So after a week hiatus from class due to Susan being out of town for personal reasons - class has started up again.
I have to say, especially after my last class over at iO - this particular class was very much needed (even though something surprising happened to me in this one too).
Susan is huge on getting people to say fuck it and just do what they need to do to "get off" in a scene. The idea that if you are in the moment and having fun sticking to your shit no one is worrying if you are a shitty improviser (least of all yourself) is a great one.
The first exercise we did was the one where I was surprised in. Three people get up on stage in chairs. The players on either end are both given topics to talk about - their goal is to simply gain , and keep, the attention of the person in the middle by asking them questions about their topic. Sounds easy right? Well the key is both people on the end are trying to do this at the exact same time - and there are basically no rules as to how they gain/keep the attention of the person in the middle (invading people's personal space is encouraged).
The first time I went up I ended up being monkey in the middle. Both players did a pretty good job of of keeping my attention divided between them (one with very specifc personal questions and the other with such exclamations as: "If you don't look at me I'm going to punch you in the face). For me at least being in the middle was a fairly easy time - even though by the end I was having trouble keeping up my responses to match theirs - it was still fun.
The next time I was up, I was on the outside. I completely dropped the ball on this one. Which even Susan said was surprising for me. My topic was Mexican food and I started off strong but then as the cacophony rose I lost a lot of momentum. Part of the reason (a very small part) was I first started speaking in Spanish only to quickly realize I do not have enough mastery of the language to keep that going, but I think the bulk of the problem arose from the fact that I've been conditioned to be more of a facilitator in scenes: my polite improviser reared it's head and I started waiting for pauses to interject.
I've been in a rather large number of total clusterfuck situations on stage before and from my experience in dealing with those is to default to hang back and wait. I still hold on to my shit, but I move into improv robot mode - I analyze as much of the cacophony as I can and wait for a lull to interject something that will hopefully connect things and move the cluster fuck along.
After this we moved into an incredibly simple exercise - yet one of my favorites so far: "that reminds me..."
Basically three players hop up on stage and are given a simple location and appropriate activity (ie folding laundry in a laundry mat, cleaning the garage, etc). The three players then have light conversation while performing their task until eventually one person gets inspired to relate a TRUE story from their life - and starts it off with "That reminds me...".
After they tell their story (or at some point near the end) another player, inspired by what they've been hearing - tells their own true story ... again with "That reminds me..." - this goes so each individual gets to tell two stories - each inspired from the story they hear just before.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
iO Level Three - Week Eight
So this was our last class of level three this session and the official midpoint of my training here at iO (that's right 3 levels of classes down, 3 more to go).
Tonight was a lot about how we play as individuals and namely having Bill challenge us to play outside how we traditionally tend to.
We started off with warm-ups per usual - this time Zip, Zap, Zop ... and then Double Zip, Zap, Zop ... then double Zip, Zap, Zop plus double Me, My, Mine (which is basically the exact same game).
Afterwards Bill had six of us stay up on stage to participate in the exercise which would take up the remainder of the class period. Basically each one of us on stage would get a specific challenge from Bill based on his observations of us from the last eight weeks as well as a few notes about how he perceived our play. That person then did three scenes in a row (with a few of the rest of us up there) focusing on that specific challenge.
My challenge from Bill was not a surprise to me ... it's something he's urged me to try on before and most definitely something I haven't done all that often (especially not up here in Chicago): Try on some dumb characters.
However, his notes on how I've been playing (and thus the reasoning behind the challenge) actually did surprise me a little bit and pointed out something I've been feeling in the back of my mind for the past few weeks or so.
By asking me to try on dumb characters Bill was in fact encouraging me to not worry about what I was going to say next - to stop trying to "win" in scenes as he put it: don't worry about saying the funniest thing or finding the perfect turn of phrase or sizing up the various angles I could work in a scene...just play. I sadly didn't have my notebook for this class (I was running late and it was in my other coat) so I don't have word for word his comments, but still it resonated with me and it's something I didn't expect to hear, even though I should have.
I especially realized what was up after the three scenes when he remarked about some of the things he really liked about my play: my gamesmanship and wit and what not.
I've been on auto-pilot - especially during the past 2 months of this particular class. I've just been sitting back and doing the exercises never really getting up there to just have fun and fuck around improvising - I switched over to my improv robot sometime during these classes and let him drive (it's one of the reasons my gamesmanship has been good - it's the UCB training, that's my improv robot's home sweet home).
