Classic movie site with rare images, 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




Monday, July 20, 2026

Category Called Comedy #12

 


CCC: Merry Clipped-Out Marxes, Bouncing Baby Sandy, Dapper Offscreen Harold, and Comedies Gone Till Now


KEEPSAKE MARXES --- Clippings, shavings, call these fragments what we will, but this was collecting on clowns before there was public access to posters, stills, lobby cards, wells into which much money is presently pumped by those who seek Marx artifacts long gone from theatre fronts and shop windows. Show of hands for those willing to give five thousand for an original
Duck Soup 11X14, or three grand (likely more) for Night/Opera, Day/Races title cards, each, not for the both. All gatherers had to do in the thirties was sharpen scissors and go to work on what refuse they could access, magazines spent, newsprint featuring the team, a wide world of Marx mentions. What I’ve found in fragments so far is a Duck Soup ad chunked out (at left) from the original pressbook, desecration to be sure, like taking a razor knife to hundred-dollar bills. How valuable is such an item? Let me put it this way, I’ve collected pressbooks for sixty years and have never been offered one for Duck Soup … at any price. Whose image shouted “funny” so certainly as the Marx Brothers? I don’t know artists from film more caricatured than this unit of four, eventually three. These boys dressed comic to register comic, each able to attend fights, races, restaurants, without necessarily being recognized. They were constantly group posed, so Buster Keaton was right when he pointed out how one Marx drifting off could skid progress to halt when filmmaking. Suppose these brothers were happier when they were able finally to work as singles? I’m guessing Groucho at least preferred that arrangement.



Note closely these captioned images. Many of scribes who had no professional association whatever with the Marxes presumed still to speak for them, time-honored “wisecracks” the bane of thirties print,  seeming all to vie for placement among what passed then for wits. Thought balloons ascribed to one or more Brothers seldom approached level of what pro writers supplied for their feature comedies, but where thousands of dailies spat forth Marx images, license had to extend for staff, gifted or not with words, to apply print often hackneyed, seldom amusing, into the mouths of Marxes. From under what rock did someone emerge who called Groucho the “sad-eyed senior member” of the team or described Harpo’s “impersonation of an imbecile.” The boys must have dreaded sight of themselves so mispresented. We’re told the Marx Bros. left Paramount because Duck Soup lost money. Note though their MGM features did the same but for A Night at the Opera and The Big Store, and yet … virtually all such output was brought back in years to follow. All of Paramounts were reliable for late forties “Laffmovie” dates. I’d guess rentals were flat and no more than fifteen or twenty dollars for such engagements (save larger urban dates), but each played and were presumably liked. Same for the Metros, their five back to theatres and offered well into the sixties, this before the team became manna for cultists and designated “revival houses.” Receipts Films Inc. accumulated for 16mm rentals of the Metros between the mid-sixties and mid-eighties would be informative reading.


BABY STARDOM A LITTLE ACCIDENT? --- Was Jack Pierce during retirement ever asked what making up Baby Sandy was really like? Was Sandy informed in adulthood that the man who applied her greasepaint was one and same as he who created the Mummy and Frankenstein’s monster? Baby Sandy was among what was called “infant phenomenons,” except Sandy was celebrated more for being passive and managing a goo-goo here and there, being adorable whole of her inventory. Look at Sandy and consider: You too might have been a baby star and have no memory of it. I doubt latter-day Sandy recalled a jot of her celebrity, let alone what sort Hugh Herbert was to work with. She started at age one, retired at four. Had I done the same thing, would I retain a sliver of it? There was a girl at USC who in 1975 showed me a photo of herself at age three sitting on Clark Gable’s knee, but she couldn’t recall him. Universal made a series of Sandy features around the same time they launched Gloria Jean. Chance of reviving either is remote. I fully expect to die without having seen a Baby Sandy film (notwithstanding whatever dupey remnant might surface at You Tube). LIFE gave a cover to Sandy, which we may assume was framed and hung on her wall. I attempt to speak authoritatively of a player I’ve never seen play. The only time this happened before at Greenbriar was where we addressed artists of the nineteenth-century stage. This trade ad for Little Accident assured exhibitors that “Sandy Sells Seats,” which she undoubtedly did or Universal would not have continued making Sandy vehicles. To call her movie Little Accident implies something quite beyond kin of any Code release; possibly that was lure of a sort. There was vanished time I’m sure when Little Accident ran on late night television. It was regarded as sensible to have low comedians support stars not yet having power of speech, thus Edgar Kennedy as a “paperhanger,” Fritz Feld, and of course the inimitable Hugh Herbert, all under direction of Charles Lamont, who lived long enough to be profiled re his long career, but was he asked about Baby Sandy? “Woo-Woo vs. Goo-Goo” ads said as much as 1939 should expect of any supporting feature. What is psychology behind so many films centered around abandoned babies? The thirties were rife with them. Little Accident ran 65 minutes, I’m sure a gracious plenty.


