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




Sunday, December 25, 2022

Canon for Christmas

 


The Greenbriar One Hundred Begins Here


So I am told that canons are gone and discredited and good riddance to bad rubbish. That means we each may pick minus constraint or expectation that worthy by consensus titles be included, fine because I intended so in any event. Art like life has too many should-likes to suit me. This canon shall be personal then, no more influential than preference for plain or peanut M&M’s. I’ve massaged a list over ten years never meant to designate “essentials,” for that relies on what others call essential, which would make mine someone else’s pick. Nor will I appoint “guilty pleasures,” for why bear guilt for what gives pleasure? One hundred will be stopping point … it could as easily be a thousand but addressing so many would take more lifetime than I’ve got. Let pretension dub result the Greenbriar Canon, that term to align my venture with church authorities electing what would first qualify back in the Middle Ages. Being canonic began with books of the Bible, so it presumes much to award any movie such pride of place, which is why lists, like for school curriculum, tend toward safe or easily defensible. I enjoyed a book Andrew Sarris wrote decades back where he made room among notables for one that meant much to him in theatre-going youth, My Foolish Heart (1949), directed by Mark Robson, with Dana Andrews and Susan Hayward. Of hundreds Sarris discussed in You Ain’t Heard Nothin’ Yet (published in 2000), the one I recall clearest is My Foolish Heart for being not just unexpected but nicely reflective of one critic’s taste. Why not be foolish enough of heart to pick for sentiment’s sake and let emotion be our guide rather than accepted wisdom that would choose for us?



Maybe there is such thing as aesthetic distance from art, but movies permit no such remove. What one loves is loved fervently. Movies come closest to music as transport to heaven. I haven’t spent enough time in museums to observe whether lookers weep before a painting or sculpture, but have seen many dissolve at predictable moments in film. Something precious seen during childhood will remain so for life. Choice need not be intelligent or even rational. One can enter a theatre with little hope and emerge renewed. Whatever was seen upon that day of rescue will remain cherished. We maintain fences around film beloved from early on. Whatever mattered then is treasured hence, like with Sarris and My Foolish Heart. I’m told lists are mentally made, if not taken down, by age twenty. Something may impress after but is less likely to enter what for most is a closed book. I would ask what all-time favorites became so in adulthood. Has anyone past thirty … forty … discovered a Best Picture They Ever Saw? Suppose I announced my Number One of a lifetime as no longer Meet Me in St. Louis, but Top Gun: Maverick. An intervention may be called for. At the least it would challenge who I’ve been till now (not to knock TG: M, very enjoyable by all accounts). Gilbert Seldes wrote that magic of movies wears off with maturity, most folks quitting theatres once grown, or attending much less. Canons for these don’t exist outside of stored memory. How many conceive of a “Best” list as anything other than a “Most Popular” list? Latter thrives as assist to marketing, that alone to make sense of further polls, us a mere focus group to determine which of old films merit continued play.



I am of remote sliver category defined 8-15-22 by a prof who was right for saying film is no wise what it seemed fifty-sixty years ago when there were so fewer titles to cope with. But then look at canons derived off literature, fewer classical books on reading lists, more culled as concept of canons is increasingly questioned. Think of fun to teach literature and add Lorna Doone and East Side, West Side to your semester syllabus, then await punishment from school administrators. You Tube seems to me a best place to observe how cultural winds blow. These are readers, watchers, fans and experts, instructors, a widest range, thinking and choosing for themselves, free range eggheads to some extent, but sincere in their purpose with many knowing too how to engage and entertain. I graze there daily to keep current on attitude toward books and film. Things in print anymore tend to date before ink is dry. I keep hoping YT analysts will more explore my sliver, but it seems majority, as in vast, figures The Godfather (or later) was where worthwhile movies began, little of merit or interest before. If there is to be You Tube appreciation for Cain and Mabel, I will have to generate it myself. Those who would load canon cannons with R.S., as in remote sliver, are elderly or hopeless-out-of-touch. Still, I make my testament and propose to stand by it. What alternative is there? Who’d believe Meet Me in St. Louis suddenly took back seat to Top Gun: Maverick? I predictably elect Citizen Kane lead for my list, not by preference or even of Top Ten, but for being the dinosaur likely to take longest becoming extinct.