I know that part of the reason I switched off a little bit was the format of this class - 20 some odd person class on mostly two person scene work. You are lucky to get basically just handful of minutes on stage per class and it's always in the form of a specific exercise - so that's where the "winning" mentality came about ... I was using my improv robot to figure out how to best play the scene according to the exercise.
Simply put I haven;t been taking chances and not focusing enough on just having fun in this class so far (I had a lot of pretty good scenes this way - but none that were awesome). Something that I definitely plan to fix asap - from now on every time I get up there I'm going to roll the dice and see if I can surprise not only my scene partner but also myself.
Tonight was a lot about how we play as individuals and namely having Bill challenge us to play outside how we traditionally tend to.
We started off with warm-ups per usual - this time Zip, Zap, Zop ... and then Double Zip, Zap, Zop ... then double Zip, Zap, Zop plus double Me, My, Mine (which is basically the exact same game).
Afterwards Bill had six of us stay up on stage to participate in the exercise which would take up the remainder of the class period. Basically each one of us on stage would get a specific challenge from Bill based on his observations of us from the last eight weeks as well as a few notes about how he perceived our play. That person then did three scenes in a row (with a few of the rest of us up there) focusing on that specific challenge.
My challenge from Bill was not a surprise to me ... it's something he's urged me to try on before and most definitely something I haven't done all that often (especially not up here in Chicago): Try on some dumb characters.
However, his notes on how I've been playing (and thus the reasoning behind the challenge) actually did surprise me a little bit and pointed out something I've been feeling in the back of my mind for the past few weeks or so.
By asking me to try on dumb characters Bill was in fact encouraging me to not worry about what I was going to say next - to stop trying to "win" in scenes as he put it: don't worry about saying the funniest thing or finding the perfect turn of phrase or sizing up the various angles I could work in a scene...just play. I sadly didn't have my notebook for this class (I was running late and it was in my other coat) so I don't have word for word his comments, but still it resonated with me and it's something I didn't expect to hear, even though I should have.
I especially realized what was up after the three scenes when he remarked about some of the things he really liked about my play: my gamesmanship and wit and what not.
I've been on auto-pilot - especially during the past 2 months of this particular class. I've just been sitting back and doing the exercises never really getting up there to just have fun and fuck around improvising - I switched over to my improv robot sometime during these classes and let him drive (it's one of the reasons my gamesmanship has been good - it's the UCB training, that's my improv robot's home sweet home).
I know that part of the reason I switched off a little bit was the format of this class - 20 some odd person class on mostly two person scene work. You are lucky to get basically just handful of minutes on stage per class and it's always in the form of a specific exercise - so that's where the "winning" mentality came about ... I was using my improv robot to figure out how to best play the scene according to the exercise.
Simply put I haven;t been taking chances and not focusing enough on just having fun in this class so far (I had a lot of pretty good scenes this way - but none that were awesome). Something that I definitely plan to fix asap - from now on every time I get up there I'm going to roll the dice and see if I can surprise not only my scene partner but also myself.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
iO Level Three - Week Seven
Class started out per usual with a brief discussion about past shows followed by a simple pattern game warm-up. Next came a series of open scenes - for us to basically shake out the cobwebs (each person got to do two).
After this Bill had 6 of us hop up on stage and form two lines. We were to do two person scenes where one player was to simply initiate a familiar situation and/or relationship and then a scene would progress normally. We were given permission to be as hack as possible with these initiations.
The purpose was basically to get the idea that even though it's a familiar situation with perhaps characters behaving predictably - it can still produce comedy and be interesting.
After the whole class had a turn at this exercise we moved on to an exercise called: Click, click, Boom. Again a small group of us got up and formed two lines. One player would initiate however they wanted and for the first few lines of the scene it would just be a normal scene. Eventually though (when the second player felt right) they would throw a curve ball and do something bizarre in the scene (ie pull out a gun, snatch a fly out of the air with their tongue, scream for no reason). The first player's job is to play it real and react to the move truthfully. The scene continues with the move slowly being repeated/heightened so it comes in waves as the other player reacts to it.
All in all an incredibly fun exercise and tool to keep in mind.