HAROLD LLOYD: “BORN HUMORIST”? --- Harold Lloyd as himself could enter any market in any state and shop unmolested. So could Chaplin. But not necessarily Laurel and Hardy. Maybe Laurel with his hair combed back. W.C. Fields would have been unmistakable, as also Buster Keaton. Groucho Marx pre-mustache of his own and You Bet Your Life could sit all day at a sidewalk café and not be approached. Harold Lloyd posed often as offscreen man of affairs, as in affairs of high film finance and builder of mansions undreamt by even largest of stars. He was gifted in matters of business and of putting those with similar gift for comedy at his behest. Saving charm was Lloyd never claiming he did it all. He knew comedy was a corporate matter, like anything manufactured in volume. His most prolific of output was no coincidence, Harold perhaps wondering why rival comics couldn’t get as organized. Here with his cigarette, he looks like a lifelong world-beater. An industry knew him as an actor who affected funny, never as a man to be laughed at. He’d not exercise bad judgment like colleagues often did (Keaton), nor let hubris guide steps (Langdon). Lloyd could chair a lodge meeting of hundreds, this in fact his vocation once movies played out. There was no making go of reviving his old movies, efforts valiant to be sure, but I doubt it mattered so much. Lloyd’s ego did not hang on success he achieved apart from what could be counted in dollars, and of those, he kept more than most of peers combined. I note Lloyd features dried up on Blu-ray, also most of shorts, good as they all are, him in a way as hard a sell as in the fifties/sixties when going door-to-door for distributors. I salute this smoking pose for HL having a world by it’s tail at a time when/where he best basked in it. No waiting on posterity for this artist. If he couldn’t altogether revive “Harold,” there were plenty other pleasures for Lloyd to indulge.


MANY MOVIES OF MIRTH --- Mack Sennett was too successful not to be imitated. His slapstick formula seemed easy on its surface for copiers, but who of these could step before a camera and be reliably funny? Carl Laemmle hired a crew who might and called his series “Joker Comedies.” An overseer named Allen Curtis was responsible for 250 shorts made between 1913 and 1917. Pressure upon him might be imagined. Curtis hired funny folk who had plied trades on transient stages and knew from farcing, single reels done at such pace as to seem mostly improvised, but so were the Sennetts, and who complained about them? Nickel patrons liked to laugh and these humble efforts largely got the job done. Theatres changing their bill every day barely knew one clown from another, whether bought from this company or that. Split-Reel is the firm behind Blu-Ray release of Joker comedies plus others of obscure silent vintage. Subjects all derive from 35mm Library of Congress holdings, nitrate decomp here/there but who’d carp for knowing it’s the only way these rarities exist. Rivals to Sennett have too long been unseen. Diggers into comedy other than his are pleased to see something besides what forever floats about on film and video. The Jokers have not been seen for over a hundred years and would not/never have been but for effort of Split-Reel chiefs Rob Stone and George Willeman. Andrew E. Simpson supplies scores for the lot. Completists at comedy will not find a richer resource than these. Amazon among others (Rob Stone's own Split-Reel site) has the two-disc Blu-Ray of eighteen shorts. Get yours and support Split-Reel’s ongoing excavation of comedy’s past.

18 Comments:

Blogger DBenson said...

You've written here and in your books about evergreens, from formal re-releases to titles like "Jesse James" that never left circulation. With television came the calculation of real money coming after movies left theaters and after TV shows left networks. When broadcast television ruled (and to an extent even now) producers would take a loss on network runs counting on syndicated reruns for big profits.

In recent years an expensive movie might even be expected to lose money in first release, the real goal being to launch or maintain a franchise and move related merchandise.

