Hans Zimmer - The Dark Knight Rises

[KK 3,307]

Moving away from the typical, dull, boring garbage the usual suspects engage in. Jim Emerson has done a really neat analysis of The Dark Knight's action set piece.

You can watch it here, it touches on some of what I talked about, and misses out on plenty more errors and opportunities to criticize but for those who don't generally go into movies thinking about scenes like this it might really get you into that mindset.

After you watch that, be sure to watch his analysis of Salt's set piece, so you can see how an at least functionally well done action sequence compares. I think it's really important that you see the comparison to really appreciate the difference.

In the Salt one he briefly touches on one of my biggest complaints with Nolan, which is logically *layering* and composing shots to help convey meaning and location. This is why I say Nolan is a 2D linear thinker.

Finally, if you're still interested and want to continue learning how to look at the scenes analytically here's another one, again use it to compare with Nolan's truck chase.

And if at the end of all that you're still interested check out Emerson's companion writing for the videos, which provide some interesting nuggets of analysis:

http://blogs.indiewi...ristopher_Nolan

http://blogs.indiewi..._Phillip_Noyce_

http://blogs.suntime...bullitt_th.html

Again, there's so much more he could go into, but I think he does a good job of explaining some of the important stuff.

To quote a YouTube commenter on The Dark Knight analysis:

this is ridiculous...

Why can't you just enjoy the movie like normal people?

That was rather interesting. Thanks for that Blume.

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

Who wants electronics any way? I find them crude and prefer scores which avoid them.

[gkgyver 1,645]

I prefer exciting orchestral Music myself, but electronics can greatly enhance it. I love well-placed electronics.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I would love to hear that better music Koray is talking about. Of course, is someone happens to have written enjoyable music, I'm not going to complain.

I could go and mention that all of Williams' 60s comedy scores are inferior, but avoiding the cheap shots that you all love to take, I find scores like The Thin Red Line, Hannibal, At World's End, Gladiator, Tears Of The Sun, Black Hawk Down, and An Everlasting Piece to rival Williams' best output. Of course they're better than something like None But The Brave, or more recent stuff like Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, Tintin, The Terminal, and Amistad.

When has he done that?

Well, if you take Zimmer's best, and go back to Williams' early days in the 70s, and compare the two, I am sure you will find a few spots where the two are equal.

But that is as far as anyone should go.

I can't imagine anyone with a serious interest in film music saying Zimmer did better at any point than the Williams of the 90s and 2000.

Are you kidding? Williams 00s output has some very strong highlights, while in the 70s he's got a pretty consistent streak of good scores.

[publicist 4,643]

Who wants electronics any way? I find them crude and prefer scores which avoid them.

Electronics find YOU crude!

[Wojo 2,453]

No, electronics are rather sophisticated. Rocks and sticks, now those are crude.

[publicist 4,643]

I could go and mention that all of Williams' 60s comedy scores are inferior, but avoiding the cheap shots that you all love to take, I find scores like The Thin Red Line, Hannibal, At World's End, Gladiator, Tears Of The Sun, Black Hawk Down, and An Everlasting Piece to rival Williams' best output. Of course they're better than something like None But The Brave, or more recent stuff like Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, Tintin, The Terminal, and Amistad.

Most of them have an enjoyable piece or two, but are hardly comparable to a seriously thought-out movie score. Not that Williams does them frequently these days (cue user Marcus getting a heart attack) but Zimmers patchwork pop scores (especially trifle like GLADIATOR, which acts as if it had real adagios and stuff) can't compare in any way, shape or form.

[Jay 37,349]

Of course they're better than something like None But The Brave, or more recent stuff like Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, Tintin, The Terminal, and Amistad.

What's wrong with Tintin?

[indy4 155]

Actually it sounds like a big JWFan prank. I wouldn't have been surprised if that was this years April Fools joke. It would have been a lot funnier than the time you guys tried to trick everyone that Zimmer was helping out with Tintin.

But alas, its all true.

Zimmer could work his entire life and still not write a score close in quality and complexity to Tintin. Williams casually knocks out more memorable themes in a single movie than Zimmer does in a dozen. As the Filmtracks review says, Zimmer has absolutely whored himself out and writes trash these days. To call what he writes "music" is to devalue that term.