After this Bill had 6 of us hop up on stage and form two lines. We were to do two person scenes where one player was to simply initiate a familiar situation and/or relationship and then a scene would progress normally. We were given permission to be as hack as possible with these initiations.
The purpose was basically to get the idea that even though it's a familiar situation with perhaps characters behaving predictably - it can still produce comedy and be interesting.
After the whole class had a turn at this exercise we moved on to an exercise called: Click, click, Boom. Again a small group of us got up and formed two lines. One player would initiate however they wanted and for the first few lines of the scene it would just be a normal scene. Eventually though (when the second player felt right) they would throw a curve ball and do something bizarre in the scene (ie pull out a gun, snatch a fly out of the air with their tongue, scream for no reason). The first player's job is to play it real and react to the move truthfully. The scene continues with the move slowly being repeated/heightened so it comes in waves as the other player reacts to it.
All in all an incredibly fun exercise and tool to keep in mind.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Annoyance Level Three - Week One
The next session at the Annoyance has started up and I'm back in class with my iO level Two teacher Susan (who is wonderful - though you probably already know that if you've read my earlier posts).
Anyway she let us know that she tends to do things a little differently in this level than we've seen so in levels 1 & 2. Namely we won't be doing a million or so scenes because for her personally that doesn't work (and she has noticed over the years that when you do that many often people get in the mentality that some scenes are throw aways ... get your bad scenes out of the way and wait for your good ones to start). Well in this class she cares about all our scenes and wants us to as well.
We started off walking about the room as she asked us to begin leading with different parts of our bodies - each one we focused on inspired different ideas for characters, changed the way we walked, talked, even though in some cases.
This is a big part of Susan's philosophy (if I can use that term) that the only thing you own in a scene is your body and you should lead with it strongly.
After this we moved into five person scenes (that's right five) where basically we hopped up on stage Susan gave us a location (like McDonalds) and told us to "Do Something" with the one caveat that we couldn't talk till she let us.
The key to success was the moment she said do something - was to make a choice based on the locale and snap into asap not worrying about what your partners were going to be doing.
After a little while of us all milling about doing our own things - ideally sunk into a character as well - she told us we could speak, and scenes commenced.
Some of the scenes went very well (those were the ones where people had made firm choices up top about themselves and were comfortable in their own skin during the scene) - some devolved into arguments and general clusterfuck status quite quickly (these were the scenes where the moment they were allowed to talk - they worried more about creating something with the other four players than continuing to exist as that character).
Once people tried to make something happen - tried to add plot - or quickly establish everyone else's role in relation to themselves ... things devolved.
In the scene I was in - we all ended up just existing in the space (McDonalds), once we could talk - we didn't immediately all start. We slowly found out each other's roles ... (my choice at the top had been to start drinking a milk shake and being unhappy with it - from that I decided I was unhappy about something besides the milkshake and as the scene progressed it turns out I was the disappointed manager - unhappy about his staff).
Even when there were "mistakes" we were all enough into our own characters that we rolled with it (for example ... I called one of the players Sean at one point .... I'm not sure if I had missed him being called something else earlier, or he just decided I got his name wrong - but he told me that was wrong and his name was Patrick ... well for the rest of the scene I made the deliberate choice to call him different names - and I became the asshole manager who can't even recall your name).
One player was not addressed the whole scene until the very end - he just silently swept up the place - with the rest of us moving around him. The last line was when we acknowledged what a good job he did after he said excuse me to get one of us to move ... but it didn't matter cause he had his thing - and he was just as much as part of the scene as the rest of us.
We then ended the class with an exercise called: Protecting the Freak (of which there are three main variations).
Number 1: Two players up - one person is the freak and the other is the straight-man. The Freak is just asked to be balls out crazy, do whatever they want and just have fun and be weird. The straight-man reacts to the Freak, shocked by what he does, and gives it the context of "this is not ok".
(for example: Freak: "I just killed a nun", Straight-man: "Oh my god Jim that's horrible - I have to call the cops")
This is called the iO style - because if you be too weird in a scene over at iO this is most likely how your scene partner will react: treats crazy and weird as being crazy and weird.
Number 2: Two players up - one player is the freak (going crazy ... being weird) the other one is the Straight-man, though this time he is asked to give the freak's context as being normal. React as everything the freak does is perfectly ok (and even exactly what's needed) and just likes it in general.
