Classic movie site with rare images (no web grabs!), original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
grbrpix@aol.com
Search Index Here




Saturday, February 09, 2008




A Half Dozen Hitchcocks I Threw Back





My choice came down to how many high definition Hitchcocks I would toss over the side of my hard drive lifeboat. There were ten shown on HD Network and being there’s a limit on digital storage space, I had room to keep but four. Those ended up being Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho, and The Birds. With a heavy heart, I deleted the subjects of this post. How soon would one go back to Torn Curtain and Topaz in any case? Would there come a day when I’d actually be able to finish Family Plot and The Trouble With Harry? Lesser Hithcocks have been pretty much identified and agreed upon. It’s settled as to which ones are the crowd pleasers. My own preference saw the aforementioned jettisoned along with The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956 remake) and Frenzy. I’m of the school maintaining that Hitchcocks should be clever thrillers first and art second. Serious analysis of his films might better have waited until after Hitchcock died. Would it have benefited the director to be less aware of how great he was? By the sixties, it was no longer enough being merely The Master Of Suspense. Movies became a distraction from receiving honors and fielding questions as to deeper meanings within his oeuvre. More harm than good can come of genius lauded, especially when the genius is trying yet to create entertainment for masses not disposed toward autuerism. Even as cineastes wrote glowingly of his art, Hitchcock was struggling with scripts that wouldn’t work (like Torn Curtain) and Universal executives determined to avoid another Marnie (2.8 million in domestic rentals, the lowest of all AH pics the company released during the sixties and seventies). It seemed the richer Hitchcock became, the more insecure he felt. Stories of his caving to studio demands are disillusioning on the one hand, though in view of Hitchcock’s MCA stock ownership, you can’t altogether blame his watching out for money partly his own. Universal controls the bulk of Hitchcock now. They have since the early eighties when Rope, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Trouble With Harry, and Vertigo were leased from the director’s estate. Along with Psycho, earlier bought from Hitchcock himself, and those actually produced at Universal, that’s fourteen of the Master’s films in their stewardship, plus the television series. Never have these films been seen to such advantage as on high definition broadcast, an occasion good as any on which to revisit some of them.





Two he signed do not seem at all like Hitchcock films. Even those weakest are filled with moments peculiar to his genius, but The Trouble With Harry and Family Plot are for me imposters, so much so as to make them plain intolerable getting through. To enjoy The Trouble With Harry, one must answer this question in the affirmative: Do you find the idea of a dead body being juggled about in bucolic settings by quirky characters for ninety-nine minutes amusing? I didn’t, still don’t, and the Lord knows, I’ve tried. I wish Hitchcock had never stumbled across the fey little book Harry was based on. Paramount must have wilted when he brought this stray dog home. People defend it by talking about how pretty the leaves are, but wouldn’t another one with Grace Kelly have been more so? There’s something discomfiting about corpses left out in the sun so long, even amidst such an otherwise beautiful landscape. You’re in trouble when the Vistavision fanfare is your favorite part of the picture. A lot of the foliage was brought back to Hollywood, and there’s much talk and lingering in those close studio confines. Maybe when I’m Edmund Gwenn’s age, I will have learned to like The Trouble With Harry. For now, there’s reassurance in knowing others were in accord back when it came a cropper with only one million in 1955 domestic rentals (and so soon after To Catch A Thief did four times that). Family Plot is, if anything, ten times the ordeal. The idea was to present two differing stories for the first half, then have them merge for the second. Neither is engaging, and both are weighed down with the most unappealing players Hitchcock ever used. Was Universal’s casting influence at work here? These people seem better suited to episodes of The Bold Ones than a theatrical feature, let alone one directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Again you wish such a story had never crossed his desk. Family Plot is proof certain that even this great director couldn’t make a silk purse from a decided sow’s ear. With material like this coming recommended out of Universal’s story department, you have to wonder what sort of personnel they were hiring over there. A look at much of this studio's output during the sixties and seventies might explain. Were good properties just too expensive? I’ve read Hitchcock habitually underpaid writers and withheld his name from negotiations so he could purchase stories and novels at fire-sale prices. For results he had with The Trouble With Harry and Family Plot, the old axiom of getting what you pay for may well apply.




































