Aargh! So much to process here, it was well worth the wait and will probably require a couple of rereads.
Please make the ‘What we’re reading’ slot a regular feature. It’s fabulous. I agree with what you said about Sally Rooney. It took me a long time to decide that I actually liked ‘Conversations With Friends’ and I think a lot of that was to do with how removed I felt from the characters in the book. Lots of new names to look up too, especially Alice Fulton. I love poetry and I (perhaps randomly) really liked that lettuce simile.
Great suggestion, I'd also like to see 'what are we reading' make an appearance again. Some books mentioned will now make it to my "to read shelf" along with a raft of fiction which I've not had the time to engage with.
I’m the elusive ‘McGuin(d)’. I’m actually David, and that’s just my e-mail address, but I am very happy to hear that you were able to have a few ice cold beverages on me! W.A.S. forever! ❤️
100 percent likely not to predict all cities on the tour. That said, 100 percent likely to purchase a ticket or two if you travel to the tried and true venue, Blind Pig in Ann Arbor Michigan. Promise they have cold beer and willing to buy you a round. -Kevin
On the subject of good or bad film, I lost interest in seeing Wes Anderson movies at the cinema a while ago. Very concerned with a particular, very beautiful style, but I was very excited for Moonrise Kingdom, which I ended up hating, and just haven’t enjoyed them as much since (apart from Isle of Dogs which is the best).
I’ve actually started watching bad films with my husband. We actively seek them out, The pacing is always weird BUT finding there’s sometimes so much more enjoyment to be had from watching something like Manos: The Hands of Fate. I just love it when you catch bad mistakes, weird dialogue or dubbed over bits. It’s the same enjoyment I get from Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace, only it’s REAL.
That being said, the best film I’ve watched recently that’s of the high quality and pretentious kind of “good” is Triangle of Sadness. That film was so well made, ridiculous and hilarious, and there was so much to talk about after.
Yes! Our ‘best’ bad film is “Ancestral Worlds.” It’s hard to get to the bottom of exactly why, as a family, we are so obsessed with it but I think the fact that it fails on literally every level has something to do with it. It’s achieved near mythical status and gives us so much more enjoyment than most decent films we would watch together.
On your recommendation, I might go back to Triangle of Sadness. I started it a couple of weeks ago but 40 mins in, realised how long it was and sort of lost the will to continue.
Both of us are big "Manos" fans. The most recent widely-hailed example of this "bad can be good" phenomenon must be "The Room," but history is full of them. As you say, there's a similarity to enjoying something like "Darkplace," the difference being that "Darkplace"'s creators are in on the joke. So I'd say they receive substantially higher technical marks for their effort, since their intention and their creation appear to line up almost perfectly. Tommy Wiseau almost certainly had something in mind when he created "The Room" that differs a lot from the end result, or his perception of the world is so warped (compared to what's "normal") that when he looks at "The Room" he thinks it's similar to the movies he loves (which seem to be pretty standard picks — "Rebel Without a Cause," "Streetcar Named Desire," etc.).
"Triangle of Sadness" is a good one to deal with since it elicits a wide range of reactions, in my limited experience. Besides the two of you, my poll includes Keith Carne, who said it was one of his favs of the year; Keith Murray, who quite liked it but with less ferocity than KC; and me, who thought there were entertaining moments but find Ruben Ostlund's approach (here and elsewhere) too manipulative, like if Lars von Trier were more obvious. But probably all of us would say the movie is well shot and edited, effective at telling its story, mostly well acted, suggests moral values (even if you might be put off, as I was, by the cynical way these values are used to beat us over the head), etc., and so would have to award it reasonably high objective marks as a piece of cinema. But enjoyment, obviously, is a different question, and I'm sure has to do with contextual questions like what other stuff you've seen, maybe how you grew up, maybe whether you heard Ruben Ostlund on a podcast and liked or disliked him, etc. I do think some people (ideally critics) are better at tamping down at least their *personal* viewing context and judging a movie based on technical merits, although depending on the critic, they might consider social context.
Haven't seen "Ancestral Worlds," but it sounds like a stunner!
Having now finished watching the film and having reread the review, I actually think it’s a fair assessment, although the reviewer seems unreasonably angry with Ostlund. I enjoyed the second part of the movie much more than the first, introductory part I had previously watched. There were some good comic moments but it felt heavy-handed in its messaging and really had nothing new to say. My daughter and I both came away wanting something more. It reminded us of The Menu but that was a film that we liked much better.
