Up was a heckuva lot of fun.
It did get a little toothgrinding, though, that Ellie, Carl’s wife, ended up dying before she could have HER adventure, and it was a little too pat that, once he actually looked through her adventure book, he discovered all the pictures she of the two of them together with a message to him “I’ve had my adventure [being with you], now go on and have some of your own!”. As if THAT hadn’t been an adventure for him, also?
I’ll admit that I cried a fair amount..okay, an effing lot, because Pixar manages to push all the right buttons of, “They Really LOVED each other“, and okay, that’s fine. That’s what these movies are supposed to do.
But it rankled afterward upon reflection that there were no other women in the movie until the very end, when Russell’s stepmother? mother? nanny? –it’s never made clear– makes her presence known in the audience at the very end when he gets his Explorer Badge. How hard could it have been for Russell to be a little girl? After all, Ellie was a spunky, lively, funny, intense and amazing little girl (we only get to know her as an adult through a montage). Did the filmmakers think they shouldn’t repeat it with a different little girl? I guess that’s what they were going after. Why not have the boy’s troop be a Campfire troop with both girls and boys in it? Only boys are allowed to have real adventures that take them all over the globe? Girls are satisfied with the adventure of marriage and relationship bliss?
There’s a huge pack of dogs in the section of the movie that takes place in Venezuela. Can you believe that the dogs were all male, too? How did they make more dogs? Where did the puppies come from for all those years? Were they all hidden in some secret whelping cave dutifully making puppies by the score?
I don’t want to make it sound like I hated this movie: No, I liked it, a lot, and it’s gorgeous and the story just whisks you along with poignant character moments. And it is nice to see Carl’s devotion to Ellie, his dead wife, throughout the movie. I think it is wonderful that there’s a decent animated movie with a geriatric main character. It was also great to see them meet as children, and then spend their entire lives together. That’s the kind of marriage that I think everyone who’s married wishes they could have.
But I am disastisfied, once out of the theater, at the message below all the fun in this movie: Girls, you can dream about having an adventure; Boys, you can actually LIVE the adventure.
{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }
Next Comments →
It makes it hard. It makes me love the movie a little less, and it makes me decide to put Pixar on notice. Try to include women as central characters who have adventures of their own, or learn to live without my money.
Eileen(Quote) (Reply)
Did you notice this stuff while you were in the theater, or once you were out of it?
What harm would it have been to the story if they’d had children? Was that to point out that Ellie was a Good Little Wife who really really really wanted kids and missed that part of her adventure with Carl?
Even as the movie was getting the emotional reactions out of me, I was getting unhappier and unhappier with the message I was getting.
Gategrrl(Quote) (Reply)
Man, every review I find of this move is *exactly* what I wrote! I had the very same problems with this. I am glad I am not the only one – I mean I LOVED this movie and it just kills me that stuff like this still bugs me in these awesome, awesome films.
@Gategrrl – I notice stuff like this the whole way through. I’m usually sitting here, very aware that I’m waiting for a woman to show up. In this case, once they were in the clouds I knew a woman wasn’t going to show up (you kind of knew the old timey explorer was going to be the villain), and just tried to not let it spoil the movie for me.
The fact that there is a prominent Asian character who is not a stereotype has mollified me somewhat. But I mean, I can’t sacrifice one for the other. Why couldn’t he have been a girl!!
TallyCola(Quote) (Reply)
Also! Did anyone else think it was a little weird that the two characters in the short before the movie were male? I mean technically, who knows what they were, but I felt they were both coded as male. And like – were they in a relationship or what? I really liked the short, but it was totally about love and acceptance and families. If they wanted to show two males loving each other unconditionally and making families together, despite how hard it is – awesome. (Actually now that I’ve written that I wonder if that really was their intent, and I kind of like it).
BUT I think it would’ve been more interesting if the cloud had been a female. I think only one of the clouds we saw was female. I mean, I got all these vibes of creation and motherhood and, like, this cloud not being able to do it “right”, not be able to produce and nurture the right kind of baby, and being rejected by everyone else because of it. Except for the stork who really loved the cloud.
I guess either message is okay. What do you think?