The man has written better MUSIC than Williams on multiple occasions, actually.

[publicist 4,643]

Nothing that THE DARK KNIGHT cannot fix.

[indy4 155]

Of course they're better than something like None But The Brave, or more recent stuff like Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, Tintin, The Terminal, and Amistad.

What's wrong with Tintin?

Or The Terminal and Amistad? (Not going to mention KotCS)

[Jay 37,349]

Oh, I can understand why someone who isn't a hardcore Williams fan wouldn't care for The Terminal or Amistad. But Tintin is pretty easy to like.

[publicist 4,643]

If he prefers stuff like MUNICH, i'm not wondering that he doesn't care for fluff like TINTIN. The phalanx of mundane Zimmer scores like TEARS OF THE SUN is more perplexing, though.

[indy4 155]

Oh, I can understand why someone who isn't a hardcore Williams fan wouldn't care for The Terminal or Amistad. But Tintin is pretty easy to like.

I think both of them are better than Tintin

[Wojo 2,453]

I wouldn't know. I haven't heard any of the three you listed.

[KK 3,307]

If he prefers stuff like MUNICH, i'm not wondering that he doesn't care for fluff like TINTIN. The phalanx of mundane Zimmer scores like TEARS OF THE SUN is more perplexing, though.

What about Amistad then?

Amistad, The Terminal and Tintin are very strong scores and I thought they were better than scores like An Everlasting Piece and Tears of the Sun.

[Wojo 2,453]

You know, the more you tell someone what they should and should not like, and in what ranking, the less they may want to listen to you.

[Wycket 36]

Moving away from the typical, dull, boring garbage the usual suspects engage in. Jim Emerson has done a really neat analysis of The Dark Knight's action set piece.

You can watch it here, it touches on some of what I talked about, and misses out on plenty more errors and opportunities to criticize but for those who don't generally go into movies thinking about scenes like this it might really get you into that mindset.

After you watch that, be sure to watch his analysis of Salt's set piece, so you can see how an at least functionally well done action sequence compares. I think it's really important that you see the comparison to really appreciate the difference.

In the Salt one he briefly touches on one of my biggest complaints with Nolan, which is logically *layering* and composing shots to help convey meaning and location. This is why I say Nolan is a 2D linear thinker.

Finally, if you're still interested and want to continue learning how to look at the scenes analytically here's another one, again use it to compare with Nolan's truck chase.

And if at the end of all that you're still interested check out Emerson's companion writing for the videos, which provide some interesting nuggets of analysis:

http://blogs.indiewi...ristopher_Nolan

http://blogs.indiewi..._Phillip_Noyce_

http://blogs.suntime...bullitt_th.html

Again, there's so much more he could go into, but I think he does a good job of explaining some of the important stuff.

To quote a YouTube commenter on The Dark Knight analysis:

this is ridiculous...

Why can't you just enjoy the movie like normal people?

I'm sorry, but what is wrong with Nolan's set piece's again?

I love the scenes in The Dark Knight, and think they work wonderfully. To me they have just the right flow and the music aids them wonderfully. I personally love the action in Inception, as well. I really like the direction that Nolan takes when he does action, as he doesn't go overboard on CGI and focuses on practical effects and the characters themselves. The Dark Knight chase sequence to me really builds the tension well and the fact its completely unlike the type of action sequence you'd expect makes it dazzling for me. I like the choices he makes and think that he really found his eye for action after a lackluster turn in Batman Begins.

[publicist 4,643]

I'm sorry, but what is wrong with Nolan's set piece's again?

Just watch the video. It may be a bit on the anal side, but they are basically right about the lack of craftmanship which you should expect from such an expensive Hollywood production.

[Wycket 36]

I'm not watching the video. I don't need to watch a video to convince myself not to like something I already enjoy.

I find nothing wrong with the way that Nolan portrays action. If the Salt movie is the main argument to how an action sequence should be done than I guess I have no idea how a movie action sequence should be.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Wow...Wycket is afraid of a video and gets angry when people mock movies he likes. Scaredy cat Fan Boy!

