Friday, April 17, 2009

Recent Web Reading



Returning from Easter break, I've been catching up on some recent online cinema reading. Let me gather a few links here:

-- Chris Fujiwara interviews Japanese New Wave filmmaker Kiju Yoshida on his "anti-cinema" at Moving Image Source: "The common rule is that when you make a close-up, the focus of the shot should be at the center of the frame, so that for most people it's easy to look at, it's comfortable. Which also means that as part of the set of rules of cinema, the person at the center is often unconsciously defined as the protagonist. So I very often frame only half of the face of the actor. It's a kind of resistance, telling the audience, "Don't trust so blindly what you see on the screen. Please try to find by yourselves what is really important to you as the audience, in what you see within this frame.""

-- The new issue of Senses of Cinema includes three interviews by Darren (Claire Denis, Lisandro Alonso, Albert Serra) and this essay by Tag Gallagher on Samuel Fuller. An excerpt: "A gunfight in Forty Guns is parsed into isolated body parts, which Robert Bresson will copy in Lancelot du lac (1974), having already modelled Pickpocket (1959) on Pickup on South Street, not only for its pickpocket who works the subways using a newspaper, but in the Dostoevskian fantasies of a would-be hero compulsively clever and self-deceiving, wherein fragmenting montage alternates with long-take claustrophobia [...] Fuller’s last four films, all French productions, no longer look for solutions. They flee into cynicism and indulgence. Always his Hollywood movies had profited from avant-garde techniques, but toward telling a story. And if some of his projects began as theses, they had ended up, like Shock Corridor, centred on individual personalities, as did the abstract montage during the gunfight in Forty Guns. In the last films, in contrast, experiment is for its own sake, characters are mannequins and all is farce, pedantically reflexive."

-- On Gerald Peary's documentary For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism: David Bordwell and Jonathan Rosenbaum.

-- At Film Studies for Free, Catherine Grant, in memory of recently deceased queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, has assembled a webliography "of links to high quality, freely accessible, scholarly writing (or recordings/videos) on the web on the topic of queer/glbt films and/or queer film theory, a number of which, unsurprisingly, employ her critical insights."

-- Adrian-watch: An essay on Aki Kaurismaki ("Poetic Realism and a Few Drinks") at a Finnish website; his new Filmkrant column ("Cinema Has Never Existed"); a new blog from Monash University on film festivals; and a tribute to Ritwik Ghatak's Meghe Dhaka Tara at Indian Auteur. Also available at the latter site is a Mani Kaul essay ("Beneath the Surface: Cinematography and Time").

-- Via Sudhir Mahadevan: Bioscope, a terrific blog on "the world of early and silent cinema."

-- Robert Koehler has been covering two film festivals (Buenos Aires, Guadalajara) at Film Journey.

-- Via Walter at Quiet Bubble: Ted Gioia has a new website and an essay on Conceptual Fiction. "Did sci-fi writers from the 1940s and 1950s anticipate the future of serious literature better than the so-called "serious writers" or, for that matter, the highbrow critics?"

-- Adrian Curry at The Auteurs on posters for Satyajit Ray films.

-- Dan North at Spectacular Attractions has an interesting links round-up.

-- New issues of film journals: Film Quarterly; Film-Philosophy; and Wide Screen (via Corey Creekmur).

-- More reads: Snippets from an interview with Serge Daney; an interesting "Top Ten" from Michael Almereyda in Artforum; and Andrew Patrick Nelson on "the recurring appearance of stereoscopes in Westerns."

Any recent good web reading--and not only cinema-related--that you'd like to recommend? Feel free to do so in the comments.

Satyajit Ray-designed poster for Devi (1960), courtesy satyajitrayworld.com.


33 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would not want to seem aggresive, but I`m still hoping someone (among his many fans) someday will be able to explain why so fascinates him (or her) Tag Gallagher's ubiquitous writings. After his almost very good book on John Ford, probably still the best available on his whole body of work, and apart from a couple of unlikely good long things on Dreyer or Straub, perhaps even on Sternberg and Ophuls, I can't help finding him each time more assertive and more arbitrary, always carefully avoiding any sort of justification of his rather puzzling statements. I don't think his paper on Fuller has the slightest rapport with Fuller's actual films, rather adding to the confusion already sown by most of what has been written about him since the '80s. And each time he indulges in evaluating a filmography with stars (I'm recalling now his astonishing ratings of Walsh in Cahiers), I wonder if he's joking or trying to be original. After all, why bother writing about someone which one clearly does not find too interesting?
Miguel Marías

April 19, 2009 9:36 AM  
Blogger girish said...