For me, Frenzy was the great black comedy The Trouble With Harry wanted to be. Every line’s a laugh; by far it’s the funniest strangling sex psychopath picture ever made. Credit goes as much to writer Anthony Shaffer for its success. You wish he’d started earlier with Hitchcock and stayed longer. The picture is not unlike other British thrillers arriving around the same time. A vaguely comic New Scotland Yard pursued The Abominable Dr. Phibes a year previous (could the light tone of that investigation have been at least partial inspiration for Frenzy?). The idea of quaint yet dogged (if amusing) Yard men went way back in British films. Even John Ford mined considerable humor tracking Gideon’s Day. Hitchcock’s Frenzied London was said to have harked back more to the one he’d left thirty years earlier, and thanks be to that, for it’s the UK of cobblestones and fruit stands I like best, having never seen the actual place and imagining since boyhood that Sherlock Holmes and Jack The Ripper still trod its narrow by-ways. Hitchcock shunned the grimy and ephemeral mod, mod, London that Michael Reeves explored in The Sorcerors, and indeed, I wonder if he even realized how radically things had changed on the other side. Food is the stuff of tension and mirth throughout Frenzy. The potato truck retrieval of an incriminating stickpin is justly famous for working on both those levels. You can almost smell incoming produce in Hitchcock’s Covent Garden, and marvel at the variety of hiding places he locates there. Frenzy is the neatest and most straight-ahead job of construction the director had since Psycho, and must have surprised Hitchcock loyalists exhausted by the strain of defending Topaz, Torn Curtain, and Marnie. This was also the master’s first go at an "R" rating and freedom he’d long yearned for. Like an anxious boy handed car keys, he overheats what results in the only truly repellent scene in all his output (and if you’ve seen Frenzy, you know which one). Donald Spoto gets it right with respect to Hitchcock’s disturbances along those lines, and to think the poor man was hauling psychic freight like this at seventy-two! Well, the pictures wouldn’t have been as good had he been normal, but reading those troubled biographies, you wish Hitchcock could have enjoyed a higher comfort level, if for no other reason than as reward for all the marvelous pictures he gave us (there’s an incredible twenty-eight that I consider excellent to great, and your count may well be higher). AH is by far the movie’s best argument that profoundest torment makes for the most enduring entertainment, but hasn’t that been true of art since time began?






































My family was at the beach when Torn Curtain opened. We went because Alfred Hitchcock was directing Paul Newman and Julie Andrews. There wasn’t a hotter package in town during the summer of 1966. I was twelve and figured it would be good because AH did scary thrillers like Rear Window and sometimes outright horrors like The Birds and Psycho. Turns out this one was about defectors, a topic about which I knew nothing and cared less. The stars were introduced in bed together, presumably naked. I figured we’d have to leave right then, but cruel fate dictated our sticking out the entire 128 minutes. Hitchcock said Newman and Andrews were foisted on him. That again. I’ve begun to think Lew Wasserman was as much the auteur as AH himself, at least when they were together at Universal. The director wanted to do anti-James Bond spy movies, at a time when audiences (including me) wanted nothing but James Bond spy movies. Secret documents, microfilm, and such had always been secondary concerns in Hitchcock thrillers, reduced to those famous McGuffins he so often dismissed in interviews. Torn Curtain and later Topaz violates the Master’s own rule by attaching too much importance to the espionage. Topaz adheres to plot labyrinths ported over from a best-seller everyone’s forgotten now, and who wanted, then or now, to see ads for a Hitchcock film giving so much emphasis to the book it was based on (as shown here)? I wish he’d stayed away from Cold War subjects altogether, mainly because they’re just too … cold. Hitchcock’s talent was better suited to passionate expression among characters we could better identify with. Globetrotting intrigue worked with him only if the war was getting hot, as with Foreign Correspondent, or barely cooling off, per Notorious. Politics plays lightly upon events in The Man Who Knew Too Much, but for that 1956 remake, Hitchcock wisely kept emphasis upon the kidnap and its effect on James Stewart and Doris Day. The director as master technician was at his peak here. International complications are explored only insofar as they move the personal story along. The humor audiences liked was harder to place once the child is nabbed, as we’re expecting Stewart to shift into obsessive Anthony Mann-hunting mode, and a weakness remains his somewhat tentative pursuit of the kidnappers. Doris Day’s use of Que Sera Sera to flush out her abducted son begs credulity as well, being more than a little anti-climactic after the set piece at Albert Hall. Still, The Man Who Knew Too Much is Hitchcock at his most assured, and if not worthy of top-tier position, certainly earns a place among runners-up. Nothing we care about is at stake in Torn Curtain or Topaz, despite the fact they’re both handsome productions with many moments of Hitchcock magic. Process screens and phony locations are forgivable because this is Universal after all, and having spent lives watching economy minded product from them both in theatres and on television, we’ve long since learned to adapt. Paul Newman said that all during the shooting (of Torn Curtain) we all wished we didn’t have to make it. Julie Andrews got off to an equally demoralizing start when Hithcock told her on the first day that shooting pictures was for him just a bore (preparation being the part he enjoyed). You feel that loss of energy watching it. The saddest chapter played out when the director fired his longtime composer Bernard Herrmann after demanding a pop score, which reason should have told him he’d never get from an iconoclast like Herrmann. Portions of what BH delivered have been grafted onto scenes from Torn Curtain (available as a DVD extra). It’s some of the heaviest and most doom laden music the man ever wrote, the score as defiant gesture hurled at corporate heads and a director cow-towing to them. I’m sure the message wasn’t lost on Hitchcock when he showed up for the disastrous listen that ended with a shouting match and Herrmann’s dismissal. This had to have been the moment where Hitchcock really felt he’d sold out. In case he was too obtuse to get it, I’ve no doubt Herrmann spelled it out for him.



















