Was there ever a (pre-television) case of Hollywood making a movie fully expecting it to take a loss in first release but pay off elsewhere? Sometimes a studio would splurge on a vehicle for a new star under contract, or on a big movie meant to pull a slate of cheaper ones via block booking. But were there cases where red ink was accepted as part of the plan?

Yes, several early Disney classics took re-releases to make back their costs, but perennially cash-strapped Uncle Walt certainly hoped for immediate returns. Elsewhere, films like "Wizard of Oz" would have made money right off the bat but for budget overruns. Wondering if anyone at MGM thought, "Yeah, the Marx Brothers don't fill the first-run houses any more. But they'll always be solid second features in second-run, so it's worth the pain now to have a few more in the vault."

5:15 PM  
Blogger Tommie Hicks said...

Joker comedies were initially produced to rip off Mack Sennett's rural one reelers. Yet the Joker producers found comedians and filmakers who were every bit as talented as Sennett's crew.

5:46 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Dan Mercer considers Harold Lloyd (Part One):


Your sketch of Harold Lloyd suggests that his life was hardly one of repose after his film career faded. It was as though the “go getter” he played was always headed for better things, possibly the life that he would live off screen. He preferred to be regarded not as some promethean genius, like Chaplin, but an organizer and leader of men. The man of distinction pose he assumed in that photograph would have been recognized by prominent industrialists and financiers for what they sought to personify. Certainly, it was the way he wanted to be seen.

My awareness of Lloyd as I grew up was largely limited to stills in books taken from his films. He was ever the man hanging from the arms of a clock far up. It wasn’t until a Philadelphia PBS station began showing the Time-Life series, “The World of Harold Lloyd,” that I even had a chance to see any of his work. I know that it has a mixed reputation among film buffs, not without reason, but I enjoyed those episodes and even “Hooray for Harold Lloyd,” the jaunty theme song that introduced them. When some of his features, such as “The Freshman” and “Girl Shy,” began being shown as well, I found that I adored them.

One thing I noticed from the Lloyd shorts and especially the features, was that the go-getting aspect of his “glasses character” was usually associated with a desire to win the affection of some pretty young woman. Without her presence in his life, he might have been content to goof off in some job without a future, as in “Speedy,” or daydream about an improbable life of success, as in “Girl Shy.” With her, though, he felt the need to prove himself worthy of her, which ultimately meant that he would be able to provide for her and the family they would make. It was a very different motivation than would be found in the Chaplin or Keaton films, when the characters they played were usually on the periphery of society, even when there was a girl in their lives.

12:50 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Part Two from Dan Mercer:


Preston Sturges’ “The Sin of Harold Diddlebock” was a satire on those Lloyd characters. The young man who won the big game in “The Freshman” apparently never settled down with sweet faced Jobyna Ralston but was buried in a dead-end job. His ambition had led to nothing and nowhere. Lloyd could not have been unaware of this, but may have seen in the redemption of the character the ultimate validation of his past work. There were also possibilities for amusing comedy sequences. The mixed success of the film probably reflected the differences between Sturges and Lloyd in their perspective and approach to film making.

In his own life, however, Lloyd may not have found quite the satisfaction one might have assumed from that picture of an accomplished man. His charitable and civic work was useful and well known, his financial affairs well managed, so that he could live comfortably without ever touching his principle, and Greenacres, his lavish estate, remained a show place while he lived, if seemingly an artifact of the 1920s. Even so, his life was shadowed in the way lives often are, as he and his wife grew more distant from each other and their son’s life became more troubled. The films, which made his fortune and him a popular star, never found the new audience he sought for them or the recognition they merited, though there were two compilations released towards the end of his life which began a renewal of interest in his work.

There were his hobbies, though, such as photography and stereo sound recording, and perhaps the frenetic attention he paid to them revealed something special about the man—something found as well in the character he conceived--in showing how much his lively intelligence required something to push against. If he was a “go-getter,” it was not in the winning or the achievement that he found satisfaction, but the striving. Always before him was the task of proving himself worthy, but the prize was the work itself. Sturges had it wrong in looking to outcomes as the measure of the man. The real need Lloyd faced when his film career came to an end was finding some way of occupying himself. As with Keaton, he was a man who could not lie down.

12:52 PM  
Blogger DBenson said...

Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, and Charley Chase were all pioneers of the idea that a slapstick clown could be the romantic lead as opposed to simply chasing the leading lady. Lloyd seemed to hit on it sometime after putting on the glasses. The Girl was someone to be successful FOR, ennobling his ambitions. Keaton was always earnest if a little unsure, usually approaching love as another puzzle to solve. Chase's character was Domesticated, even in bachelor days. A pretty girl filled him with a desire to Settle Down.

Features required viable plots and motivations, and romance was a default in nearly all genres. It was an obvious one for Lloyd, already blurring the edge of respectable romantic comedy. Keaton usually needed a girl to focus; his character otherwise tended to accept whatever and wherever fate sent him. Chase's one feature, boiled down into the short "Neighborhood House", presents him as a respected and popular family man whose domestic bliss is threatened. Yes, there's some jealousy over his wife, but it's mainly about what happens to his domesticity.

Have to note Chaplin's approach. The Little Tramp was always an outsider, never surrendering his vintage Keystone grotesque look. When Chaplin moved into the features, he'd emphasize how unlikely the Tramp was as a lover. He'd yearn, he'd sacrifice, he'd be playful but never serious, he'd be heartbroken. He got the girl in "The Gold Rush", but her feelings could easily be read as pity and guilt. The formerly blind girl in "City Lights" will certainly be grateful and maybe even eager to take him in, but a romance? Chaplin was a dashing and even reckless lover in real life, but his Tramp had to be lonely and solitary.

For other comics, the girl is often a perfunctory Love Interest. She had to be Won / Earned, or there's a father whose approval is required. Some clowns love in vain ala Chaplin; some facilitate a subplot couple (teams tend to favor this so they can focus on each other); some have wives to play off of for sentiment or slapstick.

6:54 PM  
Blogger Dan Mercer said...

An excellent comment from DBenson, especially with regards Chaplin. The closing scene in "City Lights" is justly famous, perhaps one of the greatest in cinema. Roger Ebert believed that the Girl would love the Tramp, once she realized who he was, and that his belief in her character would be justified. I think that he was entirely mistaken. After the Girl takes the Tramp's hand and recognizes him by his touch, the expression on her face changes from the delight she'd felt in helping this odd stranger to one of sadness and pity. She realizes that the wealthy, dashing man of her dreams had always been this shabby, grotesque little man standing before her. As DBenson suggests, she might want to help him, but no more than that. When the Tramp asks, "You can see, now?" his smile is ghastly at the realization of her disillusionment.

6:21 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Some of the self-consciously "art" films of the late twenties were, I think, done more for prestige than expectation of profit. They were considered good for the industry and applause for the company sponsoring them. MGM's THE CROWD fell in this category ... Thalberg saw it as a status project ... and then to his and others' surprise, it DID finish with a gain, if a modest one. SUNRISE, done with similar motives by Fox, lost money, but again, not a lot. Both films I expect were worth making in a long run.

9:37 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Joker's stable of talent was considerable enough for Sennett to poach several of them at one point.

9:38 AM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

"Sad Pierrot, disappointed in love" is a centuries-old stock European theatrical comic character; unrequited love was a fundamental part of Pierrot's "sad clown" comic persona, and all of these guys do show a little "Pierrot" in their comic styles too, before they finally do get the girl; Chaplin, more European than the others, perhaps lets the unrequited part of it show through a bit more.

7:50 PM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

I hasten to add that my comment above is about Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd; I haven't seen any Charley Chase comedies.

7:52 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Dan Mercer sends along further observations on film and assorted personalities (Part One):


Lauretta Edlund Home Movies

These are quite wonderful, but what I find especially interesting about them is how the people act before the camera. Nearly all of them are movie stars who made their living on studio sets before 35 mm cameras. Bring out a home movie camera, though, and they frolic and cavort and try to do amusing things, very much as "regular" people would have. Possibly the reason is that they would have been playing a role at the studio, while here they're being themselves. I'm glad that they were, though, and that, for this little while, their lives have been shared with us.

Vivien Leigh in “A Streetcar Named Desire”

There is a screen test of Vivien Leigh for the part of the Second Mrs. De Winter in "Rebecca." She was still filming "Gone With The Wind" at the time and seems much more self-assured than would have been appropriate for the part, more, in fact, as the dead Rebecca would have been. As Blanche DuBois, however, she has that wistful, contemplative quality of a woman who understands that something significant has happened, though she does not quite understand what it was.

Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart in “Sabrina”

Bogart in "Sabrina," Astaire in “Funny Face,” Cooper in "Love in the Afternoon": the question was why Hepburn had co-stars so much older than her. It wasn't an accident or any coincidence, but a requirement of the particular story being told, when the man in it has led a life and valued other things more than love. Very suddenly he realizes how much time has been wasted and how little is left, too little to walk away from what might be the supreme moment in his life. That realization comes from being with her, who is so different from the other women he might have looked away from. But she reveals the ideal—the inner beauty which is always the source of true love. Transfixed, he cannot turn away again, neither to forsake her nor his own opened heart.

Gregory Kelly in “The Show-Off”

I haven't seen "The Show-Off" but should like to. Gregory Kelly had a fine reputation from his stage work in a variety of roles, including the Broadway hits, "Seventeen," from the Booth Tarkington story, and "The Butter and Egg Man," by George Kaufman. He had suffered rheumatic fever at the age of two, however, and that undoubtedly damaged his heart. He suffered a heart attack on February 25, 1927 and died several months later on July 9th. For many then, before heart surgery was possible, it meant eventual ill health and early death. Anne Morrow Lindbergh's sister, Elizabeth, and actor John Garfield were among those who died during this period. Working with the Nobel Prize-winning surgeon, Alexis Carrell, Charles Lindbergh developed the perfusion pump for keeping human cells alive outside the body as the first step towards allowing surgery while the heart is stopped.

“The Seventh Victim”

"The Seventh Victim" is in a sense a period piece, dealing with a group of people who lived in a time and place increasingly removed from our own. It does not date, however, because it recognizes an essential aspect of what draws people together, that of belief. It doesn't matter whether that belief, that there are supernatural powers to be sought or heeded, is true but, rather, that they believe that it is true. So, the mysteries of the dark streets they travel remain mysterious, as the darkness remains dark.




7:02 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Part Two from Dan Mercer:


Humphrey Bogart in “Sabrina”

“Paris is for lovers, maybe that’s why I only stayed 35 minutes.” Bogart also realized that Cary Grant had been the first choice for his role, someone very different from him. His anxiety off camera made the experience of working with him unpleasant for Hepburn and William Holden. Before the camera, however, there was a rare magic born of that realization, something as real to the character he played as it was to him.

“Action in the North Atlantic”

I don't know, but being married to Jacqueline Wells would have been a sore test of my patriotism, even at that time and that war.

“Gidget”

I find films like "Gidget" and "Where the Boys Are" much more interesting and entertaining than the "beach blanket" movies that cashed in on them because they attempt to create real characters, people who seek experiences, try to learn, yearn for love, and sometimes find what they're looking for. It doesn't matter whether they ever achieve something removed from melodrama. It is enough that they touch upon aspects of life and growing up, and so resonate with those who are, themselves, trying to live and become authentic human beings.

Bela Lugosi in stage production of “Dracula”

Bela Lugosi was late coming to America, too late to resume the leading man roles that made him a star in his native Hungary. His difficulty with English was also an impediment. His performance as Dracula was the making of his career here, however, and perhaps, the breaking of it as well. The picture suggests an early phase of his interpretation, someone alien and predatory. As it evolved, it remained creepy yet assumed culture as well, that of a man well aware of both his nature and his station. His Dracula enjoyed life and sharing it--his blood as well—but he was ruthless in maintaining his mastery in his domain. Ever after, there would be a bit of Dracula in all Lugosi’s best performances, a relish in the villainy but a surprisingly subtle take on the nuances. He could do other things as well, as in "International House," "The Black Cat," "Ninotchka," or even "The Invisible Ghost." Such chances as he received, however, were largely determined by the macabre that was associated with them, because it was a quality invariably associated with him.

Louise Brooks in “The Old Army Game”

At least for those preparing press books or advertising, Louise Brooks was assumed to have a following who would welcome another screen appearance by her, even four films into her career. In this case, they would have received W. C. Fields as the star in a film very Fieldsian, with odd characters and classic bits hung from a haphazard plot like Christmas Tree ornaments. Louise has little more to do than to be high-spirited and beautiful, but she does that very well.

“Frankenstein Created Woman”

It would seem that, in "Frankenstein Created Woman," the Baron demonstrated a hitherto unsuspected aesthetic sense. His penchant for dabbling in forbidden arts, however, this time soul transference, leads to the inevitable downbeat ending.