TallyCola(Quote) (Reply)
To some extent, I think your criticism is slightly off-target. Up is a movie about an old man who befriends a young boy. It is narratively cohesive, internally consistent, with generally well developed characters. Just because the film happens to show males having adventures does not logically imply that females can’t or shouldn’t have adventures as well. Taken on its own merits, the film isn’t a put-down of women; that the story features a man and a boy does not count against the film it and of itself.
It is entirely fair, however, to point out that the industry continues to favour male characters over female characters. There are dozens of Ups for every Coraline. I too would like see more female character, although personally, I’m tired of seeing female character cast as violent action heroes – as if being equal to men means sharing the same capacity for violence.
Speaking of violence, I think there lies my biggest peeve with Up. But since I’ve already written about that elsewhere, I’ll shamelesslyplug my review at The Front Page Online.
@TallyCola: I don’t understand why it would be more interesting for the cloud to have been female. Why is it that when it comes to children and creation, the first association to be made is with motherhood? What about fatherhood? Except for Finding Nemo, I can’t really think of many positive expressions of fatherhood, Just my two cents, though. I don’t know that it makes sense to assign gender to clouds.
Frederik Sisa(Quote) (Reply)
I have no complaints with the character development, or the internal consistency, Frederick. That was not at issue, and has, really, nothing to do with my complaints about the film.
By sliding Ellie into the dead magical presence who guides Carl (through her My Adventures scrapbook) at the end, and ends up getting her dream *postmortem*…it reeks of the same sort of denial that women have had to endure for ages. Other than Ellie, the absence of any other woman or female figure–Dug the Dog could have been female, but wasn’t–why? is keenly felt and realized after you realize…hey, there’s only one woman again, toward the end of the movie.
Oh, there IS the bird, a female, named *KEVIN* a male name; Russell assumes it’s a male before thinking of anything else. And then, not only is it discovered it’s female-it’s only female because we learn the bird’s main motivation is its *babies*.
A man and his boy and his dog and his male-named bird.
Sure. I’m off target. Not.
Gategrrl(Quote) (Reply)
And let’s see…other movies that Pete Doctor has had story credits for:
Monsters, Inc..a favorite of mine, with three female characters in it. A buddy film, like Up.
Wall-E- story credit-another well-done story in a universe that hangs together, with genderized machines (see the articles related to this here on Hathor)
Toy Story, and Toy Story 2, story credits. Plainly, Pete Doctor loves buddy stories. *Nothing* wrong with that; many women love buddy stories, too.
With the exception of Wall-E and Toy Story 2, however, the women in these stories are minimal, usually relegated to minor side-roles or romantic roles…just like many other dozens of films Hollywood churns out.
That Pixar makes fantastically animated CGI Buddy movies doesn’t take them out of the running for criticism.
Gategrrl(Quote) (Reply)
It is entirely fair, however, to point out that the industry continues to favour male characters over female characters. There are dozens of Ups for every Coraline.
I’d say there are hundreds of Ups to every Caroline, actually. Movies targeting kids seem to be especially dedicated to leaving girls out of the adventure roles, which I find even more troubling than the tendency of movies for grown-ups to do the same thing.
I don’t think Gategrrl was arguing that it puts women down in any way. It doesn’t need to. It sidelines us and reinforces the idea that boys “do” and girls are content to just “be”, and that’s troubling enough right there.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Oh, and, just to mention it, there is a new Disney movie coming out featuring…a Princess! The promotion for it was shown just before Up started. This time, however, it’s an inversion of the Princess and the Frog story moved to New Orleans. The bad guy looks like a crazed New Orleans voodoo caricature.
Once again, if you’re a girl, you’re gonna get adventure—ONLY if you’re a Disney Princess with a Prince on your hands!
Where are the Coralines, please, even if they happen to add male characters into the storyline for fear of offending or chasing off the boys from the theater?
Gategrrl(Quote) (Reply)
TallyCola, the short that played before Up was another expression of the formula that Pixar has so excellently exploited so far (to varying degrees): the Buddy Story!
It was charming, it was sweet, it was perfectly timed with its jokes. I have no complaints about it, per se. It’s been a few days now since I’ve seen it, so I don’t recall whether or not the all the other clouds were coded male or female or not. Many of them seemed to be coded male–it was obvious which ones were coded female.
But it did set the tone for Up very well.