CITIZEN KANE (1941) --- Why does young Charlie take such immediate dislike to Mr. Thatcher? Had he been taught we must all hate “rich bankers”? Thatcher overbears, but tries in his awkward way to be affable, and observe how fine a steward he will be of Charlie’s inheritance. Would there be sixty million dollars for C.F. Kane to fritter away on a newspaper had not Thatcher invested his assets so wisely? I dislike Charlie’s cruel answer when his guardian in old age asks the perfectly legitimate question of what he would like to have been if not for all the money. “Everything you hate,” replies the ingrate. Apart from his uncalled-for rudeness, I like Charlie and would argue he gets unfair shake from Jed Leland, who to me seems “judgy” for lack of a less hackneyed than such currently trendy word, as if Jed were there to seal the deal for Mr. Kane as empty and self-absorbed. Never did I observe Charlie being anything other than cheerful and good palsy with Jed, who it is clear was supported from college by his chum till their unfortunate break, which I regard as Jed’s fault for drunkenly telling Charlie off for myriad of faults not readily observed from behavior of good and steadfast mate latter appears to be. Were characters serving script agenda rather than what we actually see and hear of them? And where does Jed come off being so critical of Charlie after the poor, alone, and disdained tycoon is dead and past? Were I interviewer Alland and had a cigar at the retirement home, I’m not sure Jed would have merited a share.



And what of Susan Alexander? Charlie honestly thought she wanted to become a singer. He took up for her against anyone who was critical. Was this mere self-aggrandizing? Perhaps Charlie being obtuse in the extreme, but when did he claim to understand subtleties in human interaction? To others more sinned against than sinning, I vote yes to Boss Gettys and do blame Charlie for stirring that hornet’s nest. Did he not imagine his victim would fight back? --- yet observe picture-of-polite Gettys interaction with wronged Emily. I envision these two remaining friendly acquaintances after divorce dust settles. Mr. Bernstein is likeable because he understands Kane flaws but remains loyal to him. Bernstein is my favorite character. I could wish his vision of so long ago had stepped off that ferry and waited for him to catch up and introduce himself, though I’ll admit the union would not have worked out because how could any relationship survive demands of an employer like Mr. Kane? Easy to imagine differing fates for Kane characters, viewers making their own creative contribution as with any complex art. Does Citizen Kane entertain those seeing it a first time? It did me in 1975. Kane off-puts some for its reputation as a “challenging” film, this more an issue in 1941 when ahead-of-time technique confused many, especially ones who entered theatres part way into the feature or even during a second half, habit of casual attendance in those days. I expect audiences were readier to embrace the 1956 reissue, successful and a crowd-pleaser in spots, this following imitators absorbed over fifteen years since 1941 release.



Citizen Kane
gets now-and-then poke from quarrel over who really wrote it. Many who'd like Welles knocked off his perch 
say Mankiewicz. I'd propose watching  Herman’s other credited films, then judge for yourself if he could manage a Citizen Kane without plentiful help. Citizen Kane tells rise-fall of a not appealing lead played by a not-so appealing lead man. Also an unknown lead man in 1941, at least on film. What had a public seen of Welles apart from newsreels where he apologized for the Martian raid? What if Joseph Cotten played Kane and let Orson be Jed? All this in the face of my still-affection for C.F. Kane as misunderstood if not set upon, but Welles did come across high-handed in his early-on glory, and there is evidence he was resented for it both in and out of the picture community. Citizen Kane still is a wonderfully enjoyable show, never a bore, smart writing, magic overall that could be achieved only at RKO, staff and sensibility just waiting for someone like Welles to come in and fire them up. I never felt Kane to be a duty sit, and regret some others have. Has ground for fun been ground-under by academics? Maybe 1956 reissue and then early syndication was last occasion for Citizen Kane to be enjoyed on its own terms and not as something to be studied and thus dreaded. Were I told to teach it, then how about this to introduce: “Here’s a pretty good one about days when newspapers mattered like horse and carriages or passenger trains,” then wait for the end when someone (or more) says “Hey Professor Greenbriar, this was lots better than you made it out to be.” Citizen Kane is lately out on 4K, looking good as anything could with the negative no longer around.