I have just finished reading What She Saw, and WOW! It’s a long time since a book has kept me reading until 3am. It’s an even longer time since I’ve felt compelled to make margin notes. I thought it was an incredible read actually but I wonder if I took something slightly different from it than you.
Firstly, Phoebe absolutely has fucked up relationships with men but, having been a young woman in the 90s, I think I can relate to the need to define yourself by being in a relationship and the frustration of that just not seeming to happen. It leads to a kind of (completely unwarranted) desperation where you are searching for someone - anyone - to fill that void. I also understand Phoebe’s need to no longer be a virgin. The idea that it’s an encumbrance that needs to be removed. I think (hope) there has been a societal shift in recent generations which means girls no longer feel either of these things quite so keenly.
The darkness in this book I don’t really find in Phoebe’s relationships with men (although some of them are undeniably disturbing) but in her relationship with herself. Her self-loathing drips off the pages and the real tragedy is the way you see this grow as she embarks on adulthood. On the whole I don’t think she is a victim of men, (in fact, at times she displays a callousness that makes me feel sorry for the men around her, the way she drops JBG because he “no longer seemed like the expedient social investment he once had”, for example) but of herself - her inertia and contradictions, the way she often feels simultaneously worthless but also contemptuous of the men in her life for not being good enough for her.
For me, the most worrying thing in this book is the way her long-term eating disorder and body image issues are treated so casually and only referenced in passing. Her depression is likewise more subtext, albeit barely hidden under the surface of the narrative. I appreciated the references to Sylvia Plath which I think add emphasis to her state of mind. I consider this an excellent, and very accurate portrayal of mental illness.
I don’t find it as bleak a read as you, though. I think it is genuinely funny in a lot of places and even made me laugh at times. Some of the chapters in the second half of the book are anxiety inducing but I see genuine hope and personal growth for Phoebe in that final chapter, which might be the first time we really see her happy and relaxed with a man and just in the moment.
Just before this, I read This Time Tomorrow by Emma Straub which is a very different, much fluffier book, but also about a woman looking for meaning in her life. They make interesting counterparts and have given me lots to think about.
Also, if you’re now into Ames, his funniest is ‘Wake Up, Sir!’. Struggling fiction writer, living with his aunt and uncle, goes off to a writer’s retreat/resort. Despite financial woes, still has his own butler.
Genuinely did not think I was asking a particularly big question until I read your response - and now there is a giant can of worms open in my head that I’m trying to sort through, so apologies if this is a bit garbled.
Firstly, while I can see where you are going by widening the context, I think my question *was* about movies. While I concede that all artistic evaluations include a consideration of form and context (one of the most exciting things I took away from my degree was the idea that the reader brings their own context to text and that this is a valid form of criticism), I know that I, at least, use slightly different criteria to evaluate different media and I am more likely to be forgiving of a film than say a book in terms of how well I think it’s executed. I’m not sure why this is, but I guess it could be because a film requires less attention so it’s easier to let things slide. Or maybe it’s just that I expect less from a film 🤷♀️
I recently read an article about the portrayal of Gen X children in movies which ended with the quip:
“Apart from The Goonies. The Goonies was shit.”
This made me a little sad as I love The Goonies. I *do* think it’s a good film, but maybe because it was designed to appeal to the eleven-year-old me who first watched it (context!). The author of that piece admitted that coming to it at the age of 53 probably changed his perspective. Does that mean that I am blinded by nostalgia or just that he is the wrong audience, or is it a bit of both?
This brings us to the issue of taste. In your steak analogy you talk about appreciating it being well cooked, but what if you like your steak well-done? Should you acknowledge that the steak is good, but not to your taste, or is it in fact, in your estimation, a bad steak? This is kind of what I was getting at with my question. Do you think there is a standard of goodness - “storytelling,” “cinematography,” “acting,” and “thematic depth” - that everyone should acknowledge, regardless of enjoyment? I worry that this leads to an element of snobbery. It certainly sometimes causes me to assert that I enjoyed a thing rather than that I thought it was good. I also wonder if it can also lead to “Emperor’s New Clothes” syndrome where we assume something is good and just a bit beyond us when in actual fact it’s a bit pants.