Gategrrl(Quote) (Reply)
I’m sorry if suggesting your criticism is off target offends you, Gategrrl. Not my intention; I apologize. But…I still maintain that your argument only makes sense within the pattern of how the film industry operates. On its own, the film does not make any grand points beyond what you interpret it to make. The exclusion of female characters does not, in itself, imply that female character SHOULD be excluded. And just because something, like Ellie’s note in the album, happens (or doesn’t happen) doesn’t mean it should (or should not) happen. The point is that individual characters and stories are not symbolic of universal characters and stories. What you see is what you get; what it means is open to interpretation, which can never be fixed.
Your example with Kevin is, I think, a case of this kind of overinterpretation, especially considering we’re talking about a bird and not a human. A boy sees a bird, calls it Kevin, and later learns she’s a female because she has babies to defend. Seems like a perfectly sensible way to tell what sex an animal is – many animal species cannot be differentiated by looks alone, and in many bird species, it’s the male that is colourful while the female will have duller plumage. From a biological/zoological standpoint, the scenario works, and I think it pokes fun at Russell’s assumption rather than reinforces the maleness of it all.
My disagreement is not with the idea that Pixar is guilty of doing too many buddy movies – it is, and Disney is far worse – or that there are disproportionate amounts of male-centric films, which of course there are, but with the notion that Up, itself, has a message that “Girls, you can dream about having an adventure; Boys, you can actually LIVE the adventure.” Or, as Jennifer puts it, that “It sidelines us and reinforces the idea that boys “do” and girls are content to just “be”. What we see is an old man and a boy going on an adventure after the death of a much-loved woman. The movie’s meaning lies in what we see.
In fact, I would argue that Up isn’t so much a problem in terms of female stereotypes but a problem in that it perpetuates negative male stereotypes – that male adventures must involve violent chases (dogs biting birds), guns (must have guns!), and a callous disregard for human life (Muntz trying to kill everyone, maintaining an army of slave dogs, Carl and Russell causing Muntz to fall off the airship without so much as a blink of the eye). The film’s violence and animal abuse, in my view, is its worst offense.
Frederik Sisa(Quote) (Reply)
What we see is an old man and a boy going on an adventure after the death of a much-loved woman. The movie’s meaning lies in what we see.
Yes, and what we don’t see. A man on an adventure with a boy. Women … not having adventures. What isn’t said is generally just as important as what is said. Everything is a deliberate choice in filmmaking.
TallyCola(Quote) (Reply)
TallyCola: Just because we see men having an adventure doesn’t logically entail that men should be going on adventures. Similarly, not seeing women go on an adventure doesn’t logically entail that women shouldn’t go on an adventure. There is no logical, causal connection between what *is* and what *should be.*
By your line of reasoning, Coraline is saying that boys should be passive sidekicks to girls. After all, we don’t see a strong adventurous, well-mannered boy. What we see and what we don’t see are not equivocal.
And you’re right, everything is a deliberate choice in filmmaking but those choices are irrelevant and inaccessible – the author is dead and has no more claim to a true interpretation of a work than anyone else.
Frederik Sisa(Quote) (Reply)
I wanted to go back and edit my post, but I can’t. Sorry to post again so quickly.
@ Frederick: your main defense is that Up is a movie about an old man who befriends a young boy.
No, not really. It’s about an old person who befriends a child.
The movie would have been *exactly the same* if either of these characters’ genders had been reversed. You wouldn’t even have to change ANY of their lines, except to account for some gender pronouns maybe.
If Russell was a girl, the only difference this would’ve made to the movie was that it showed a male and female going on an adventure, not just two males. The heart of the story – about letting go of baggage, about what really makes a family, about an old person and a child having a friendship – would be exactly the same.
(An Asian girl scout would’ve also set up the fact that times have changed since Carl was a kid the same amount, if not more so, than an Asian boy scout.)
Re: the short- I’m not assigning genders to the characters, the makers did. Most of the clouds are shown as male, except for one or two, notable the one that helped the stork. Both the stork and the stormy cloud had masculine voices. Again, deliberate choices. If any choices in a film *aren’t* deliberate, then they’re just sloppy.
I’m not necessarily bagging on them for making the cloud a male. I agree with you that there aren’t enough positive portrayals of fathers. They mostly show up as deadbeats, as was the case with Russell’s dad.