For purposes of selling, Hitchcock wheat was long ago separated from chaff. Most reissues tracked closely with how the shows performed when they were new. Those that Universal leased from the director’s estate were distributed to theatres in 1983. All had been out of circulation for at least ten years (not twenty as this Rear Window one-sheet alleges). A special trailer for the group was narrated by James Stewart, but what misguided editor chose to reveal the ending of Rear Window therein? To release the entire set within a four-week period between 9-30-83 and 10-28-83 may not have been the wisest marketing, for like Fox’s more recent Star Wars revival series, these came in like lions and went out like lambs. Rear Window opened first (9-30-83) with a bang at $4.0 million in domestic rentals, pleasing crowds best of the five as expected. Vertigo followed on 10-7-83 and tumbled to $2.4 million. 10-14-83 was Rope and $650,645 domestic, then The Trouble With Harry (10-21-83) finished slightly up with $727,990. Finally, there was The Man Who Knew Too Much (10-28-83) which did $1.0 million in domestic rentals. 1983 being prior to serious restoration efforts on behalf of library product, all these looked pretty dreadful on theatre screens, and diminishing returns as the series progressed wouldn’t have disposed Universal to spend much cleaning them up in any event. That would come years later when Rear Window and Vertigo got deluxe polishes via Robert A. Harris and James C. Katz. Both these were back in theatres upon that occasion, but years of television and video exposure made tickets harder to sell. Vertigo (10-6-96) in 70mm engagements still did $1.9 million in domestic rentals, while a 1-21-2000 reissue of Rear Window scored a respectable $1.5 million. To realize significant theatrical revenue from any library product nowadays is an achievement. Home theatres have progressed to a point where fans with space and resources can duplicate if not surpass most any revival house experience. The missing element remains the appreciative crowd surrounding us as we watch, a major consideration for those looking to experience Hitchcock as original audiences did. Will even high-definition compensate for that loss?

22 Comments:

Anonymous Griff said...

"The missing element remains the appreciative crowd surrounding us as we watch, a major consideration for those looking to experience Hitchcock as original audiences did. Will even high-definition compensate for that loss?"

No.

8:47 PM  
Anonymous M Blackmoor said...

Your thoughts were most interesting. As an irelevent side issue, looking at the pictures of Hitchcock in suits and ties sitting beside the bulky equipment of an earlier era, I wonder if he would have lightened up had he lived a while longer. I doubt that many modern directors share AH's patronising,or even cruel, attitude towards actors. However, as part of an involvment that I have with silent cinema sound archive material, I've heard a private interview with AH in which he was absolutely straightforward and non-posing.

