians, but the best actor/comedian *Paul Scheer* he can be. If you were to put it in Buddhist terms (which you 100% should), the Heavyside Layer would be like attaining Nirvana, and being a jellicle would be the equivalent of a bodhisattva - in other words, the step just before full enlightenment.

As for the plot, Victoria is an abandoned kitten. She is young and is just learning the nature of cats. She learns that on that particular night, one cat will be chosen for reincarnation as a reward for being the fullest expression of their specific cat type. Macavity, a bad cat, is up for reincarnation as well, because he is the fullest embodiment an evil cat. Macavity kidnaps all his competition, so when the choice is made, he will be the only option available. Eventually, the other nominees are freed, Macavity is stopped, and the Grizabella the Glamour cat is chosen - proving that, ultimately, its more about who you are on the inside rather than what you are on the outside. At the end, Dench tells Victoria that she too might one day become a jellicle cat - presumably a cat of love and kindness, as it is through her heart that the others are finally able to see the Grizabella for what she truly is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

To answer Paul's question about why Judi Dench's character is called Old Deuteronomy and not something more whimsical, I think it has to do with her role in the Musical, where she is portrayed as the wise magistrate of the feline world.  (And, to clarify briefly, we don't actually know that she doesn't have a silly name. Explicitly, we are told all Cats have three names. Implicitly, we are to infer that these names are: the name they are given by a human, the name they are given by other cats, and the name they give themselves. For all we know, her name is actually Wimblewuzzle or something equally absurd.)

Anyway, Old Deuteronomy is a name that was given to the wisest cat in T.S. Eliot's "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats." As a poet, T.S. Eliot was known for his use dense imagery and use of classical, often obscure, sometimes contradictory, allusions. The Book of Deuteronomy, of course, is the fifth book of the Torah, and is a series of sermons where Moses reminds the Hebrew people of where they came from, who they are (through their laws), and where they are going. The Shema Yisrael in Deuteronomy 6 helps to further solidify the Jewish identity.

In Cats, Dench's Deuteronomy plays a similar role. As she guides Victoria (and us) through the world of Cats. She tells us what cats should strive to be (jellicle), what they should avoid being (dogs), and where they hope to go (The Heavyside Layer).     

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

As a musical theatre actor and someone who went to school for musical theatre I wanna point out two things.

1. Andrew Lloyd Webber set a book of poems by TS Elliot to music so most of the lyrics are not his at all. That is why there is no story because it was originally just going to be a song cycle of poems set to music that eventually became a show.

2. I think it’s important to point out that Cats is more of a dance show than it is a singing show. This is why it doesn’t work as well in a movie platform. The real power of the show comes from the incredible dancers on stage dancing and doing great physical work and tricks and that is what makes it so compelling in person. That does not translate well when the whole movie is being done with motion capture. I you think of the show more in the sense of a cirque show that has always been more the vibes to me. More about the spectacle less about the over all story telling.  

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I've never left any comments, though I've been a listener for years. I have to say, this Cats episode is one of the best Paul, June, & Jason have ever done. Part of this is the source material and the contempt it breeds-- I watched Cats with a Discord group at the beginning of the lockdown and my attention span died within five minutes and never recovered-- but part of this is due to the agitation and anxiety of doing having virtual discussion of a baffling and craptastic movie (and cat-tastic 'classic' musical).

Jason seems on edge, and you know what? I feel ya friend. It's hard not to be on edge. Who wants jellicle b.s. with the isolation and the awful feeling one gets checking the news? T.S. Eliot wrote silly cat poems, Andrew Lloyd Webber adapted them into a stubborn and tiring musical, we were all subjected to a tiresome film adaptation with CGI-negated genitals, and we're all enjoying a collective sigh of relief-- from Cats and a very un-musical year.