First of all, "The Goonies" is not shit. It's a thrill-ride that accesses the magical quality children perceive overlaying normal life, a perception most people age out of (listening to W.A.S. helps avoid this, obvs). But yeah, as with anything that's art, enjoyment levels will vary. I *do* think there can be (and are) objective standards of "goodness" that we can agree on, but maybe the problem you're having is thinking of it as "goodness" instead of quality. "Good"'s definitional envelope is probably too large for that use, since it can contain not just quality but also effect (enjoyment). Another word for quality in the case of movies would maybe be craftsmanship — you can talk about the craftsmanship of editing, shooting, lighting, acting, storytelling, etc., and compare those things pretty objectively from one movie to another. I guess you could quibble about "intention" here, as in, "but didn't John Waters *intend* for his movies to look kind of shitty?", but I don't think that's really the case so much as, "John Waters *knew* his films looked like shit, because he couldn't do any better, but he thought they offered something other than solid craftsmanship," and I would agree with that. So what's the other thing a movie can offer outside of craftsmanship/quality? Broadly speaking, I guess, you'd have to say "ideas," which includes a lot of things like moral values, an original visual depiction or editing approach (yes, the facility with which a filmmaker achieves those would be "craftsmanship," but not the underlying originality of intention), an illuminating soundtracking choice, various contents of the dialog, etc. etc. Which can clearly be determinative of whether a viewer enjoys something. I'd say "Emperor's New Clothes" movies tend to have high-level/admirable craftsmanship, but ideas that are wanting — maybe because they're derivative/played out, or because they traffic in some kind of PC/on-trend message that people are only superficially enthusiastic about, or they just don't feel important enough to make a movie about (I'd suggest that's the problem with Paul Thomas Anderson's lesser efforts, which are all nevertheless technically immaculate).
Relatedly, here's Becca Rothfeld trampling the Sally Rooney canon: https://thepointmag.com/criticism/normal-novels/ I think you can put the problem she documents in the "ideas" bucket. (I like Rooney more than B.R. seems to, but I think this is an excellent piece of criticism.)
Yeah, Rothfeld is definitely more concerned with ideas than with craftsmanship in this piece. I think she might assess Rooney books as an analog to the “Emperor’s New Clothes” type: the gorgeous void. Nice craftsmanship, highly likeable, nothing interesting going on underneath. “Good Will Hunting.”
Personally, I rate “Conversations…” higher than Rothfeld does. I assign original/funny voice & dialog much more weight than she does here. But I think she scores some tough points.
This is an interesting piece, and I do agree with some of it, but I think she is very harsh. Interestingly, she seems to be placing the themes and ideas within the books above craftsmanship in her assessment.
Of Sally Rooney’s books, I have only read Conversations With Friends and, while I take on board what Rothfeld says about these characters leading a charmed life, what really struck me was how desperately sad Frances seems to be throughout the book, and utterly incapable of communicating her emotions to others (somewhat ironic for an apparently gifted writer). It reminded me of The Bell Jar in some ways and I felt it had something to say about how sad and uncertain a lot of young people seem to be regardless of the lives they are carving out for themselves.
What I will say, is that despite being fairly brutal, this article makes me want to revisit the book. It’s also the first time I’ve ever been tempted to read Fifty Shades Of Gray! It’s thought-provoking, and I think that is probably the mark of a good piece of criticism.
Aargh! So much to process here, it was well worth the wait and will probably require a couple of rereads.
Please make the ‘What we’re reading’ slot a regular feature. It’s fabulous. I agree with what you said about Sally Rooney. It took me a long time to decide that I actually liked ‘Conversations With Friends’ and I think a lot of that was to do with how removed I felt from the characters in the book. Lots of new names to look up too, especially Alice Fulton. I love poetry and I (perhaps randomly) really liked that lettuce simile.
Great suggestion, I'd also like to see 'what are we reading' make an appearance again. Some books mentioned will now make it to my "to read shelf" along with a raft of fiction which I've not had the time to engage with.
Tell me about it! At the rate I’m adding to the tbr pile, it should be clear by around my 170th birthday!
We're not alone, the Japanese call collecting unread books tsundoku, apparently. Although, I do plan to read the books, that's the dream at least.