(for example: Freak: "I just killed a nun", Straight-man: "Good job Jim, that's one more we don't have to worry about")
Number 3: Two player up - they are both freaks.
(for example: Freak #1: "I just killed a nun", Freak #2: "This tastes like happy" while gnawing on a chair leg).
This last one can form a satisfying (if perhaps not purely rational scene) as long as the two freaks stick to their guns - leading to an almost dada-ist tableau.
The one caveat about the above exercise is that you can never "fix" the problem of the freak ... can't try to stop/change them. Again all three are about giving the weird player the protection of a context to play weirdly in, be it: weird is weird, weird acceptable, or weird is normal.
From this class we took these ideas:
Try it on with Abandon
You don't worry if you're a shitty improviser when you have something to do
If you still feel like you in a scene - pull something out, change your spine
In terms of comedy, often it is just like minded people hanging out
Do'ers beat out talkers every time
Never be afraid to tell another character about themselves - detail them - endow them - give a gift.
Your "Mistakes" become the greatest gifts - as long as you don't treat them as mistakes
A good scene is one where you are having fun
Anyway she let us know that she tends to do things a little differently in this level than we've seen so in levels 1 & 2. Namely we won't be doing a million or so scenes because for her personally that doesn't work (and she has noticed over the years that when you do that many often people get in the mentality that some scenes are throw aways ... get your bad scenes out of the way and wait for your good ones to start). Well in this class she cares about all our scenes and wants us to as well.
We started off walking about the room as she asked us to begin leading with different parts of our bodies - each one we focused on inspired different ideas for characters, changed the way we walked, talked, even though in some cases.
This is a big part of Susan's philosophy (if I can use that term) that the only thing you own in a scene is your body and you should lead with it strongly.
After this we moved into five person scenes (that's right five) where basically we hopped up on stage Susan gave us a location (like McDonalds) and told us to "Do Something" with the one caveat that we couldn't talk till she let us.
The key to success was the moment she said do something - was to make a choice based on the locale and snap into asap not worrying about what your partners were going to be doing.
After a little while of us all milling about doing our own things - ideally sunk into a character as well - she told us we could speak, and scenes commenced.
Some of the scenes went very well (those were the ones where people had made firm choices up top about themselves and were comfortable in their own skin during the scene) - some devolved into arguments and general clusterfuck status quite quickly (these were the scenes where the moment they were allowed to talk - they worried more about creating something with the other four players than continuing to exist as that character).
Once people tried to make something happen - tried to add plot - or quickly establish everyone else's role in relation to themselves ... things devolved.
In the scene I was in - we all ended up just existing in the space (McDonalds), once we could talk - we didn't immediately all start. We slowly found out each other's roles ... (my choice at the top had been to start drinking a milk shake and being unhappy with it - from that I decided I was unhappy about something besides the milkshake and as the scene progressed it turns out I was the disappointed manager - unhappy about his staff).
Even when there were "mistakes" we were all enough into our own characters that we rolled with it (for example ... I called one of the players Sean at one point .... I'm not sure if I had missed him being called something else earlier, or he just decided I got his name wrong - but he told me that was wrong and his name was Patrick ... well for the rest of the scene I made the deliberate choice to call him different names - and I became the asshole manager who can't even recall your name).
One player was not addressed the whole scene until the very end - he just silently swept up the place - with the rest of us moving around him. The last line was when we acknowledged what a good job he did after he said excuse me to get one of us to move ... but it didn't matter cause he had his thing - and he was just as much as part of the scene as the rest of us.
We then ended the class with an exercise called: Protecting the Freak (of which there are three main variations).
Number 1: Two players up - one person is the freak and the other is the straight-man. The Freak is just asked to be balls out crazy, do whatever they want and just have fun and be weird. The straight-man reacts to the Freak, shocked by what he does, and gives it the context of "this is not ok".
(for example: Freak: "I just killed a nun", Straight-man: "Oh my god Jim that's horrible - I have to call the cops")
This is called the iO style - because if you be too weird in a scene over at iO this is most likely how your scene partner will react: treats crazy and weird as being crazy and weird.