Portrait of Dolores Costello by Alfred Cheyney Johnston:

The one of Dolores Costello is exquisite, with its contrast between the texture of the silk stockings and tulle dress, the black of the costume and the shimmering whiteness of face and arms and back, the simple shapes before the ornate folding screen, and especially, the superb face, so finely molded, but the eyes closed, as though in contemplation of desires that can never be expressed.

7:03 AM  
Blogger Lou Lumenick said...

John, LITTLE ACCIDENT did not have a huge profile on TV, apparently not one of the pre-'48 Universals handled by Screen Gems. Possibly because it was remade just five years later by International Pictures as CASANOVA BROWN with Gary Cooper, the 1939 version of LITTLE ACCIDENT was belatedly distributed by MCA mostly to stations in smaller markets between 1974 and 1989. Based on a 1929 play of that title by Floyd Dell and character actor supreme Thomas Mitchell, it was first filmed by Universal in 1930 with Douglas Fairbanks Jr. There are also French and Danish films based on the same stage farce.

11:41 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Thanks for all this info, Lou. I had no idea that LITTLE ACCIDENT was revisited as CASANOVA BROWN, it being one of the very few Gary Cooper films I've never been able to get all the way through.

8:19 PM  
Blogger Kevin K. said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7:20 AM  
Blogger EricSwede said...

Baby Sandy was profiled in Volume 5 of Richard Lamparski’s Whatever Happened to…? It’s on the Internet Archive. “Occasionally she watches herself on the late show but thinks the plots of her films were hopelessly corny and that she was a hammy brat.” Her only recollection of acting was one line she uttered in her last movie. “She has no memory of ever having met a movie star and has no idea what the inside of a movie studio looks like. Most of the money she made is still in the bank.” 1974. She became a legal secretary for the County of Los Angeles and died a few years ago. Never have seen any of her pictures.

8:59 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Imagine how many of us might have had former stars as next door neighbors and never knew it ...

4:50 AM  
Blogger Randy said...

I saw "Little Accident" forty-odd years ago, but don't remember a thing about it. One of the local stations picked up an odd package of old Universal comedies and "Accident" was in among those. The big-draw titles in that group were W. C. Fields' Universals, which were left out of MCA's higher profile package of his (and Mae West/Marx Brothers) vintage Paramount comedies. The remainder were mostly second (and third) string comedies starring the likes of Olsen and Johnson, the Ritz Brothers, Leon Joan Davis, ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy, and the aforementioned Hugh Herbert and Baby Sandy. Except for the Fields' stuff, all titles which are unlkely to ever again see the outside of a film vault.

5:26 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
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016
  • January 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2017
  • July 2017
  • August 2017
  • September 2017
  • October 2017
  • November 2017
  • December 2017
  • January 2018
  • February 2018
  • March 2018
  • April 2018
  • May 2018
  • June 2018
  • July 2018
  • August 2018
  • September 2018
  • October 2018
  • November 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • February 2019
  • March 2019
  • April 2019
  • May 2019
  • June 2019
  • July 2019
  • August 2019
  • September 2019
  • October 2019
  • November 2019
  • December 2019
  • January 2020
  • February 2020
  • March 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2020
  • July 2020
  • August 2020
  • September 2020
  • October 2020
  • November 2020
  • December 2020
  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021
  • May 2021
  • June 2021
  • July 2021
  • August 2021
  • September 2021
  • October 2021
  • November 2021
  • December 2021
  • January 2022
  • February 2022
  • March 2022
  • April 2022
  • May 2022
  • June 2022
  • July 2022
  • August 2022
  • September 2022
  • October 2022
  • November 2022
  • December 2022
  • January 2023
  • February 2023
  • March 2023
  • April 2023
  • May 2023
  • June 2023
  • July 2023
  • August 2023
  • September 2023
  • October 2023
  • November 2023
  • December 2023
  • January 2024
  • February 2024
  • March 2024
  • April 2024
  • May 2024
  • June 2024
  • July 2024
  • August 2024
  • September 2024
  • October 2024
  • November 2024
  • December 2024
  • January 2025
  • February 2025
  • March 2025
  • April 2025
  • May 2025
  • June 2025
  • July 2025
  • August 2025
  • September 2025
  • October 2025
  • November 2025
  • December 2025
  • January 2026
  • February 2026
  • March 2026
  • April 2026
  • May 2026
  • June 2026
  • July 2026
  • August 2026