Wycket you clearly like the action sequences good for you. But not exposing yourself to objective analysis for fear of its effect on your opinion is like dunking your head in the sad while wearing ear muffs and singing lalallalalalalallalalalalal.

It's about as dumb as it sounds.

[crocodile 8,001]

It is actually quite interesting and very informative, thanks for posting this.

You see, I don't really care much about this, as the sequence works for me anyway. It has been shot mostly practically, so errors like this around bound to pop up every now and then. It doesn't surprise me. But yes, these are all interesting points.

Karol

[Wycket 36]

Wow...Wycket is afraid of a video and gets angry when people mock movies he likes. Scaredy cat Fan Boy!

Wycket you clearly like the action sequences good for you. But not exposing yourself to objective analysis for fear of its effect on your opinion is like dunking your head in the sad while wearing ear muffs and singing lalallalalalalallalalalalal.

It's about as dumb as it sounds.

I'm not afraid. I've seen both films recently and am well aware of the action sequences. I don't need an analysis to tell me why one I like is somehow not as good as one I don't. People have different tastes, and I've already explained that I enjoy Nolan's action. If people don't that's fine but I don't need to watch a video by some guy telling me why my opinions are wrong.

Personally, Nolan tends to focus on characters and story-telling, and the action tends to be an organic part of that process rather than just a sequence to entertain viewers as is often the case. The Salt action sequences bored me and seemed so contrived and artificial to me. Now if the guy picked a better film to use an an argument than maybe I'd watch it just to see what he was on about, but no thanks.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I don't think people have different tastes per se. Just lower or higher standards for various aspects of film.

[indy4 155]

I don't think people have different tastes per se. Just lower or higher standards for various aspects of film.

That is bullshit.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Of course they're better than something like None But The Brave, or more recent stuff like Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, Tintin, The Terminal, and Amistad.

What's wrong with Tintin?

Or The Terminal and Amistad? (Not going to mention KotCS)

There's nothing wrong with them per se. I never meant to put them in a bad light, but Zimmer has composed better. I'd call them average in the overall scheme of things. Tintin, for me, sounds like autopilot JW. I have no context for it though, having not seen the film. Perhaps I'll like it more after I eventually see it.

[Wojo 2,453]

I don't think people have different tastes per se. Just lower or higher standards for various aspects of film.

So if I like pornos but my girlfriend doesn't, it's because her standards are higher, not because she lacks the taste for it. Interesting....

What indy4 said.

[indy4 155]

Of course they're better than something like None But The Brave, or more recent stuff like Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, Tintin, The Terminal, and Amistad.

What's wrong with Tintin?

Or The Terminal and Amistad? (Not going to mention KotCS)

There's nothing wrong with them per se. I never meant to put them in a bad light, but Zimmer has composed better. I'd call them average in the overall scheme of things. Tintin, for me, sounds like autopilot JW. I have no context for it though, having not seen the film. Perhaps I'll like it more after I eventually see it.

I agree with the general point--some of Zimmer's music is better than some of JW's, especially if you go on a track by track basis.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I don't think people have different tastes per se. Just lower or higher standards for various aspects of film.

That is bullshit.

How so? It makes perfect sense. Some people have more detailed standards for the construction of an action set piece while others only look at the net effect of it.

I don't think people have different tastes per se. Just lower or higher standards for various aspects of film.

So if I like pornos but my girlfriend doesn't, it's because her standards are higher, not because she lacks the taste for it. Interesting....

What indy4 said.

Call it whatever you please, Darth Wojo. But your preference to rub one out to digital pixels rather than put that time towards real sex tells us all we need to know about your "STANDARDS."

[Wojo 2,453]

Blume, my old friend, how can you say such things, after all the wonderful compliments we've given each other over the years?

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Blume, my old friend, how can you say such things, after all the wonderful compliments we've given each other over the years?

Those days are over. We are now arch nemeses.

[Wojo 2,453]

Those days are over. We are now arch nemeses.

Ooh. You said "arch."

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

That was too perfect.

Don't let my laughter fool you. We are still enemies.

[Wojo 2,453]

Don't let my laughter fool you. We are still enemies.