5:13 AM  
Blogger la peregrina said...

Do you find the idea of a dead body being juggled about in bucolic settings by quirky characters for ninety-nine minutes amusing?

I will have to answer yes to that question. The first time I saw this movie I hated it because it seemed so strange. Then on second viewing I began to appreciate the goofiness of it. No one in this movie is that upset by the fact that Harry is dead or that they keep digging him up and reburying him. In a way it makes sense since Harry doesn't even look like he is dead. I kept expecting him to get up, brush off his suit, and walk away.

The characters in this movie are leading somewhat mundane and boring lives until Harry shows up. Digging him up and reburying him turns into a game that all the people involved seem to enjoy playing. It is interesting how John Forsythe's character gleefully enjoys it the most. At the end I get the feeling that someday, not to far in the future, he is going to "find" another body and start the game again.

TTWH is different compared to other Hitchcock movies but I enjoy it as much as I do Rear Window and the original The Man Who Knew Too Much.

5:07 PM  
Blogger Vanwall said...

I agree with la peregrina, the deliberately arch body juggling was not what most AH films would ever have, but it was very funny, for me at least, and the black comedy of TTWH with its deadpan humor was light-years ahead of its time, I think. I can't say popular judgment in the form of receipts has ever been a yardstick for me, and while I'll watch some Hitchcock films whenever they're on, "The Birds" isn't particularly one of them, but TTWH is - even "Rope" before angry crows would be my choice. I'm glad to see Hitch had some different sides to his talents, rather than nailing him into a particular box.

7:14 PM  
Anonymous dave 7 said...

I'm with griff.

2:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are you going to do when North By Northwest comes available on HD? You might have to buy a bigger hard drive....

9:43 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Nice hearing from "Trouble With Harry" fans. Someday I'll try again to join your numbers.

NXNW may have already played in HD somewhere, but I haven't seen it listed lately. As for hard drives, mine will hold 50 hours, but Direct TV does offer one that will store three times that. Only problem is if I switch over, I will lose what I've got.

10:05 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

I had a much easier decision process-- I kept the ones shot in VistaVision. I mean, how much better does HDTV make Psycho look? Not remotely as much as the gorgeously detailed and colorful image of Vertigo (even though I've always found it a bit of a snooze) or Harry, which I really am going to watch before the box deletes it...

1:55 PM  
Anonymous "r.j." said...

Dear John: Read your response to the Brod Crawford anecdote -- glad you liked it. So, here goes on my Hitchcock memory: Dad was working at Universal during the early sixties at "revue" -- the television dept. of the studio,writing several of their series concurrently -- the studio became my playground as a little boy -- everybody , but I mean EVERYBODY , it seems was working out there at that time. Among the shows Dad was doing was the Hitchcock series -- one day , and for reasons quite mysterious to me now, I found myself walking alone down the street where the executive offices were(and by the way, I noticed them quite clearly recently in watching a film called "Lover Come Back" -- they doubled as an outdoor motel setting) Anyway, on this particular afternoon,who should be coming toward me but Hitch himself, between two of his associates. I recognized him instantly -- but the recognition was only base as the host of 'Hitchcock Presents' -- what did I know from "Vertigo" in those days? As he approached me I looked up and could only see this enormous belly hovering over me. "Mr. Hitchcock', I asked , "Could I have your autograph?" Looking down with that signature mock-serious stare of his, he replied "What do you say?" "Please?" "Very well.' He then took the paper or book or whatever I was holding forward and placed it on my head, writing his name AND as I recall his famous sillhouette profile using my scounce as his backing, while the two "suits" flanking him, exploded in laughter!

2:45 PM  
Anonymous Griff said...

I found myself walking alone down the street where the executive offices were(and by the way, I noticed them quite clearly recently in watching a film called "Lover Come Back" -- they doubled as an outdoor motel setting.

That "outdoor motel set" seen near the end of LOVER COME BACK is so evocative of a typical New Jersey motel of the period that it had never occurred to me that it could be anywhere the U lot!