Thanks guys! Love this podcast and am really enjoying this discussion as I telework and process endless paperwork. Hang in there, and thanks for the collective, cathartic "Fuck Cats!"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Did I hear Paul say it was “jellicle cats and police dogs”?  T.S. Elliot used the terms “Jellicle cats and Pollicle dogs”.  He came up with these names because that’s what it sounded like when his niece kept trying to say "dear little cat" and "poor little dog".

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I’m still listening, so maybe they get to it, but here’s what a jellicle cat is:

A jellicle cat is a cat who is destined to fulfill a specific purpose - railroad cat, theater cat, kitchen cat, etc. Even Macavity fulfills a role as an evil cat. To put that in human terms, Paul Scheer is a human being. Paul Scheer the human has free will and can be anything he chooses to be, but the “jellicle” version of Paul Scheer might be be Actor/Comedian Paul Scheer. In other words, that identity is the fulfillment of his birth.

Essentially, the cats are striving for self-actualization and eventual reincarnation.  To use Paul as an example again, “Actor/Comedian Paul Scheer” might be his jellicle identity, but to qualify for the Heavyside Layer, Paul would have to be the BEST Actor/Comedian Paul Scheer he can be. Note: this doesn’t mean he has to be the best actor/comedian out of all actor/comedians, but the best actor/comedian *Paul Scheer* he can be. If you were to put it in Buddhist terms (which you 100% should), the Heavyside Layer would be like attaining Nirvana, and being a jellicle would be the equivalent of a bodhisattva - in other words, the step just before full enlightenment.

As for the plot, Victoria is an abandoned kitten. She is young and is just learning the nature of cats. She learns that on that particular night, one cat will be chosen for reincarnation as a reward for being the fullest expression of their specific cat type. Macavity, a bad cat, is up for reincarnation as well, because he is the fullest embodiment an evil cat. Macavity kidnaps all his competition, so when the choice is made, he will be the only option available. Eventually, the other nominees are freed, Macavity is stopped, and the Grizabella the Glamour cat is chosen - proving that, ultimately, its more about who you are on the inside rather than what you are on the outside. At the end, Dench tells Victoria that she too might one day become a jellicle cat - presumably a cat of love and kindness, as it is through her heart that the others are finally able to see the Grizabella for what she truly is.

The term jellicle comes from the T.S. Eliot poems (and he can go fuck himself). There is CATS fandom controversy over its origins. I quote the sources from a Cats wiki.

  • Playbill: The National Theatre Magazine, April 30, 1991. Quote: "Eliot heard this word [Jellicle] from his young niece, who sounded as if she were saying "Jellicle cat" whenever she called for her "dear little cat" and "Pollicle dog" whenever she called for her "poor little puppy."
  •  The Letters of T. S. Eliot Volume 7: 1934–1935. Faber & Faber, May 30, 2017. Quote: "TSE's secretary replied, 25 June 1959: 'Mr Eliot has asked me to write and say that he does not wish to copyright the word "jellicle" and is quite content that it should be used without acknowledgement, so long as its use conforms to the definition of Jellicle Cats given in his poem about them. And jellicle, by the way, is not a diminutive of "angelical" but is a diminutive of "Jellylorum" which was the name of a cat of that description which Mr Eliot once owned.'"

The movie has Judi Dench say “dear little cat” so they are siding with the Playbill explanation. But I think it’s bullshit because even if you do a crazy British accent with a lisp I still can’t get from dear little to jellicle. 

I think Eliot just used his own cat’s nickname. But I tend to think this because I do not like these poems and think it’s all dumb and people pretend all his poems are great because they had to read PRUFROCK in school. 

 

Eta I agree with Cameron’s theory about self actualization in the context of the film and, probably the musical. I haven’t seen it. But I also think the film and the musical give this weird word significance just because it came from the pen of a Pulitzer Prize winner. And it’s just s stupid thing. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Brooklyndix said:

2. I think it’s important to point out that Cats is more of a dance show than it is a singing show. This is why it doesn’t work as well in a movie platform. The real power of the show comes from the incredible dancers on stage dancing and doing great physical work and tricks and that is what makes it so compelling in person. That does not translate well when the whole movie is being done with motion capture. I you think of the show more in the sense of a cirque show that has always been more the vibes to me. More about the spectacle less about the over all story telling.  