Good questions, Miguel! I like the Ford and Rossellini books, and found this Fuller essay provocative but also a bit of a head-scratcher. I was hoping that it might ignite some discussion.

April 19, 2009 9:53 AM  
Blogger Catherine Grant said...

Hi Girish, Thanks, as always, for the shout out. Here's another 'new issue of an online journal' reference for your readers: Synoptique 13. Synoptique is always worth a look - beautifully produced by graduate students at Concordia in Montreal. The new issue is all about cinema in Quebec, including essays on Lauzon, Jutra, Lepage. And the new issue of Wide Screen that you already mentioned in your post is very much worth exploring, too.

April 19, 2009 11:09 AM  
Anonymous adrian said...

"if some of his projects began as theses, they had ended up, like Shock Corridor, centred on individual personalities"

This sentence, for me, encapsulate very exactly what Gallagher's work is about, often very well - and also marks the limit past which it rarely proceeds these days. 'Individual personalities' and their 'full' emotions - not to mention our absolute indtification, involvement, engagement with them as viewers - are everything in his accounts of films. Other kinds of 'abstractions' irritate and bore him. But that means he has to do some pretty great damage to Dreyer, Ophuls, Straub & Huillet, Sternberg, Ulmer, and some others, to make every detail of stylistic level expressive of fictive 'personality' and emotion. Often, reading his stuff gives me the sense of just staring longingly into some fictional character, wondering (dreaming) what they are thinking, feeling ... and, of course, some cinema is really keyed to such a level. But little cinema of worth works only at that level.

April 19, 2009 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Adrian said...

PS It is worth adding that, coicnidental to this discussion initiated by Miguel and just very recently, Alexis Tioseco (familiar to many of us here) made a far more positive case in his "Concentrated Nonsense" blog at:

http://alexistioseco.wordpress.com/

April 19, 2009 5:18 PM  
Blogger Andy Rector said...

Miguel, thanks for opening discussion on Tag's writing, though I don't completely understand the terms of your argument.

'Arbitrary' seems the opposite of Tag's method, which is rather more like an exposition of a precise unambiguous position within oeuvres so thoroughly felt and worked that it will inherently exlude various points of view (for instance, doubt in relation to Dreyer), produce an unheard of deviation or insight (but puzzle?) and at the same time (maybe) indirectly pronounce a bit of a polemic against particularly loose and vague attempts at objective writing that follows trendy discourse rather than fundamental looking and hearing (fundamentalist, then?). Which is not to paint Tag as a dandy, an increasing tendency in some "first person" film writers today, for rarely does Tag write a long essay without some kind of historical meat or nugget of new research in it's system (and certainly his books, fruit of decades of looking and researching, cf the Rossellini are great scholarship and full of ideas). Originality aside, his descriptions of films and use of still-frames -- again for clarity, not flourish -- are beyond reproach ("Every Fuller movie is a crisis of energy --"). I'm speaking specifically (and Tag presses the need to be specific) of Tag's essays. That Tag "avoids justification" is a statement in need of justification itself; I say that because I've never found a curious idea in his writing that did not trace back or move forward in full explanation, or fit in the interpretation as a whole.

On the other side of the fence, would you take Farocki's essays or film-essays (or Tag's video-essays) to task for these same "faults"?

Tag prizes the Straubs' ability to "be themselves" over what others perceive in their films as simple anti-conventionality, the setting up of straw men just to burn them. One could see Tag's writing as an expression in the same vein (is there a piece of writing more "being itself", with everything on its sleeve, than Tag's "Renoir and the Scandal of 'First Love'
or The Perils of Catherine"
?)

His writing is neither sing-songy (ultimately fake) "pluralism", nor such a closed world that it's as though he's speaking to himself (or unaccountable!). The Fuller essay itself is a grappling with violence, alongside Fuller. Quite an external question, as well as internal.