I’m the elusive ‘McGuin(d)’. I’m actually David, and that’s just my e-mail address, but I am very happy to hear that you were able to have a few ice cold beverages on me! W.A.S. forever! ❤️
Hey, alright! Thanks, David! You kept the team hydrated in our time of drought!
I've emerged from this post a more learn-ed and amus-ed person. Thanks!
Thankyou Shelby for your question! I still wasn’t 100% sure if it was a “joke” or not 🫣
100 percent likely not to predict all cities on the tour. That said, 100 percent likely to purchase a ticket or two if you travel to the tried and true venue, Blind Pig in Ann Arbor Michigan. Promise they have cold beer and willing to buy you a round. -Kevin
On the subject of good or bad film, I lost interest in seeing Wes Anderson movies at the cinema a while ago. Very concerned with a particular, very beautiful style, but I was very excited for Moonrise Kingdom, which I ended up hating, and just haven’t enjoyed them as much since (apart from Isle of Dogs which is the best).
I’ve actually started watching bad films with my husband. We actively seek them out, The pacing is always weird BUT finding there’s sometimes so much more enjoyment to be had from watching something like Manos: The Hands of Fate. I just love it when you catch bad mistakes, weird dialogue or dubbed over bits. It’s the same enjoyment I get from Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace, only it’s REAL.
That being said, the best film I’ve watched recently that’s of the high quality and pretentious kind of “good” is Triangle of Sadness. That film was so well made, ridiculous and hilarious, and there was so much to talk about after.
Yes! Our ‘best’ bad film is “Ancestral Worlds.” It’s hard to get to the bottom of exactly why, as a family, we are so obsessed with it but I think the fact that it fails on literally every level has something to do with it. It’s achieved near mythical status and gives us so much more enjoyment than most decent films we would watch together.
On your recommendation, I might go back to Triangle of Sadness. I started it a couple of weeks ago but 40 mins in, realised how long it was and sort of lost the will to continue.
Both of us are big "Manos" fans. The most recent widely-hailed example of this "bad can be good" phenomenon must be "The Room," but history is full of them. As you say, there's a similarity to enjoying something like "Darkplace," the difference being that "Darkplace"'s creators are in on the joke. So I'd say they receive substantially higher technical marks for their effort, since their intention and their creation appear to line up almost perfectly. Tommy Wiseau almost certainly had something in mind when he created "The Room" that differs a lot from the end result, or his perception of the world is so warped (compared to what's "normal") that when he looks at "The Room" he thinks it's similar to the movies he loves (which seem to be pretty standard picks — "Rebel Without a Cause," "Streetcar Named Desire," etc.).
"Triangle of Sadness" is a good one to deal with since it elicits a wide range of reactions, in my limited experience. Besides the two of you, my poll includes Keith Carne, who said it was one of his favs of the year; Keith Murray, who quite liked it but with less ferocity than KC; and me, who thought there were entertaining moments but find Ruben Ostlund's approach (here and elsewhere) too manipulative, like if Lars von Trier were more obvious. But probably all of us would say the movie is well shot and edited, effective at telling its story, mostly well acted, suggests moral values (even if you might be put off, as I was, by the cynical way these values are used to beat us over the head), etc., and so would have to award it reasonably high objective marks as a piece of cinema. But enjoyment, obviously, is a different question, and I'm sure has to do with contextual questions like what other stuff you've seen, maybe how you grew up, maybe whether you heard Ruben Ostlund on a podcast and liked or disliked him, etc. I do think some people (ideally critics) are better at tamping down at least their *personal* viewing context and judging a movie based on technical merits, although depending on the critic, they might consider social context.
Haven't seen "Ancestral Worlds," but it sounds like a stunner!
Here's someone who disliked "Triangle of Sadness" way more than I did, but I don't disagree with much of what he says: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/06/movies/triangle-of-sadness-review.html
Having now finished watching the film and having reread the review, I actually think it’s a fair assessment, although the reviewer seems unreasonably angry with Ostlund. I enjoyed the second part of the movie much more than the first, introductory part I had previously watched. There were some good comic moments but it felt heavy-handed in its messaging and really had nothing new to say. My daughter and I both came away wanting something more. It reminded us of The Menu but that was a film that we liked much better.
OUCH! The Hamburglar/ Moriarty comparison made me giggle but seems perhaps unnecessarily cruel.