I haven’t seen it, only the commercials. But the dancing and spectacle always seemed like the draw of CATS, not the story. In the film they cast the ballerina as the main cat but then you never really get to see her do what I assume she can do. You just never got a cool dance sequence. Did they not have a choreographer or something? It was very flat. 

And, as June mentioned, they danced down the aisles and came out at the audience. 

There is nothing about the film that POPS that way. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

There was a lot of confusion about what Cats is supposed to be about, but per the great theater director Harold Prince, Andrew Lloyd Webber already told us what it's about.

It's about cats.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

I think Eliot just used his own cat’s nickname. But I tend to think this because I do not like these poems and think it’s all dumb and people pretend all his poems are great because they had to read PRUFROCK in school. 

 

Eta I agree with Cameron’s theory about self actualization in the context of the film and, probably the musical. I haven’t seen it. But I also think the film and the musical give this weird word significance just because it came from the pen of a Pulitzer Prize winner. And it’s just s stupid thing. 

I tend to agree. I think, because of Eliot’s erudition and the density and scope of the allusions found in his work, that there’s a bit of literary FOMO - now and from his contemporaries. I always felt, particularly in college, there was a fear that if you admitted that you didn’t like him, you were opening yourself to accusations of “not getting it” regardless of whether or not your criticisms had any merit.  (Personally, I’m more of an e e cummings man.)

But, yeah, with these inviolable literary genius types, there always tends to be a move to over analyze their work — even when all signs point to it just being something they threw together on a lazy afternoon.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

I haven’t seen it, only the commercials. But the dancing and spectacle always seemed like the draw of CATS, not the story. In the film they cast the ballerina as the main cat but then you never really get to see her do what I assume she can do. You just never got a cool dance sequence. Did they not have a choreographer or something? It was very flat. 

Part of it is that Tom Hooper is a terrible director for musicals. He doesn't get the stylistic needs at all. Everything about the Cats movie indicates that the director is striving for a kind of in-your-face realism. Yeah, that's right, for freakin' Cats!

The way Hooper insists on recording the singing live on set, using CGI to make it all look like "real" fur, the way his hand-held camera is constantly moving and shaking around in medium and close-up shots of the actors . . . it's all a horrible way to do a musical that relies on big group dance numbers for its "wow" factor. I'm not sure that ALW musicals translate well to the screen anyway, but Hooper makes the wrong choices whenever possible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

What I don't understand is why this movie is so dark and serious. CATS is meant to be fun and silly. Heck, the stage show breaks the fourth wall all the time. This show is meant to be for kids, so I have no idea why this movie is so sexual. It's alienating your biggest market! I heard many parents walked out of this thing after 10 minutes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

 T.S. Eliot ... can go fuck himself).

I think Eliot just used his own cat’s nickname. But I tend to think this because I do not like these poems and think it’s all dumb and people pretend all his poems are great because they had to read PRUFROCK in school. 

 

21 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

I tend to agree. I think, because of Eliot’s erudition and the density and scope of the allusions found in his work, that there’s a bit of literary FOMO - now and from his contemporaries. I always felt, particularly in college, there was a fear that if you admitted that you didn’t like him, you were opening yourself to accusations of “not getting it” regardless of whether or not your criticisms had any merit.  (Personally, I’m more of an e e cummings man.)

But, yeah, with these inviolable literary genius types, there always tends to be a move to over analyze their work — even when all signs point to it just being something they threw together on a lazy afternoon.

I'll admit that I like "Prufrock" -- not because it's a particularly great poem, which it isn't, but because that post-war nihilistic stuff is what I most enjoy reading. It's basically the only thing Eliot wrote that I ever enjoyed reading ("Wasteland"? More like "waste" of time, amirite?). 