But maybe you're wondering about the value of his approach. This I don't know how to prove. No way would I deign to convince a writer of your caliber or experience in that Miguel! But in the Fuller essay there is at least one stand-out idea that I thought (until I read your dismissal) would be useful, and really "take": the idea that the soldiers in BIG RED ONE are white dogs, i.e. that WHITE DOG is a key film in that it deals directly with identity, conditioning and re-conditioning. One could read quite a bit of Fuller proceeding from the tension between those forces of conditioning and re-conditioning (RUN OF THE ARROW, UNDERWORLD USA, NAKED KISS, every character in SHOCK CORRIDOR, etc).

And when you say "why bother writing about someone which one clearly does not find too interesting?" are you speaking of Tag's Fuller essay? I don't think he would take the time to argue a bit with Fuller's films, or reproduce such careful and beautiful still-frames were he not in love with a great deal of Fuller. He's not that kind of writer. Tag's harshest judgement, that Fuller's last four films are some kind of cynical stylistic masturbation, is a common view that didn't shock me (but that I disagree with: STREET OF NO RETURN is an astoinishing film, his most Griffithian, continuing with the themes of tolerance, the outsider [forced], revenge, -- clipped, hysterical, lugubrious storytelling sure, but storytelling).

Tag's star ratings of Walsh are the only thing he's ever done that I don't believe in -- CANNOT believe in (just one star for NAKED AND THE DEAD!). But I return to the essay to which it's appended often.

April 19, 2009 6:35 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Rosenbaum said...

I'm writing this from the Little Rock airport, of all places, and will therefore have to keep this pithy. What bothers me about Tag's piece on Fuller, despite some of his characteristic virtues, is the sexual attitudes he projects onto Fuller and his work. Speaking as someone who knew Fuller well, the attitude towards women suggested in Tag's piece is completely false and utterly untrue to Fuller--and I'm convinced that anyone who knew Sam at all (or knows his films really well, for that matter) would agree with me. Whether or not he had a bad first marriage is really beside the point: Sam was a self-avowed feminist, adored strong women (beginning with his mother, perhaps the key figure in his life), and had little if any of the negative attitudes Tag's piece ascribes to him. The fact that he was such a pessimist AND enjoyed life so much is a paradox, to be sure, but I think Tag's reading of his sexual politics only muddies the water.

April 19, 2009 6:59 PM  
Blogger weepingsam said...

Related to the first item.... I caught a good chunk of Harvard's Kiju Yoshida retrospective mentioned in Fujiwara's interview, with Yoshida and Mariko Okada there... he made some pretty amazing films, that don't get much play in the states... I can't say Yoshida's films were as immediately overwhelming to me as Imamura's were, or as cumulatively overwhelming as Oshima's, but he's not far off. I hope those films start to circulate a bit - I hope they come back. Some of them - Eros + Massacre, Coup D'Etat especially, really need to be rewatched - very dense and surprising... Great stuff.

April 19, 2009 8:34 PM  
Blogger Gareth said...

In terms of newly-available cinema-related reading on the web, it's hard to top Craig Keller's translation of a 1974 interview with Maurice Pialat, in which Pialat speaks at length about his film La Gueule ouverte.

April 21, 2009 11:48 AM  
Blogger girish said...

Hello, everyone, and thanks!

Cannes has just announced its lineup:

Michael Haneke, Bellochio's VINCERE, Andrea Arnold's FISH TANK, Resnais' LES HERBES FOLLES, Xavier Giannoli's A L'ORIGINE, Isabel Coixet's MAP OF THE SOUNDS OF TOKYO, Lou Ye's NUIT D'IVRESSE PRINTANIERE, Jacques Audiard's UN PROPHETE, Park Chan-Wook's THIRST, Ang Lee's TAKING WOODSTOCK, Elia Suleiman's TIME THAT REMAINS, Loach's LOOKING FOR ERIC, Tarantino, Campion's BRIGHT STAR, Brilliante Mendoza's MANORO, Von Trier's ANTICHRIST, Gaspar Noe's ENTER THE VOID, Tsai Ming-liang's VISAGES, Johnnie To's VENGEANCE.

April 23, 2009 7:30 AM  
Blogger Maya said...

Is that all? Sigh. (Heh.)

April 23, 2009 12:38 PM  
Blogger Gareth said...

Well, there's a special screening of Souleymane Cissé's first film in nearly 15 years if that's not enough!

April 23, 2009 12:41 PM  
Blogger girish said...