But the stormy cloud wasn’t a positive portrayal of fatherhood – the point was, all the other clouds thought he sucked at making babies. The cloud that was best at making babies was a female. The only person who thought the stormy cloud’s babies were okay, and that *he* was okay by extension, was the stork. And I mean, I loved it, but – sometimes mothers find it hard to be mothers, and they are shown almost no sympathy, either in real life or in film. This cloud got more sympathy than “bad” mothers generally get.
The cloud short was cute, but I would’ve found it a lot more refreshing if it was a female, that’s all. I think it would be more interesting if it was female because, well, I want to see more females in mainstream film. There are, statistically, hardly any. That’s why I’m on this website.
(I’m sorry if this post comes across as a little snarky, I don’t intend for it to be. I’m not trying to attack your views or anything. And, the tagline for this blog is “the search for good female characters”… so I don’t see how Gategrrl’s review or comments can be off target at all.)
TallyCola(Quote) (Reply)
By your line of reasoning, Coraline is saying that boys should be passive sidekicks to girls. After all, we don’t see a strong adventurous, well-mannered boy. What we see and what we don’t see are not equivocal.
Except that, as was pointed up above, we get one Coraline for every hundred (or hundreds) of Ups.
Yes, these films should be judged on their own, and Up is a great movie.
But, films are cultural transmission, and they’re mostly all transmitting the same damn thing. This is a problem because the overall messages that films, in general, portray, are what society holds as values.
TallyCola(Quote) (Reply)
Violence, animal abuse…those are the aspects of the movie which concern you (and I did read your review, btw).
The aspect which concerns *me*, and which does not make it any less than yours, is the exclusion through the storyline of women in any sort of adventure role. Now, should Pixar turn out a female buddy movie, with sidelined male characters, would that make me happy? Perhaps. If Pixar churned out as many of those as they have based on their male template.
It is a systemic Hollywood problem. But I’m talking about the specifics of *this* particular film. It *has* females in it. None of whom (the human ones) were able to have an adventure while they were alive–unless it was the adventure of a happy relationship, which, sorry…as happy as I am with my husband, if I hadn’t my own adventure to foreign lands when I was younger, I wouldn’t say I’d be as happy now. I’d be wondering, What If. But that’s me.
A movie’s meaning doesn’t just lie in what we see. It lies also in what we do NOT see. The absence of something is as telling as its presence. Directors and storytellers use that technique all the time (just as Hitchcock or any mystery or adventure or thriller writer)
I find it as valid as examining a film for what is there. And, by the way, I’m not asking for my opinion to be validated and okayed. It is what it is. As wonderful as this film is, it still misses the mark on other scorecards.
Gategrrl(Quote) (Reply)
I’m just going to say “I agree with Gategrrl” for the rest of this thread, haha.
TallyCola(Quote) (Reply)
I don’t think there is any “transmission” going on. That’s the point; there is no message to “Up.” To say there is is just as mistaken as saying that a strong female character is a coded transmission to have all men castrated. (The butch-dyke cliche).
The fact that there is one Coraline or a thousand, one Up or a thousand doesn’t change the logic of drawing a specific interpretation from what we see on screen.
I agree, of course, that there is a cultural component and that films, to varying degrees, can reflect the broader culture. But that doesn’t override the individuality of the film or filmmaker. It’s like the nature vs nurture debate; it’s not one or the other, it’s one through the other.
Frederik Sisa(Quote) (Reply)
There’s no message in Up?
What about the message that memories are things that you have *lived*, not things that you have bought, saved, or recorded? I mean they only laid that metaphor down with a trowel. What about that families are made by choice, and that love can continue even after a loved one dies? What about the message that just because one journey ends, THE journey is not over? Those were all pretty glaringly obvious messages to me and everyone I saw the movie with.
TallyCola(Quote) (Reply)
Sure, we could make an argument that meaning is constructed out of a system of difference in which case a particular meaning gets its force in part through what it doesn’t mean. (And argue about the role of causality in all of that.) But that’s an entirely different order of omission than seeing storytellers like Hitchcock omitting something as a means of emphasizing it in the story. This is like not showing the murderer plunge the knife in a victim’s chest as opposed to showing flesh tearing and great fountains of blood gushing out.