Number 2: Two players up - one player is the freak (going crazy ... being weird) the other one is the Straight-man, though this time he is asked to give the freak's context as being normal. React as everything the freak does is perfectly ok (and even exactly what's needed) and just likes it in general.
(for example: Freak: "I just killed a nun", Straight-man: "Good job Jim, that's one more we don't have to worry about")
Number 3: Two player up - they are both freaks.
(for example: Freak #1: "I just killed a nun", Freak #2: "This tastes like happy" while gnawing on a chair leg).
This last one can form a satisfying (if perhaps not purely rational scene) as long as the two freaks stick to their guns - leading to an almost dada-ist tableau.
The one caveat about the above exercise is that you can never "fix" the problem of the freak ... can't try to stop/change them. Again all three are about giving the weird player the protection of a context to play weirdly in, be it: weird is weird, weird acceptable, or weird is normal.
From this class we took these ideas:
Try it on with Abandon
You don't worry if you're a shitty improviser when you have something to do
If you still feel like you in a scene - pull something out, change your spine
In terms of comedy, often it is just like minded people hanging out
Do'ers beat out talkers every time
Never be afraid to tell another character about themselves - detail them - endow them - give a gift.
Your "Mistakes" become the greatest gifts - as long as you don't treat them as mistakes
A good scene is one where you are having fun
Thursday, February 7, 2008
iO Level Three - Week Five
To give you guys a head's up - we tend to spend the first five minutes of every class lately talking about shows we've seen around town (and what we liked or didn't like). It's one of the things that most of the training centers (at least those worth their salt) encourage ... actually seeing improv performed as much as possible.
One of the things that came up in this discussion today was the idea of "saving a scene" due to a recent show I saw where there were so many walk-ons I thought it was a new form (honestly there were more scenes with the entire group in them than two person scenes in this show).
The worst part about this was the fact that I recognized that a lot of the players in this group were very talented - the problem was every time it seemed like something was about to get going .... well here came a few more people and things derailed.
Part of it definitely came about form the fact that the audience wasn't really all that responsive early on in their laughter (lots of throat chuckles) and it's a relatively new team. Though as rule I'm loathe to really blame an audience - still it's understandable that early on in the show they panicked a little and then it snowballed out of control.
It brought up a good point in class though: namely that the urge to walk on into a scene is usually the impulse to edit it (in fact ... I'm probably going to do an extra post on just this topic later).
The Class
Anyway class started with some traditional warm-ups - passing the focus around through clapping and snapping - as well as a few pattern games.
Next we leaped into some person challenge scenes, where Bill gave us each a challenge to experiment with for a number of scenes.
My personal challenge was to try on a series of unconfident (even self loathing) characters & foolish characters.
After this we moved into some two person scenes where one player enters tabular rasa (blank slate for those not hip with the Latin) the second player then initiates very simply (ie Mark Can you hand me a Pencil). The first (blank player) then makes a character choice inspired from that simple initiation and begins talking to them selves completely ignoring the other person (pretending that they didn't even hear the initiation). Note: it's not a monologue - it's literally the character talking to themselves (ie "Gahhh did I leave the oven on ...").
After everyone clearly has a sense of that character the second (initiating) player repeats their first line and a scene begins normally.
Some things we took away from this class were:
Roll Some Dice - take chances, Don't be afraid to make "Crazy" choices.
Familiar Situations and Predictable Characters can be a good thing sometimes.
Say How Your Partner is Acting - Don't skirt around the issue.
Scenes fail when things are unclear or someone doesn't make a clear choice & follow through with it.
One of the things that came up in this discussion today was the idea of "saving a scene" due to a recent show I saw where there were so many walk-ons I thought it was a new form (honestly there were more scenes with the entire group in them than two person scenes in this show).
The worst part about this was the fact that I recognized that a lot of the players in this group were very talented - the problem was every time it seemed like something was about to get going .... well here came a few more people and things derailed.
Part of it definitely came about form the fact that the audience wasn't really all that responsive early on in their laughter (lots of throat chuckles) and it's a relatively new team. Though as rule I'm loathe to really blame an audience - still it's understandable that early on in the show they panicked a little and then it snowballed out of control.
It brought up a good point in class though: namely that the urge to walk on into a scene is usually the impulse to edit it (in fact ... I'm probably going to do an extra post on just this topic later).
The Class
Anyway class started with some traditional warm-ups - passing the focus around through clapping and snapping - as well as a few pattern games.