There are 2 films at Cannes by Raya Martin, whose work I'm not familiar with. Any fans of his here, I wonder?

April 23, 2009 1:13 PM  
Blogger jesús cortés said...

Raya Martin is one of the most audacious and brilliant new film makers coming out of the Philippines along with Lav Diaz. He´s not too connected with the tradition of his country past cinema; his last features are slow paced, perfect timing non-narrative movies with a great frame work, maybe similar to Bèla Tarr or Aleksandr Sokurov but seems to me nearer silent era masters like Abel Gance or Lupu Pick.
His best works are for me "A short film about the Indio Nacional" and "Autohystoria"

April 23, 2009 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Girish, I more or less subscribe what Jesús said. I'm also a great fan of Raya Martin, who together with Lav Diaz assures the renewal of the Philippine cinema made in part great by Bernal, Brocka, O'Hara and several more 20 or 30 years ago.
Miguel Marías

April 23, 2009 7:56 PM  
Anonymous adrian said...

But where in Cannes is Godard's SOCIALISM? Not yet finished?

April 24, 2009 5:27 AM  
Blogger Ignatiy Vishnevetsky said...

From what I understand, it's due in 2010.

April 24, 2009 6:55 AM  
Blogger Ignatiy Vishnevetsky said...

Addendum, re: Socialism.

Apparently, only the "first part" will be done by 2010. Here's from an interview someone translated with the tennis player (!) Catherine Tanvier, who acts in the film:

And the meeting with Godard?He's a fan of tennis. He had liked "Déclassée" and wanted to meet me. He proposed I act in "Les Socialistes", whose first part is to be released in 2010. In the film, I am the mother of two children who seize power. I don't have much to say, but it is very hard-hitting. Jean-Luc Godard leaves a lot of freedom of the moment for one to be right (? "que l'on est dans la justesse" confuses me). He is very reassuring. I'm not an actress, Jean-Luc only asks me to be myself. He has elsewhere in the film a line about the mother which says: "She doesn't know she has a role."

Did you play tennis with him?Yes, three times already. He has the technique for returning the ball, he's not bad. He didn't want me to go easy/let him win (?). So, I hit hard.

April 24, 2009 7:00 AM  
Anonymous Alexis Tioseco said...

Adrian / Miguel: Yes, quite fortuitous timing with the Tag criticism! Unfortunately those words on my blog don't attempt to make a case for Tag (though I thought Andy did that brilliantly in the comments), just a short note to accompany the quote from his piece on Dreyer/Gertrud. Quite curious to hear your responses to Andy's valiant defense!

Side note: Miguel, I just read a wonderful interview that you and Francisco Llinas did with Rossellini in 1970, published in the book "My Method".

Regarding Raya Martin: Nice to see appreciators of his work here (and also those standing by the films of Lav Diaz)! I've seen "Independencia" and believe it to be his best work. (Full disclosure: I was later asked to work on the English subtitles, and did...without compensation if that matters to anyone). The official trailer for the film was posted online by his producer Arleen Cuevas, and can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5rVvv9s8z4

April 24, 2009 7:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: Ignatiy and the translation:
I'm guessing the original read "Jean-Luc Godard laisse beaucoup de liberté du moment qu'on est dans la justesse"?
If so, "du moment que" means "as long as", so in english it would be something like "JLG leaves a lot of liberty as long as long as you're in the right" ("dans la justesse" is quite hard to translate... and English badly needs an indeterminate pronoun like "on" in French or "man" in German).
Nathan

April 24, 2009 7:36 AM  
Blogger Ignatiy Vishnevetsky said...

Nathan,

The translation actually came from the Criterion Collection forum, of all places, where it was someone's correction of a version of the interview translated using BabelFish or one of those other automatic translators. Thanks for clearing it up a bit--my French is very bad, the kind that understand but can't phrase. I didn't want to try and tackle it from the original (which is on the website of La Depeche du Midi: http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/08/09/470201-Tanvier-J-ai-ete-mise-a-l-ecart.html)

April 24, 2009 7:43 AM  
Blogger Andy Rector said...

Much obliged for the SOCIALISME news, Ignatiy. Also found this interview where Tanvier calls Godard's project "a trilogy". That would explain why only "the first part" is coming in 2010.