Very late to the party here, but just got a copy of A Man Named Doll following on from this thread & can’t put it down!
Definitely a fan of the book discussions 😁
Glad you’re enjoying it!
One final addition.
I have just finished reading What She Saw, and WOW! It’s a long time since a book has kept me reading until 3am. It’s an even longer time since I’ve felt compelled to make margin notes. I thought it was an incredible read actually but I wonder if I took something slightly different from it than you.
Firstly, Phoebe absolutely has fucked up relationships with men but, having been a young woman in the 90s, I think I can relate to the need to define yourself by being in a relationship and the frustration of that just not seeming to happen. It leads to a kind of (completely unwarranted) desperation where you are searching for someone - anyone - to fill that void. I also understand Phoebe’s need to no longer be a virgin. The idea that it’s an encumbrance that needs to be removed. I think (hope) there has been a societal shift in recent generations which means girls no longer feel either of these things quite so keenly.
The darkness in this book I don’t really find in Phoebe’s relationships with men (although some of them are undeniably disturbing) but in her relationship with herself. Her self-loathing drips off the pages and the real tragedy is the way you see this grow as she embarks on adulthood. On the whole I don’t think she is a victim of men, (in fact, at times she displays a callousness that makes me feel sorry for the men around her, the way she drops JBG because he “no longer seemed like the expedient social investment he once had”, for example) but of herself - her inertia and contradictions, the way she often feels simultaneously worthless but also contemptuous of the men in her life for not being good enough for her.
For me, the most worrying thing in this book is the way her long-term eating disorder and body image issues are treated so casually and only referenced in passing. Her depression is likewise more subtext, albeit barely hidden under the surface of the narrative. I appreciated the references to Sylvia Plath which I think add emphasis to her state of mind. I consider this an excellent, and very accurate portrayal of mental illness.
I don’t find it as bleak a read as you, though. I think it is genuinely funny in a lot of places and even made me laugh at times. Some of the chapters in the second half of the book are anxiety inducing but I see genuine hope and personal growth for Phoebe in that final chapter, which might be the first time we really see her happy and relaxed with a man and just in the moment.
Just before this, I read This Time Tomorrow by Emma Straub which is a very different, much fluffier book, but also about a woman looking for meaning in her life. They make interesting counterparts and have given me lots to think about.
Sincere thanks for this recommendation.
Wait, there’s a second Happy Doll book out?! The summer is saved!!
Also, if you’re now into Ames, his funniest is ‘Wake Up, Sir!’. Struggling fiction writer, living with his aunt and uncle, goes off to a writer’s retreat/resort. Despite financial woes, still has his own butler.
Oh, nice! Was unaware of this title. Sounds like a slam dunk.
Genuinely did not think I was asking a particularly big question until I read your response - and now there is a giant can of worms open in my head that I’m trying to sort through, so apologies if this is a bit garbled.
Firstly, while I can see where you are going by widening the context, I think my question *was* about movies. While I concede that all artistic evaluations include a consideration of form and context (one of the most exciting things I took away from my degree was the idea that the reader brings their own context to text and that this is a valid form of criticism), I know that I, at least, use slightly different criteria to evaluate different media and I am more likely to be forgiving of a film than say a book in terms of how well I think it’s executed. I’m not sure why this is, but I guess it could be because a film requires less attention so it’s easier to let things slide. Or maybe it’s just that I expect less from a film 🤷♀️
I recently read an article about the portrayal of Gen X children in movies which ended with the quip:
“Apart from The Goonies. The Goonies was shit.”
This made me a little sad as I love The Goonies. I *do* think it’s a good film, but maybe because it was designed to appeal to the eleven-year-old me who first watched it (context!). The author of that piece admitted that coming to it at the age of 53 probably changed his perspective. Does that mean that I am blinded by nostalgia or just that he is the wrong audience, or is it a bit of both?
This brings us to the issue of taste. In your steak analogy you talk about appreciating it being well cooked, but what if you like your steak well-done? Should you acknowledge that the steak is good, but not to your taste, or is it in fact, in your estimation, a bad steak? This is kind of what I was getting at with my question. Do you think there is a standard of goodness - “storytelling,” “cinematography,” “acting,” and “thematic depth” - that everyone should acknowledge, regardless of enjoyment? I worry that this leads to an element of snobbery. It certainly sometimes causes me to assert that I enjoyed a thing rather than that I thought it was good. I also wonder if it can also lead to “Emperor’s New Clothes” syndrome where we assume something is good and just a bit beyond us when in actual fact it’s a bit pants.