I'm glad to hear that! I was growing tired of arguing with indy4 and Joey, belittling km, antagonizing Jay, mocking Ricard, forcing Maurizio to quit, picking on Trent, disagreeing with everything Quint and Steef say, ignoring Thor, agreeing with Koray, sometimes agreeing with cremers, and being a pain in the neck towards just about everyone else.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

It's a wonder you aren't dead yet.

[Wojo 2,453]

It's a wonder you aren't dead yet.

[Admiral Holdo 16]

You two are so cute together.

[indy4 155]

I don't think people have different tastes per se. Just lower or higher standards for various aspects of film.

That is bullshit.

How so? It makes perfect sense. Some people have more detailed standards for the construction of an action set piece while others only look at the net effect of it.

In some cases that's probably the case, but to say that the only reason people disagree over subjective issues is one cares more about it than the other is not true. What if you met two people that disagreed over whether Hook or Images was the better score? It's not necessarily that either person has a "higher standard" of music than the other, it's that one prefers a more traditional symphonic score while the other prefers the more avant-garde stuff (for instance).

To address the action scene issue more specifically, consider this: person A thinks that a shaky point-of-view camera during a fight scene is better because it places the viewer inside the POV of the characters. Person B thinks that a detached third-person camera position is better because it allows the audience to clearly understand what is going on in the scene, whereas that could be more difficult in the first person view. Neither judges action scenes by a higher standard than the other; they just have a difference in taste.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

To address the action scene issue more specifically, consider this: person A thinks that a shaky point-of-view camera during a fight scene is better because it places the viewer inside the POV of the characters. Person B thinks that a detached third-person camera position is better because it allows the audience to clearly understand what is going on in the scene, whereas that could be more difficult in the first person view. Neither judges action scenes by a higher standard than the other; they just have a difference in taste.

First I would point out that the shaky cam example does not apply here. I won't delve into details of why, but suffice it to say that Nolan's problems are far more fundamental than shaky cam or not. As ridiculous as it may sound, Nolan's problems are closer to the scenario of a director shooting a whole movie upside down vs. normally.

An even better analogy: The issue of shaky cam vs. steady cam is like arguing what color a birthday cake's exterior should be. And the answer is whatever color that helps the cake achieve its purpose (there may be many right answers and many wrong answers). On the other hand Nolan disregarding basic principles of composition and editing is like having a birthday cake baking contest and he shows up with a hand made birthday card. There is no taste preference present in this situation. Nolan is wrong. There is no way you can argue his paper card is a cake and still claim to have sanity.

I understand that you believe taste determines one's preferences for a lot of things. And that is true to some extent. The "taste" argument applies very well to independent concepts and entities that have no goal or agenda. Colors. Flowers. The Sky. These are all simple things in the world that generally have no designed purpose. A color on its own is what it is, and your appreciation of it is based on your taste.

Film is different. Film isn't a fundamental thing that exists for the sake of existing. Film is in a sense a complicated system of communication developed with a purpose, goal, or agenda. Therefore every element within that film system has *or should have* a designed purpose. Because there are no independent concepts or entities. There is no pink for the sake of pink in the film. And by that token an action scene within a film is a subsystem with its own sub purpose, goal, or agenda. It might be to excite you, convey the horrors of violence, demonstrate the protagonists heroism, it might be to kill time, it might be to spend extra money in the budget, etc. etc.

Therefore we are able to judge the success of a system or subsystem, in this case a film or action scene respectively , against how well it accomplishes its goals, both high level (is it an action scene?) and low level (does it convey the heroism of our protagonist?).

There is nothing left up to taste in this process. It is merely a matter of what your "success threshold" for each piece of the film is with regards to the director's intentions. For most people, Nolan's action work is passable, because they may not be paying attention to a lot of the decision making or lack thereof happening on screen and out of the screen. And that's fine.

Interestingly enough, one of the most common complaints with a lot of Nolan's films is that they can be very confusing, even if moviegoers can't pinpoint why. The state of confusion is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of breaking fundamental rules, a subtler form of the same fundamental rule breaking that result in someone bringing a handmade paper card to a birthday cake contest.

[indy4 155]

To address the action scene issue more specifically, consider this: person A thinks that a shaky point-of-view camera during a fight scene is better because it places the viewer inside the POV of the characters. Person B thinks that a detached third-person camera position is better because it allows the audience to clearly understand what is going on in the scene, whereas that could be more difficult in the first person view. Neither judges action scenes by a higher standard than the other; they just have a difference in taste.