6:47 PM  
Anonymous "r.j." said...

If I may, I'll respond to your response: As regards the "motel set" I am fairly certain that those cottages were where the executive offices were on the lot -- anyway, they sure as hell looked familiar to me! In the old studio days, this was common practice -- it probably saved money and who wanted to bother scouting locations when it could all be done "in-house"? In recently watching an old Tyrone Power, "Johnny Apollo" (good movie,by the way) the scene where lawyer Charley Grapwin goes to the D.A. , is clearly the front of the old administration building at Fox.Another example: The Laurel & Hardy ,where they join the army during WWI -- the buildings behind them are the executive offices at Roach. Sometimes these things were shot so quickly, that they didn't even bother much with "set-dressing". I remember dad saying on more than one occasion this was common practice at WB -- particularly on the B-pictures, when he was out there as a messenger, during the 30's & 40's.

12:46 AM  
Anonymous Laughing Gravy said...

We saw the Hitch reissues in the 1980s, and felt fortunate to do so. The return of REAR WINDOW and VERTIGO were the movie events of the year, as far as we were concerned. Going to the ol' Cineplex at the mall in Akron, OH to see, not a SMOKEY & THE BANDIT sequel or a cheap horror picture but a HITCHCOCK CLASSIC was a thrill. As for his post-BIRDS output, I share your affection for FRENZY, but I like FAMILY PLOT more than you do. I dismiss the others, and wonder why th' heck MARNIE has grown in stature over the years -- it's just a misfire. I never counted the number of "great" or "near-great" films Hitchcock gave us, but I recently chastised a Balconeer for omitting him from the list of great directors -- Hitch can sometimes be taken for granted, and he shouldn't be. His canon is filled with some of the greatest motion pictures ever. My cherce for his Best Picture? NOTORIOUS. Other faves are FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, THE 39 STEPS, and... well, too many to list.

12:13 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

You know, Gravy, as I think about it, Hitchcock may be the director with more great films to his credit than any other I can come up with. Does anyone have any other nominees?

RJ --- Thanks for the insider info about "locations" shot on the lot, and yes, I think "Johnny Apollo" is a very good show as well. Really liked your anecdote of having met Hitchcock too.

Michael, I kept "Psycho" because, for me, HD does enhance B/W, at least on my system. Just imagine how great it will be when TCM and Fox Movie Channel start broadcasting that way. That may well happen within eight or so months, based on what I'm hearing ...

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Chris said...

"You know, Gravy, as I think about it, Hitchcock may be the director with more great films to his credit than any other I can come up with. Does anyone have any other nominees?"

John Ford.

1:36 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

I don't mean to dismiss b&w in HDTV, of course, but the sharpness of VistaVision Technicolor in HDTV is truly a wonder. (On the other hand, I was at Best Buy the other day and saw people buying the Blu-Ray version of The Simpsons Movie. Just how much sharper do they think a big block of yellow with thick black lines around it is going to get?) Anyway, my experience is, if you watch some of the MGM/Warner classics on TCM that they've done recent transfers for DVD of, they look REALLY good in even standard-def on my HDTV. On the other hand, Red River on MGM HD looks pretty lousy, for some reason their print is very grainy, and in HDTV, all the more visibly so. (A black and white movie they're showing in HD that looks really good, and is very good, is Jules Dassin's He Who Must Die.)

Anyway, I just posted, with due credit to Greenbriar for prompting all these thoughts, a big long piece at NitrateVille about my vintage movie HDTV experiences, which folks may find interesting:

http://www.nitrateville.com/viewtopic.php?t=433

3:27 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Michael, I'm a major fan of Nitrateville. I think it's the best forum to come along so far for vintage film fans, and I encourage everyone to check it out. In fact, I'm going to add it to my limks page forthwith.

Your comments on HD movies on Direct TV were really enjoyable to read. About "Red River" in HD, I agree it's variable. I guess that has much to do with surviving elements, particularly as they're using that Hawks director cut negative that was never actaully released to theatres. Still, I'm thrilled to have it. On Thursday, they're running a bunch of Vincent Price Poe films, and I can't wait to capture those --- keepers for sure!