Coincidentally Laurent Kretzschmar sent me a translation of a great Daney text on tennis, television and aggression (the first translation of one of Daney's many pieces on tennis) which I posted on my blog yesterday, with a lead and follow by Godard, and epilogue by Jerry Lewis.

Alexis, thanks for the compliment! Has anyone seen Tag's video-essay on the Rossellini History films, included in the Criterion set? In his CINEASTE review of the box, Krohn called it "a work of art, like Rossellini's films".

April 24, 2009 7:36 PM  
Blogger craig keller. said...

Let me chime in on the Socialisme topic, and thank Ignatiy for the quote. A few days ago I read (via a link from IFC Daily, and/or from somewhere else in addition, I can't even remember), the following — which pretty much confirmed for me the fact that we wouldn't be seeing Godard at Cannes, after all:

From NouvelObs.com, 2 April 2009:

"- Jean-Luc Godard démarre en Grèce le tournage de son prochain film, «Socialisme», dans lequel apparaîtra le philosophe Alain Badiou dans le rôle d'un conférencier."Then there was this, from the infinite thØught website:

"From Killian:

" 'Regarding the Godard film, Badiou told us that he would be in Godard's (final, I think he said) film. It is being filmed around now; it involves Badiou being on a cruise ship somewhere in/near Turkey; he is in three scenes; firstly having breakfast with a Russian spy (not a real one, although as he is really Badiou he asked Godard if the spy was really a spy, but she is an actor); secondly, he will be seen writing a lecture on Husserl's Origin of Geometry, and thirdly, he will deliver the lecture, still on the cruise ship, to an empty auditorium. Half of the film will be bourgeois children explaining to their parents that they, and not the adults, should be allowed to vote. I think I am accurately enough recounting what Badiou said, although the whole story was so outrageous, and the plan for the film so liable to change, apparently, that who knows whether any of this will appear as planned. It made for an entertaining few mins of listening though.' "

So, everyone, let's get it together and start brushing up on our Badiou.

As a refresher, here at my blog are some images (presumably frames) released a few months ago via Vega Film, from Socialisme-in-progress — I'm presuming these all come from this now-reported 'first section': here.

(In summary: Also note that at various times, Juliette Binoche has been attached to the project, and that Godard, via that long video interview that was posted at the Cahiers site several months back, had stated that at least part of the film had to do with the c. WWII-era disembarkation of American troops in Greece.)

ck.

April 25, 2009 12:43 AM  
Anonymous Corey Creekmur said...

Perhaps it's too obvious to point out, but I'm amazed to read these comments about Godard playing tennis (though that's a long-standing passion of his), and working on what will perhaps be a trilogy -- when he is almost 80 years old!!

And speaking of Godard, Bill Krohn's detailed review of the Brody biography in the latest issue of CINEMA SCOPE is fascinating -- and refers frustratingly to a review of the book by Adrian Martin "not available online." Adrian -- might this situation be changed?

April 25, 2009 11:39 AM  
Anonymous caboose said...

What I've read and heard about the new Godard project sounds strikingly similar in conception, though not in physical setting, to a project he described in Montreal 30+ years ago, in 1978, during his talks at Concordia University. These remarks were inexplicably left out of the French edition of the talks published soon afterwards (and yes, I will be getting back to transcribing and translating them this summer....). I guess we all really do carry our projects and ideas around with us for a very long time indeed.

April 25, 2009 12:59 PM  
Anonymous adrian said...

Caboose, you are absolutely right about Godard carrying his projects around for years - contrary, somewhat, to his popular image as a 'make 'em up as he goes along' kinda guy. I don't think I have ever seen it mentioned that, for example, the film project that Godard 'menaced' Truffaut with in their bitter 1973 letter exchange (called A FILM at that stage, if I remember correctly), is substantially the film he made 13 years later as GRANDEUR ET DECADENCE ...

April 25, 2009 7:34 PM  
Anonymous Filipe said...

I'm late but let me add praise for Raya Martin. The guy is really very good. I'm glad Cannes is finally paying attention as this mean the brazilian festivals might do as well.

April 28, 2009 5:33 PM  
Blogger MovieMan0283 said...

I read Bordwell's and Rosenbaum's observations on For the Love of Movies, which I have not seen, and was struck by the distinction the film makes between the Kael and Sarris schools of thought, at least according to Bordwell.