First I would point out that the shaky cam example does not apply here. I won't delve into details of why, but suffice it to say that Nolan's problems are far more fundamental than shaky cam or not. As ridiculous as it may sound, Nolan's problems are closer to the scenario of a director shooting a whole movie upside down vs. normally.

An even better analogy: The issue of shaky cam vs. steady cam is like arguing what color a birthday cake's exterior should be. And the answer is whatever color that helps the cake achieve its purpose (there may be many right answers and many wrong answers). On the other hand Nolan disregarding basic principles of composition and editing is like having a birthday cake baking contest and he shows up with a hand made birthday card. There is no taste preference present in this situation. Nolan is wrong. There is no way you can argue his paper card is a cake and still claim to have sanity.

I understand that you believe taste determines one's preferences for a lot of things. And that is true to some extent. The "taste" argument applies very well to independent concepts and entities that have no goal or agenda. Colors. Flowers. The Sky. These are all simple things in the world that generally have no designed purpose. A color on its own is what it is, and your appreciation of it is based on your taste.

Film is different. Film isn't a fundamental thing that exists for the sake of existing. Film is in a sense a complicated system of communication developed with a purpose, goal, or agenda. Therefore every element within that film system has *or should have* a designed purpose. Because there are no independent concepts or entities. There is no pink for the sake of pink in the film. And by that token an action scene within a film is a subsystem with its own sub purpose, goal, or agenda. It might be to excite you, convey the horrors of violence, demonstrate the protagonists heroism, it might be to kill time, it might be to spend extra money in the budget, etc. etc.

I think the first problem is, even trying to determine what the "designed purpose" of a film or an aspect of a film is highly subjective, for several reasons. People have different interpretations of the message of a film (or any work of art). One segment of a film can serve multiple purposes. How do you determine which purpose takes priority for any given scene? And it's not just a matter of asking Nolan what his goals were for the film or the action scenes--there is debate in the artistic community over whether intent of the author is a factor in determining the greatness of a work of art.

There is nothing left up to taste in this process. It is merely a matter of what your "success threshold" for each piece of the film is with regards to the director's intentions. For most people, Nolan's action work is passable, because they may not be paying attention to a lot of the decision making or lack thereof happening on screen and out of the screen. And that's fine.

The second problem is that even if you could determine the goal of a work of art, there are more than one ways to get to a point, and deciding which of the infinite methods of filming a scene best achieves this purpose is also completely subjective.

So even if we could say definitely that the purpose of the action in TDK is to "display Batman's heroism," there are many ways to achieve this goal. You could put the camera at Batman's feet and have a lot of shots pointing upwards at Batman, to suggest dominance. You could shoot the entire thing from the villain's perspective to show how terrifying of an enemy Batman would be. There are infinite other ways to display this idea, and there's no reason why one person's "higher standards" would determine the better method.

Interestingly enough, one of the most common complaints with a lot of Nolan's films is that they can be very confusing, even if moviegoers can't pinpoint why. The state of confusion is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of breaking fundamental rules, a subtler form of the same fundamental rule breaking that result in someone bringing a handmade paper card to a birthday cake contest.

To conclude, this criticism is based on two assumptions:

Assumption 1: Nolan's intention is to use action scenes to show Batman's herosim. Why is this necessarily the case? What if the purpose is to represent the sense of chaos that the character in the fight scenes experience, or maybe to represent the chaos that pervades Gotham City?

Assumption 2: More coherent action scenes would better achieve this goal. Why is this necessarily the case? Maybe by showing how confusing the action scene is, Nolan is showing how horrible it is to experience this, and thus showing how strong Batman is to endure this hell.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/view/20220718why_so_serious_this_knight_might_be_too_dark_for_its_own_good/srvc=home&position=7

"The worst offender here is composer Hans Zimmer, who might as well show up at every showing of this film and bang everyone in the audience over the head with his drum set"

Excellent.