Next we leaped into some person challenge scenes, where Bill gave us each a challenge to experiment with for a number of scenes.
My personal challenge was to try on a series of unconfident (even self loathing) characters & foolish characters.
After this we moved into some two person scenes where one player enters tabular rasa (blank slate for those not hip with the Latin) the second player then initiates very simply (ie Mark Can you hand me a Pencil). The first (blank player) then makes a character choice inspired from that simple initiation and begins talking to them selves completely ignoring the other person (pretending that they didn't even hear the initiation). Note: it's not a monologue - it's literally the character talking to themselves (ie "Gahhh did I leave the oven on ...").
After everyone clearly has a sense of that character the second (initiating) player repeats their first line and a scene begins normally.
Some things we took away from this class were:
Roll Some Dice - take chances, Don't be afraid to make "Crazy" choices.
Familiar Situations and Predictable Characters can be a good thing sometimes.
Say How Your Partner is Acting - Don't skirt around the issue.
Scenes fail when things are unclear or someone doesn't make a clear choice & follow through with it.
Monday, February 4, 2008
CPL's First Show
Note: For all those who instantly know what CPL stands for - congratulations you've been paying attention, bravo. For the rest of you lazy slobs - CPL stands for the troupe I'm in over at CIC: Counter-Productive Lover.
Anyway as the title suggests we had our very first show finally. It took place Friday night at our home theater (we're one of I think roughly three house teams there).
All in all I have to say I am very happy with how the show went considering it was our first - there were a lot of really fun moments (both for us and the audience) and of course a few kinks that we need to work out. Really the only two major complaints I have about our performance was the fact that early on one or two members got a little jumpy with the edit (cut a couple scenes short - editing before they really got going) and then the fact that our lighting person gave us a very poorly timed black out (which was about 4 minutes early too).
The first part (the Speedy Gonazlaes impersonation on the edits) is fairly easy to chalk up to first performance jitters - as they came on really big laugh lines (aka the default edit points for improvisers who don't entirely feel the rhythm of a scene) - and the second wasn't even in our control (though really ... the light person called it four lines into a scene that hadn't even reached the punch yet (and those lines were clearly in the process of setting up a nice call back to early on if they had just waited another minute).
We had a great crowd and heard afterwards that the higher ups in the theater were extremely impressed about our show - apparently most of the audience left still talking about some parts - so go us.
I think the funniest thing though is that we were not nearly as impressed with ourselves as the audience and even the guy giving us notes seemed to be (note: again for those not paying attention I mentioned in the last post our Director couldn't make the show and so had a friend sit in watching). The reason for this is because of the level of work we've done in the last two practices - we know we are easily capable of so much more, so while this was a fun show (and fairly good for our first ever performance) in our eyes ... we all are setting our goals much higher.
Anyway as the title suggests we had our very first show finally. It took place Friday night at our home theater (we're one of I think roughly three house teams there).
All in all I have to say I am very happy with how the show went considering it was our first - there were a lot of really fun moments (both for us and the audience) and of course a few kinks that we need to work out. Really the only two major complaints I have about our performance was the fact that early on one or two members got a little jumpy with the edit (cut a couple scenes short - editing before they really got going) and then the fact that our lighting person gave us a very poorly timed black out (which was about 4 minutes early too).
The first part (the Speedy Gonazlaes impersonation on the edits) is fairly easy to chalk up to first performance jitters - as they came on really big laugh lines (aka the default edit points for improvisers who don't entirely feel the rhythm of a scene) - and the second wasn't even in our control (though really ... the light person called it four lines into a scene that hadn't even reached the punch yet (and those lines were clearly in the process of setting up a nice call back to early on if they had just waited another minute).
We had a great crowd and heard afterwards that the higher ups in the theater were extremely impressed about our show - apparently most of the audience left still talking about some parts - so go us.
I think the funniest thing though is that we were not nearly as impressed with ourselves as the audience and even the guy giving us notes seemed to be (note: again for those not paying attention I mentioned in the last post our Director couldn't make the show and so had a friend sit in watching). The reason for this is because of the level of work we've done in the last two practices - we know we are easily capable of so much more, so while this was a fun show (and fairly good for our first ever performance) in our eyes ... we all are setting our goals much higher.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