By your reasoning, the fact that a story about a man and a boy is questionable by its exclusion of women, taken to its logical conclusion, means that no story is valid because it doesn’t fully encompass everything it excludes. The flaw with relying on omissions as indicative of some sort of deliberate exclusion is a lot like asking to prove a negative. We can’t prove that X doesn’t exist, therefore we allow for the possibility that X exists regardless of whether the concept of X is sensible or not. Again, a film that’s about an old man and a boy (yes, man and boy, not person and child) only means that it’s about a man and a boy. The rest is interpretation.
If you’re saying that there is a lack of films with strong female characters, I agree completely. But all I’m saying is that I don’t agree that Up’s individual focus on male characters carries a message about whether or not girls should be adventurers. In other words, there’s a difference between a systematic exclusion and an individual exclusion. Up’s exclusion – and I don’t think exclusion is the right word – of women from the storyline is not the same as studio executives choosing films that feature male characters over films that have female protagonists. That is why I said “off target” because I think the wrong target is being criticized.
Which brings me to TallyCola’s points: there is no message because films don’t mean anything. There is only the interpretation we ourselves bring to it. Again, the film depicts a *particular* love enduring after the death of a loved one. That says nothing about the universality of love, the desirability of continuing that love, or whether or not a journey continues. The individual is not symbolic of the collective.
Just my opinion, though. My concern is asking for strong female characters on a premise that undermines the very possibility of strong female characters.
Frederik Sisa(Quote) (Reply)
there is no message because films don’t mean anything…The individual is not symbolic of the collective.
Well, your fundamental understanding of what film and art is is obviously VASTLY different from mine, and we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree on that.
TallyCola(Quote) (Reply)
Hmm. Exclusions.
Let’s back up. My review, a rant, focused on the *role within the film* of Ellie, and the entirely specious *exclusion* of any female characters, such as in the dog pack.
The focus of Hathor is on the systemic exclusion of good women characters in the media and on finding out where are they are. That’s what I am talking about with Pixar’s Up. It is included among ALL those others thousands of films that exclude women or girl characters without any good reason.
You may find fault with my reasoning, or my point of view, but that’s seriously not my problem. Films do contain messages–with Pixar and Disney, that’s guaranteed–and messages that aren’t right up there on the placard.
Up says to me that, within any buddy movie, and particularly in *this* one aimed at little kids, that girls can want to go on adventures all they want, but it’ll be the boys who actually get to go.
Gategrrl(Quote) (Reply)
This. A great, tightly written and plotted story does not mean there isn’t room for criticism. There’s also the fact that if we dismissed the issues, be they feminist, racist, [insertyouristhere], in every movie that is otherwise good, then we are saying-without-saying that it’s okay to keep producing movies with these “ist” problems instead of pushing for MORE.
sbg(Quote) (Reply)
Frederik, when a film repeats the usual exclusions, it is adding its voice to the enforcement of that norm. It’s as if it’s voting, “Yes, it should be all about boys/white people/middle class people/able-bodied people/whatever.” Defaulting to the status quo IS supporting it. Or at least that’s what I would think if a black American said to me, “As a child, I wanted so much to like Father Knows Best, but there were never any black people on it, even as gas station attendants, and that made me feel so invisible.”
The reason I’m using race as an analogy is that you and I are both white, and neither of us can really imagine how “disappeared” a black kid in the 60s might have felt from the culture when TV swept up the nation in a sea of white people with white problems. But I do know how it felt to be a girl in the 80s and have the nearly agency-free Princess Leia as the most active female in movies. Things have not changed very much since then in film – young girls still have a shitty assortment of role models unless, like me, they scandalize the family and neighborhood by openly embracing male characters as role models instead.
Gategrrl calls this a message; you don’t. But that aspect of this discussion is feeling pretty semantic to me. As a girl, I saw movies like this and I did get the “message” that I was supposed to occupy the traditional gender role, and if I found myself yearning to be a pilot, archeologist or Jedi Knight, I was defective in some way. I didn’t get it in so many words, but I would leave these movies elated, picturing myself in the role of one of the men, only to get angry and frustrated a few days later at some nebulous something I couldn’t identify: the deliberate frustration of my ambitions by a culture that still believed women had no right to compete with men.
Your arguments are academically correct, and I don’t dispute that. To imply that this movie, all by itself, is furthering sexism does seem over the top. But Gategrrl’s article is targeting people like me, who intuitively get how the movie made her feel, because we’ve had the same feelings every time we want to love a movie, but yet again, see that it doesn’t love us back.