Citizen Kane photo restorations by, and courtesy of, Mark Vieira of Starlight Studio.

21 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

When I am asked by others what books they should read or movies they should watch I say, "Find your own." Why? Because we do not read recommended books or watch recommended movies the same way we read books and watch movies we discover on our own.

Basically read everything you can. Watch everything you can. But do it for its own sake.

A pivotal moment for me was watching my 8mm Griggs prints of METROPOLIS and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA silent on my bedroom wall.

More than anything I had seen before those two pictures woke me up to the potential of the movies. Neat post. Thank you. Merry Christmas.--Reg Hartt

2:46 PM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

I had neither seen nor heard of Citizen Kane until I first saw it as part of a film class I took in college as a spare back in the 1980s - I thought it was great, a beautiful looking film with the visuals in full service of the drama.

5:19 PM  
Blogger DBenson said...

Some classics endure because we want to see the roots of something. Today we might smirk at Griffith's sentimental one-reelers, but at the same time we're trying to sense when this was something new in the world, unspoiled by repetition. Others last because they still engage. "Citizen Kane" would only interest film students if Kane were a conventional hero or villain. The genius was presenting this difficult character as a mystery to be solved. In the end the movie answers only the very opening question (for us, and not the characters). But what about everything else? Can we trust the various witnesses? Did they -- or we -- overlook something else? Was Kane just the sum of what people thought he was? Did we just watch the life of an SOB or an American tragedy? That's what endures, not ceilings on sets or now-standard editing. The end is not so much a question mark as a challenge to process what we know about Kane.

A note on the word "canon": When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle cranked out Sherlock Holmes between what he regarded as his real works, he didn't really worry about the stories fitting together. Later, Sherlockians made a vast game of aligning Doyle's stories with each other and with real events. The "canon" was defined as the 56 short stories and four novels written by Doyle. "Canonical" was used to identify something that was explicitly stated by Dr. Watson in one of those stories.

Now we have franchises, "universes" encompassing multiple properties such as the Marvel superheroes or the many incarnations of Star Trek. Each franchise has multiple movie and television projects, or series of books, or comics, etc. In recent years it's a corporate priority to keep a franchise's various tentacles in sync: A character clearly killed off here can't casually pop up there without a lot of explaining. If this supervillain steals the Statue of Liberty, these other NY-based guys have to notice it. This complicated status quo is call "canon", and you'll find serious online discussions about whether a throwaway gag in a movie or something in a theme park ride is "canonical" -- that is, officially the rule in all the related movies and shows. It's the Sherlockian game, but played on the Internet with a lot of digital shouting.

Back to cookies.

6:51 PM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

""Citizen Kane" would only interest film students if Kane were a conventional hero or villain" - I disagree.
Besides being overly dismissive of the critical abilities of the mass of film students when it comes to theatrics, that point of view neglects that film students can learn much about the craft of film-making from the technical presentation of the drama ( shot composition, lighting, set design, editing) - regardless of the quality or even nature of the drama itself.
One doesn't need to be interested in a story in order to be interested in the way the story is being told.

8:20 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Griff considers Kane and Christmas:


Dear John:

This is an old adage, but I believe it still holds true: CITIZEN KANE is simply more fun than any other film routinely considered A Great Movie.

[Yes, I too "think it would be fun to run a newspaper."]

As for Mr. Thatcher, I think the young C.F. Kane should have hit him much harder with his sled.

Happy holidays and best wishes for the new year for all, particularly for the proprietor of Greenbriar Picture Shows.

Regards,
Griff

12:30 PM  
Blogger Kevin K. said...

Your analysis of Kane reminds me of my opinion of the character as I rewatched CK over the years. When I first saw CK as a boy, I felt bad for Kane. As a rebellious teenager, I hated him. As an adult, I felt pity. Perhaps it's Kane's complexity, rather than a straightforward good guy-turned-bad or forever bad gu, that confused audiences upon its original release. Were they supposed to cheer or boo or cry at the end?