7:06 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

Thanks for the kind words about NitrateVille, and for the link. One of the funny things about blogs is how you end up reading other likeminded people writing in real time about the same pop culture experiences you're having-- it happened a lot with James Lileks, for instance, when my kids were watching the same videos or doing similar things as his daughter, and now it's funny to get your parallel universe take on so many things I either saw many years ago in similar circumstances in the pre-video era, or am seeing now.

Yes, I'm looking forward to those AIP Poe films in handsome HDTV versions (and watched The Conqueror Worm when it was on a month or two ago). I especially admire Masque of the Red Death-- and incidentally, I seem to be the only one to have noticed that it was a big influence on Kubrick's last film, Eyes Wide Shut, which is substantially less mystifying if you see it in terms of Poe's, and Corman's/Roeg's, picture of privileged decadence and the threat of deadly disease.

11:30 PM  
Blogger radiotelefonia said...

I will miss analogical television.

This "revolution" deserves its quotations marks, because it is an almost authoritarian decision to throw away a competent technology in order to force people (us) to buy their "new products" at their prices.

I don't need high definition images nor the so called CD audio quality.

I'm still moved by recordings done by artists in the acoustic system, before the sound film revolution, and I prefer to hear tangos lifted from noisier 78 rpm electric discs too rather to listen to later stereo recordings.

A few days ago, I was able to watch a totally obscure Raoul Walsh silent film called THE MONKEY TALKS (1927, Fox Film Corporation). The video quality is horrible captured with a no good video camera (in certain passages you have the feeling that they were screening a negative), and there was no soundtrack... yet, I am extremely happy to be able to watch today such a film.

Digital television can promise a lot of things that are simply not going to be true: I don't need "American Idol" nor "Big Brother" in HD... if those shows are preserved in nitrate base stock, I don't really care.

Hitchcock is also one of my favorite directors, and instead of the his wide screen films (many of which I love) I was more enthusiastic for the fact to be able to watch the silent version of BLACKMAIL, for the very first time after ten years.

11:31 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Chris, to your proposal of John Ford as director with the most great films to his credit ... I just did a count for myself, and indeed found over thirty Ford titles I would put in that category, so I guess he would top Hitchcock for the record, at least in my estimation. Any other names we're forgetting? This might be an intersting topic for a post ...

7:11 AM  
Anonymous Jim Lane said...

I know I'm coming late to the party, but Chris took the words right out of my mouth about John Ford -- though I'd hate to have to choose between him and Hitch. Call them my Desert Island Directors -- if I had to be marooned forever I'd want only enough to eat, and would be satisfied if I could have Hitch and Pappy's movies to watch.

Still, I do have my quirky penchant for Henry Hathaway; I might lobby to replace some of the Hitchcock/Ford canon (I Confess, The Paradine Case, Donovan's Reef, Up the River, for example) with some of Hathaway's -- and yes, Johnny Apollo would certainly be among those.

2:11 PM  
Anonymous "r.j." said...

John, I love your reader, Mr. Lane's, mention of "coming late to the party" - maybe so, but I would hasten to add, "fashionably late". I seem to have started something with my casual reference to "Johnny Apollo". A dear friend -- and y'know something John, I just realized this --this fellow Iam referring to, worked with Hitch -- he's the dancer seen in a brief cutaway in Hitch's masterpiece (I suspect I'm really opening the proverbial can there!) "Rear Window", rehearsing with "Miss Torso", told me once about working with Hathaway, on his (Hathaway's) last project -- something about drug-dealers -- this was back in the mid-70's -- and he said Henry was a real, genuine, sadistic, son-of-a -- oh!if only the Breen office would allow me to say it! I think you and your legion of erstwhile commentators are absolutely fantasic--so that even "wise guys" like myself who have been in and around this business all their lives, learn something! My regards to you all! P.S.: If I too may crash the party, my directorial choices on that island would be Lubitsch,Renoir and My Man till death, Billy Wilder.

10:03 PM  
Blogger Ray Davis said...

Hawks and Hitchcock hold the most positions in my personal canon, but Lubitsch is up there.

9:10 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

grbrpix@aol.com
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014