Please note that there are also a lot of reviews around here where we almost pathetically congratulate some movie for kind of hinting that one of the female characters was capable of something worthwhile. Those movies cannot *really* be interpreted as supporting the opposite of the status quo, but we are so pitifully grateful when they just fail to support it whole-heartedly that we often give them more credit than is probably really due.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I just edited part of my above comment – the second to the last paragraph. When I wrote it the first time, I kept editing, ended up omitting something important, and then when I fixed it, I found a short way to get across the whole thing.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I notice in the review that you aren’t sure who the woman at the end is, but she is not really discussed in any of these comments. I had a lot of the same problems with Up as are discussed here, but the movie really lost me during the badge ceremony at the end.
If Russell’s father was absent (so he lived with his mother, who was at the ceremony), why couldn’t his mother go up on stage to pin on the badge? I’d say that’s pretty realistic– in Boy Scouts, if your dad’s not there, your mother fills the void, not some old man you recently befriended.
Are we really supposed to believe that Russell’s mom isn’t closer to him than Carl is? That she wasn’t the one who helped him get all those badges? I know he wasn’t taught to build a tent because his dad wasn’t there, but was his mom never involved anywhere else in his life?
Apparently not… in the picture montage at the end, Russell’s mother was not present in a single photo. So I’d say Pixar very clearly reinforced the message that women do not go on adventures (because these photos were added to the “Adventure Book,” and billed as adventures). They stay home, even in their own city, whenever adventures are happening.
Madelyn(Quote) (Reply)
I saw it last night and I enjoyed it. I do think Ellie is pretty exceptional as Pixar characters go. She was pretty clearly the pro-active one in the relationship and she probably had the job that involved more expertise at the park they both worked at. I did get the vibe that Ellie’s caring about birds was part of what got Carl going after Kevin. That said, would have been nice if there were a few non-couple pictures in the adventure book.
Anyhow, I quite agree with Gategrrl and particularly since I tend to use the point of reference of other Pixar films (that I’ve seen) rather than all films as a whole. They’ve had a lot of chances to make a film starring an Ellie or any number of other Miyazaki-style female leads, but they don’t really take them. Perhaps I’m being unfair to even compare to some of the Studio Ghibli output, but I consider putting them in the same league to be a compliment.
Greg Sanders(Quote) (Reply)
I loved Up, and I agree that both of the main characters, or either, could have been female, but in a society that is alert to the problems of child molestation, it might have been disturbing to many members of the audience to have the child be female. Old man + little girl too often equals Creepy.
Yes, I know it would have been perfectly innocent, and it is certainly a comment on our society that we no longer trust anyone around our children (many other societies are not so paranoid), but it was perhaps the safer choice to have both characters be the same gender.
Old woman + little boy would perhaps not have been so bad, but it wouldn’t have been the same dynamic, either, since the boy’s issue was that his father had essentially abandoned him and he needed someone to fill that role.
That still leaves the discussion of why they weren’t both female (old woman + little girl = kickass fun, as far as I’m concerned), but others commenting here have been quite eloquent about that. I just wanted to bring up this one aspect of our society’s fears.
Marina(Quote) (Reply)
but in a society that is alert to the problems of child molestation, it might have been disturbing to many members of the audience to have the child be female. Old man + little girl too often equals Creepy.
It strikes me as exactly the opposite. I mean, Lolita is a celebrated novel about an old pervert and a young girl. People who worry aloud about pedophiles to me almost invariably start framing it as something men do to boys. In fact, I often get frustrated because they seem to dismiss men molesting girls as a lesser crime (presumably, they consider same-sex relations wrong, and therefore see same-sex molestation as a compounded act of evil).
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Old woman + little boy would perhaps not have been so bad, but it wouldn’t have been the same dynamic, either, since the boy’s issue was that his father had essentially abandoned him and he needed someone to fill that role.
That’s easily fixed though – have the mother be the one who left the family. If people can’t accept that a mother would take her son camping, have the single dad be too busy to do stuff with Russell, ’cause he’s a single dad.
I also agree with Jennifer. I have heard people defend old man – little girl molestation with such gems as “grass on the field” or “at least it’s not crossing swords.”
TallyCola(Quote) (Reply)
Next Comments →