Maybe that complexity, too, explains Kane's dislike for Thatcher. Taken from his parents as a boy, Kane likely held a grudge against him no matter how rich he got. Stuff from your childhood can last a lifetime. Rosebud and all that.

Slightly off-topic -- recently a judge ruled that moviegoers can sue over a "misleading" trailer. Imagine if he had been around when CK's original trailer had been released! Almost makes it look like a musical comedy.

12:59 PM  
Blogger DBenson said...

I am in agreement with Filmfanman -- I simply expressed myself badly. My intended statement was that with a stock hero or villain "Citizen Kane's" following would now be limited to ("only") film students studying it for the craft and artistry. Instead, generations of non-academic viewers grappled with Kane and, as Kevin K. points out, whether to cheer or boo or cry for the character. He demands a reaction, but in a very unHollywood way refuses to dictate one.

2:49 PM  
Blogger Beowulf said...

I first saw KANE back when NBC had late programming but everyone else had "old" movies.
I would watch CK until I tired of not "getting it." I knew I was growing up when I was finally able to sit through the whole film and enjoy it for the great fun it is.

5:13 PM  
Blogger James Abbott said...

It is posts like this that have kept me coming back to GPS for more than a decade....

4:19 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Thanks so much for what you said, James. It means a lot.

5:43 AM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

I can see the "commercial logic" of Welles trying to leave Mankiewicz out of the credits, kind of, as putting Mankiewicz's name up there on the screen for all to see must have been like a "red flag" to the bull that was William Randolph Hearst; not that its lack would have of a certainty made any difference to Hearst's reaction to the film - but it might have done.
Mankiewicz's screen credit must have served to remove all doubt from Hearst's mind as to who had been spilling his beans, so to speak, while at the same time rendering any claim by Welles that the film was not based on Hearst's life laughable for either its apparent cluelessness or its dishonesty.
How Hearst used his power to try to crush this film is well known; perhaps Welles wanted Mankiewicz's name left out of the picture to try to avoid that all-too-predictable response.

11:47 AM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

Inspired by this discussion, I dug Citizen Kane out of the bin and re-watched it.
The political drama - or should I say the romantic drama? - holds up beautifully and well, and I think the film hasn't dated at all insofar as the film deals with human motivations and interaction; this, although every last prop and piece of bric-a-brac you see on the screen looks more antique than ever. It's a great film.
The short sequence of Bernstein telling the boys in the press room which already-typeset headline to run after Kane's loss - "Fraud at Polls!" says the one chosen, even though in the very same breath Bernstein has already admitted that Kane was trailing by over a million votes - could have been written this very year.

I also note that Susan Alexander Kane is first presented to us as a professional nightclub singer, her name literally up in lights - which means that Kane had actually succeeded in doing what Leland later claims Kane was trying to do; that is, to remove the quotes from the word 'singer' as it had appeared in the headline which ended Kane's political career. She had become a professional singer.
But I note it ironically took Susan actually leaving Charles for that to come about, because Kane had subverted her true talent by trying to remake her as a singer of opera; and, after that failure, as his wife she was could serve only as a hostess for his parties - his parties, not hers, because he was the one paying for them.
It would have been better for all of them had Susan been the one singing with the jazz band at Kane's jungle picnics - but as Kane's "hostess" she just couldn't do that. Kane wouldn't have "had it". Susan even complains about her role as his 'hostess' explicitly.

Was Welles trying to say something about the unhappiness all around that can result when others try to insensitively dictate to artists precisely how to use their talents? That was a common occurrence in the movie business of the 1930s and 1940s - or so some would say.

7:11 AM  
Blogger Beowulf said...

Let's face it, Jed Leland is a bit of a dick.

1:59 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

The quotes around the word "Singer" were meant to imply that she was a, to put it bluntly, whore.

The mass media has their way of stating things so that they cannot be prosecuted for libel. The word "Eccentric" meant "homosexual."


Most of us on this site know (or should know) Susan Alexander was based on Marion Davies just as Kane was based on Hearst and that the real meaning of "Rosebud" was/is not a sled.