I put Eliot in the same category as Matthew Arnold -- their poems are pretentious and melodramatic and pedantic because they're critics on top of being poets, so all their work has the air of self-gratification and certainty in how brilliant they are. Their poems are so much "uncontainable expression of self" and more "flexing what I know about good poetry." Eliot reminds me of what I remember someone saying about Axl Rose during the Use Your Illusion records -- every song has to do everything that that Axl Rose knows how to do as a musician, just to show that he knows about great music.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure that this was mentioned in the episode but -- there actually is a Heaviside Layer. The Kennelly-Heaviside Layer, to be exact.

wpdc867bf8_05_06.jpg

Apparently this layer is reflective of radio waves, and bouncing these waves off the sky makes it possible for them to reach beyond the horizon.

I suppose this could mean that sending a Jellicle to the Heaviside Layer for a new life could literally mean just sending them into the stratosphere so that they'll land somewhere far away, thereby beginning a "new" life?

The layer was discovered by British physicists in the 1920s, which is around the time Eliot started writing poetry, so odds are this was a word he overheard at a tea party sometime, and 20 years later, he used it in his cat poems.

EDIT TO ADD: the dumbest thing about this is that it was named for the guy who discovered it -- Oliver Heaviside.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post

I’m not sure we should just breeze right past the fact that Paul referred to Grizabella the Glamour Cat as...the “sex worker” cat?!?

The cats in the movie are supposed to represent real cat personalities, traits, and behavior. For example, Rum Tum Tugger is supposed to evoke a horny alley cat, while Mungojerry and Rumpleteezer represent the more mischievous nature of cats. Even the more fantastical cats like Mr Mephistopheles, represent cats who do amazing, seemingly magical things. You know what cats aren’t known for? Sex work. I’m...not even sure what that would even be.

Basically, Grizebella is a cat who was once beautiful and pampered. She had a cushy life, but has since fell on hard times. She would have been a cat you’d put in a competition or something. And while it’s never mentioned explicitly, I believe the audience is supposed to come to the conclusion that, as she grew older and her beauty began to fade, she was abandoned by her owners. This leaves her in a decidedly un-jellicle existential dilemma. What happens to you when you can no longer be the thing you were born to be? Not only that, what happens when you lose your entire support system when you learn that the love you thought you had turns out to be superficial and conditional?

The song “Memories” is Grizebella remembering the good life she used to have, wishing she could go back there, accepting that she can’t, and trying to find the courage to carry on.

So, while there is certainly nothing wrong with sex work as a profession, no, Grizebella is not meant to represent a “sex worker cat.”

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not a fan of musicals but I can understand why and how this got the cast and budget that it did as it was from the world record holder for longest running Broadway play that has won God knows how many awards and by all accounts is a pretty well regarded piece, but holy hell it's clear that's where all reason or thought ended with this movie. It is also clear having seen the final result that they should have stuck with practical costumes for the cast as it was in the theatrical production because the CGI is clearly someone's attempt at turning the world against actual cats in an attempt to get rid of them. Also, I know having actually seen what the musical Cats is about, which is fuck all, I can honestly say that another batshit Andrew Llyod Webber musical, Starlight Express, makes infinitely more sense and logic with a defined plot. If you don't know what Starlight Express is, it's literally a musical about toy trains racing to see who is the fastest train in the world and the cast wear roller skates throughout the entire performance and actually race on a track built onto the stage. THAT makes more sense than this shit show.

Share this post


Link to post

For those who missed the stream, they played this during the live episode:

Release the butthole cut!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

For those who missed the stream, they played this during the live episode:

Release the butthole cut!

Well this episode and this forum has really fucked with my browser algorithm as this is the link that was recommended to me when I opened a new tab.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-cats-show-you-their-butt-according-to-science?utm_source=pocket-newtab

  • Like 2
  • Hedgehog 1

Share this post


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

I’m not sure we should just breeze right past the fact that Paul referred to Grizabella the Glamour Cat as...the “sex worker” cat?!?