[publicist 4,643]

Assumption 1: Nolan's intention is to use action scenes to show Batman's herosim. Why is this necessarily the case? What if the purpose is to represent the sense of chaos that the character in the fight scenes experience, or maybe to represent the chaos that pervades Gotham City?

Assumption 2: More coherent action scenes would better achieve this goal. Why is this necessarily the case? Maybe by showing how confusing the action scene is, Nolan is showing how horrible it is to experience this, and thus showing how strong Batman is to endure this hell.

That's just fucking around with semantics. The action scenes are not 'consciously confusing' vs. 'consciously coherent'. There are obvious errors in cutting, geography, placement of subjects etc. which just are not done deliberately - or it would be the incarnation of a not-too-bright 8-year old's idea of what 'consciously confusing' looks like. Sometimes a badly shot scene is just a badly shot scene....

...and i might add, none of those Nolan BATMAN's are worth all this hooplah.

[Admiral Holdo 16]

I think Batman Begins' action is done... meh, and The Dark Knight was an improvement. At least it doesn't go on forever for no reason coughTransformerscoughcough.

[publicist 4,643]

http://www.bostonher...home&position=7

"The worst offender here is composer Hans Zimmer, who might as well show up at every showing of this film and bang everyone in the audience over the head with his drum set"

Excellent.

I have listened to DARK KNIGHT RISES and there aren't any kinky ideas to rival THE DARK KNIGHT's joker motif. It's basically just formless and loud (to a degree which is suspicious, even for Zimmer standards), which leads to the suspicion that the film itself isn't too interesting too begin with.

[indy4 155]

I have to wonder why you would spend an hour of your life listening to a soundtrack that you don't expect to like and

Assumption 1: Nolan's intention is to use action scenes to show Batman's herosim. Why is this necessarily the case? What if the purpose is to represent the sense of chaos that the character in the fight scenes experience, or maybe to represent the chaos that pervades Gotham City?

Assumption 2: More coherent action scenes would better achieve this goal. Why is this necessarily the case? Maybe by showing how confusing the action scene is, Nolan is showing how horrible it is to experience this, and thus showing how strong Batman is to endure this hell.

That's just fucking around with semantics. The action scenes are not 'consciously confusing' vs. 'consciously coherent'. There are obvious errors in cutting, geography, placement of subjects etc. which just are not done deliberately - or it would be the incarnation of a not-too-bright 8-year old's idea of what 'consciously confusing' looks like. Sometimes a badly shot scene is just a badly shot scene....

...and i might add, none of those Nolan BATMAN's are worth all this hooplah.

I can't speak to Nolan's action scenes because I don't remember BB or TDK well enough to comment on them, but the purpose of my post was to show that taste is a big reason why people disagree about certain aspects of film. I don't believe the examples I gave are accurate interpretations of the action scenes in TDK, but as examples they serve their purpose.

indy4 - who has to wonder why somebody would spend an hour of their life listening to a soundtrack that they expect they will hate, especially when the beginning of that listen confirms their expectations

[publicist 4,643]

I can't speak to Nolan's action scenes because I don't remember BB or TDK well enough to comment on them, but the purpose of my post was to show that taste is a big reason why people disagree about certain aspects of film. I don't believe the examples I gave are accurate interpretations of the action scenes in TDK, but as examples they serve their purpose.

indy4 - who has to wonder why somebody would spend an hour of their life listening to a soundtrack they expect they will hate, especially when the beginning of that listen confirms their expectations

And i wonder why someone takes the time to dabble in annoying generalities to arrive at the conclusion that 'people have different tastes'. That's just the usual message board cop-out when you haven't got anything worthwile to say at all. And to assume that people who are critical of something are just biased and unable to enjoy it is of the same sulky school of arguments. I mean, really...

[indy4 155]

If there all elements of TDKR that you enjoyed I'd love to hear about them. A positive post from you would be a refreshing change of pace.

[publicist 4,643]

A Is there anything more i can do for you? Like writing concise, interesting discussion contributions in your name?

[gkgyver 1,645]

I don't think people have different tastes per se. Just lower or higher standards for various aspects of film.

Wow, I have to frame that sentence and use it every time a lunatic discussion arises why Zimmer should should be considered a great composer.

[Quintus 5,399]

Just more worthless tat hanging on peoples lounge walls.