I'm currently reading all of the Kael and Sarris collections, beginning in the early 60s, and I must say the distinction made between their thought processes and opinions seems to me vastly overstated. They obviously had personal run-ins, and cults developed around them over the years which stressed certain aspects of their personae, but really their primary difference seems to be stylistic - Kael with the passionate prose tumbling all over itself in excitement, driving forward like a reckless train teetering side to side on the rails as it barrels on, while Sarris' writing floats and bubbles along at a more leisurely pace, crowned with a touch of thoughtful erudition and a democraticizing affection for corny puns. I like both styles - though I tend to prefer Kael's - but beyond this difference, and despite their brush-up over Sarris' early-60s auteurism, I don't see much evidence of a dramatic dichotemy in their writing.

Certainly, Sarris' devotion to the cult of the director seems overstated when looking past The American Cinema at his daily film reviewing, which often celebrates (or scolds) films based on the strength of their screenplay and the conviction of the performance, quite apart from any individualistic directorial touch conveyed therein. As for Kael, she's just as much the proponent of High Culture as Sarris - her famous article on Trash denied the possibility of it being great art even in the process of celebrating its appeal; she knocked early 60s art house favorites like La Notte and Hiroshima Mon Amour but she also celebrated L'Avventura and was possibly more enamored of "high-class" art than Sarris was - in fact this affinity was largely the basis of her attack on his auteur theory.

In other words, to come to the point, it seems that this new documentary continues to overstate and misrepresent the ideological - as opposed to personal - opposition between these two critics.

Again, this is based by and large on a reading of their 60s work, and perhaps ideological divisions grew greater afterwards - but I've read enough Kael to know that she never unthinkingly celebrated trash as superior to High Art in the simplistic terms conveyed and that "Circles and Squares" aside, she was in her own way as much an auteurist as Sarris ("De Palma is a filmmaker by Pauline Kael" etc etc).

April 29, 2009 1:04 PM  
Blogger Maya said...

A point actually approached in the documentary.

April 30, 2009 12:54 PM  
Blogger MovieMan0283 said...

Interesting, Maya. (Bordwell did not convey this impression in his review.) Since I probably will not be able to see this until it's on DVD, do you mind elaborating? In particular, does Sarris himself speak in the movie, and if so what's his take on the difference? He seems to revel in the rivalry nowadays, but usually with a twinkle in his eye, perhaps due to nostalgia (or perhaps due to the fact that he outlived her...)

April 30, 2009 9:13 PM  
Anonymous annonce socialisme jl. godard said...

http://www.vimeo.com/4529157

May 07, 2009 6:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ugg
cheap ugg boots
buy ugg boots
offering ugg
hot ugg
ugg boots
ugg classic
ugg sandals
ugg ultra boots
sitemap
bailey button ugg boots
nightfall ugg boots
sundance II ugg boots
ugg fluff flip flop
ugg stripe cable knit
ugg classic
classic tall ugg boots
short metallic ugg boots
tall metallic ugg boots
ugg classic argyle knit
ugg sandals
ugg amelie suede sandals
ugg coquette sandals
ugg dakota sandals
ugg morocco sandals
ugg tasmina braid sandals
ugg tasmina sandals
ugg ultra boots
ultra short ugg boots
kids ugg boots
ugg sundance grab bags
classic cardy ugg boots
classic mini ugg boots
classic short ugg boots
ugg classic crochet boots
ugg gypsy sandals
ugg halendi sandals
ultra tall ugg boots

December 23, 2009 3:00 AM  
Anonymous air force shoes said...

limeizhang Are you looking for the perfect shoes?Come to our nike air force ones store online in which you can find most kinds of air force shoes with low price but the best quality,including air force 1 low,air force one mid,Men's Nike AF1 Bird's Nest Shoes ,Men's Nike AF1 Light-up Shoes ,Men's Nike AF1 Olympic Shoes ect.If you are a male,Mens Nike AF1 Low Shoes In Black and Orange may fit for you.Everyone knows that Nike Dunk SB Shoes is the world-famous,an important factor is that Dunk SB are so cool and comfortable.You can see Nike Dunk everywhere.Dunk Low and Dunk High are Nike's flagship product.We also wholesale Mens Dunk Mid,Womens Dunk High,Womens Dunk Low.Choose one before sale out,they are easy to match your clothes.

January 29, 2010 7:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home