First of all, "The Goonies" is not shit. It's a thrill-ride that accesses the magical quality children perceive overlaying normal life, a perception most people age out of (listening to W.A.S. helps avoid this, obvs). But yeah, as with anything that's art, enjoyment levels will vary. I *do* think there can be (and are) objective standards of "goodness" that we can agree on, but maybe the problem you're having is thinking of it as "goodness" instead of quality. "Good"'s definitional envelope is probably too large for that use, since it can contain not just quality but also effect (enjoyment). Another word for quality in the case of movies would maybe be craftsmanship — you can talk about the craftsmanship of editing, shooting, lighting, acting, storytelling, etc., and compare those things pretty objectively from one movie to another. I guess you could quibble about "intention" here, as in, "but didn't John Waters *intend* for his movies to look kind of shitty?", but I don't think that's really the case so much as, "John Waters *knew* his films looked like shit, because he couldn't do any better, but he thought they offered something other than solid craftsmanship," and I would agree with that. So what's the other thing a movie can offer outside of craftsmanship/quality? Broadly speaking, I guess, you'd have to say "ideas," which includes a lot of things like moral values, an original visual depiction or editing approach (yes, the facility with which a filmmaker achieves those would be "craftsmanship," but not the underlying originality of intention), an illuminating soundtracking choice, various contents of the dialog, etc. etc. Which can clearly be determinative of whether a viewer enjoys something. I'd say "Emperor's New Clothes" movies tend to have high-level/admirable craftsmanship, but ideas that are wanting — maybe because they're derivative/played out, or because they traffic in some kind of PC/on-trend message that people are only superficially enthusiastic about, or they just don't feel important enough to make a movie about (I'd suggest that's the problem with Paul Thomas Anderson's lesser efforts, which are all nevertheless technically immaculate).
Relatedly, here's Becca Rothfeld trampling the Sally Rooney canon: https://thepointmag.com/criticism/normal-novels/ I think you can put the problem she documents in the "ideas" bucket. (I like Rooney more than B.R. seems to, but I think this is an excellent piece of criticism.)
Yeah, Rothfeld is definitely more concerned with ideas than with craftsmanship in this piece. I think she might assess Rooney books as an analog to the “Emperor’s New Clothes” type: the gorgeous void. Nice craftsmanship, highly likeable, nothing interesting going on underneath. “Good Will Hunting.”
Personally, I rate “Conversations…” higher than Rothfeld does. I assign original/funny voice & dialog much more weight than she does here. But I think she scores some tough points.
This is an interesting piece, and I do agree with some of it, but I think she is very harsh. Interestingly, she seems to be placing the themes and ideas within the books above craftsmanship in her assessment.
Of Sally Rooney’s books, I have only read Conversations With Friends and, while I take on board what Rothfeld says about these characters leading a charmed life, what really struck me was how desperately sad Frances seems to be throughout the book, and utterly incapable of communicating her emotions to others (somewhat ironic for an apparently gifted writer). It reminded me of The Bell Jar in some ways and I felt it had something to say about how sad and uncertain a lot of young people seem to be regardless of the lives they are carving out for themselves.
What I will say, is that despite being fairly brutal, this article makes me want to revisit the book. It’s also the first time I’ve ever been tempted to read Fifty Shades Of Gray! It’s thought-provoking, and I think that is probably the mark of a good piece of criticism.
I did not write the *textbook* on concert calendars nor do I own a sextant...
11/6 Minneapolis
11/7 Milwaukee
11/9 Chicago
11/10 Indianapolis
11/11 Cincinnati
11/12 Cleveland
11/14 Washington DC
11/17 Kansas City
11/18 Denver
11/19 Salt Lake City
11/21 Portland
11/22 Seattle
11/23 San Francisco
11/25 Anaheim
11/26 LA
11/27 San Diego
11/29 Houston
12/2 Jacksonville
12/3 Atlanta
12/5 Carrboro NC
12/6 Nashville
Good effort, Christina, but incorrect!
Figured as much, but it was fun to play tour manager for a few minutes!