The cats in the movie are supposed to represent real cat personalities, traits, and behavior. For example, Rum Tum Tugger is supposed to evoke a horny alley cat, while Mungojerry and Rumpleteezer represent the more mischievous nature of cats. Even the more fantastical cats like Mr Mephistopheles, represent cats who do amazing, seemingly magical things. You know what cats aren’t known for? Sex work. I’m...not even sure what that would even be.

Basically, Grizebella is a cat who was once beautiful and pampered. She had a cushy life, but has since fell on hard times. She would have been a cat you’d put in a competition or something. And while it’s never mentioned explicitly, I believe the audience is supposed to come to the conclusion that, as she grew older and her beauty began to fade, she was abandoned by her owners. This leaves her in a decidedly un-jellicle existential dilemma. What happens to you when you can no longer be the thing you were born to be? Not only that, what happens when you lose your entire support system when you learn that the love you thought you had turns out to be superficial and conditional?

The song “Memories” is Grizebella remembering the good life she used to have, wishing she could go back there, accepting that she can’t, and trying to find the courage to carry on.

So, while there is certainly nothing wrong with sex work as a profession, no, Grizebella is not meant to represent a “sex worker cat.”

I hate to disagree with you, forum Paul. But I do think that is a logical conclusion based solely on the film. Sure the poems are for kids and it’s a family musical, but in the FILM the cats are weirdly sexualized. And the Taylor Swift song , if I recall correctly, has catnip and it is sort of implied she is bewitching them. I don’t know. I got the impression she was once like the Taylor Swift cat and then she sort of fell into prostitution. Why else is she out on the STREET? She became a streetwalker! 

I don’t think Andrew Lloyd Webber would say she’s a sex worker... but, again, the movie is weirdly sexual in a way that I don’t like. And that is what I thought she was as well until I fell down the poetry rabbit hole (still mad at T.S. Eliot). 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

I hate to disagree with you, forum Paul. But I do think that is a logical conclusion based solely on the film. Sure the poems are for kids and it’s a family musical, but in the FILM the cats are weirdly sexualized. And the Taylor Swift song , if I recall correctly, has catnip and it is sort of implied she is bewitching them. I don’t know. I got the impression she was once like the Taylor Swift cat and then she sort of fell into prostitution. Why else is she out on the STREET? She became a streetwalker! 

I don’t think Andrew Lloyd Webber would say she’s a sex worker... but, again, the movie is weirdly sexual in a way that I don’t like. And that is what I thought she was as well until I fell down the poetry rabbit hole (still mad at T.S. Eliot). 

I have to respectfully disagree, forum June. While I agree some of the cats are sexualized, and there are certainly hints of promiscuity (Rum Tum Tugger and Taylor Swift’s cats, for sure), I would argue that Grizebella is one of the only cats that isn’t sexualized. And, I have to stress, an assumption that McCavity is her pimp feels patently absurd. I don’t believe they even share a single scene together! 

I just don’t see any evidence of prostitution. I’m not even sure what would be exchanged for sexual favors. Cat treats? Is it coded in a language that I just don’t understand? I guess I need something more solid then, “She just comes off as a sex worker.”

I think it’s exactly as it says on the tin. Just like they have literal railroad cats and literal barge cats, she was literally a glamorous cat. I think her tragedy is far more universal. It’s essentially, “I used to be amazing, but things went bad, and now everyone’s forgotten about me. So much so, that, even to myself, I am completely unrecognizable as the being I once was.”

I think a more apt parallel for Grizebella would be aging actress - which, to me, makes a lot of sense for a stage production. In her heyday, she used to be center stage, but despite her obvious talent, she got pushed further and further to the wings, until one day, her agents just stopped calling altogether. This is why she gets the big number at the center of the movie. She’s saying, “Look at me! I still have worth! I’m more than just the pretty face I used to be!”

Again, there’s nothing wrong with it if she is supposed to be a sex worker, but to make a superficial assumption based on, I guess, how the character looks, without further evidence to back that up, feels fraught to me. Not to mention that it seems to completely miss the point of the character.

  • 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

×