The film is a brilliantly crafted private joke at the expense of Hearst who must have wondered furiously how the Hell that secret got out.

It got out from the only person who knew it which was Marion Davies.

Jazz, you should remember, in the period the film is set was viewed as whorehouse music. There was no way Kane could build a career for her with that.--Reg Hartt

6:24 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Kevin K. makes a welcome visit:


Hey John,

My new year's resolution is to avoid reading comments on all sites except yours. It must be the only one where readers are civil, and disagreements aren't cause to hurl insults. Your readers' comments make me feel I'm with a group of likeminded people in smoking jackets while sipping fine brandy and smoking good cigars.

Have a great 2023! And if you have any suggestions for cool conventions focusing on old movies, let me know, particularly if you're going to be there hawking your book.

Kevin Kusinitz
NYC

7:50 PM  
Blogger MikeD said...

Kevin K, check out the Lone Pine Film Festival in October; old movies and the original filming locations.

John, thanks for the Christmas present! Looking forward to the rest of the canon.

Happy and Healthy New Year! Mike D

10:10 AM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

Now I'm wondering what Marion Davies thought about this movie.
Did she ever go on record with an opinion about it?

4:44 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...


MARION DAVIES on ORSON WELLES

I never saw the picture Citizen Kane but my sister Rose did, and she said, “I’ll kill him. It’s terrible. You can’t even see the picture, because it’s all dark.” I said, “Why are you saying it’s terrible? “It’s against you. They have you playing and hiding behind curtains.”
 
I said to her, “Rose, there’s one tradition that I have that was taught to me by W.R. Never read criticism about yourself.” Once I made a mistake and read some criticism of myself, and it did get me riled up. After that I didn’t read any critics and I paid no attention.

A man working on the Telegram in New York wrote a scathing article about the picture Cain and Mabel; he said I should be washing dishes. Little did he know that I loved to wash dishes, and I liked to dry them, too, But he went on and on and on. I sent him a telegram saying, “I’m mad at you.” That was all I said, and I never got an answer. It was silly of me, and stupid, and he was probably right.

W.R. never went to see Citizen Kane either. The Hearst newspapers put a ban on it, as far as publicity went, but W.R. wasn’t little that way. His theory was that no matter what anybody said, no matter what they wrote, you didn’t read it and you didn’t listen.

W.R. said, “Yesterday’s newspaper is old news.” But plenty of people talked about Citizen Kane. They would say that it was terrible and I had to go see it. But we never did.

I had no anger toward Orson Welles. After all, everybody is created to do their very best, and he probably thought that was his way to make money. Who was I to say I didn’t like the way he did his picture? I was not built that way. I liked to keep the waters calm. 

And I heard about Aldous Huxley. I don’t think I ever met him, nor did I read his book, but I wanted to. (Huxley’s After Many a Summer Dies The Swan was considered a parody on life at San Simeon).

When W.R. was really interested in something, he would go in heart and soul. Not just a little bit, but all. He did the same with my pictures as he did with his newspapers. He never made the remark, “I feel the pulse of the public.” He seemed to know what the public would like, and he opposed anything that mothers wouldn’t bring their children to see. He wanted nice, clean, honest pictures.

He wanted me to keep my career. He had signs all over New York City and pictures in the papers, and I was always meeting people. I thought it got to be a little bit too much, but W.R. didn’t.

I said, “Maybe somebody else could do it, somebody who has talent.” But the way he advertised me, I don’t think anybody could. I said, “This is irritating to the general public. They read it, and then they go see the picture, and they think it isn’t what they thought they were going to see.” But I couldn’t stop him.

In New York City there were big signs, blocks and blocks of signs, and people got so tired of the name Marion Davies that they would actually insult me. W.R. thought he was building up a star. He saw me, in all his good faith, as an actress, or that I had the ability to be one.

I hope, before he died, he found out I wasn’t. Still, I think he thought I was.

Marion Davies
Beverly Hills, California, 1951.

https://www.wellesnet.com/orson-welles-on-marion-davies/

--Reg Hartt

6:54 PM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

So Marion Davies wasn't qualified to give an opinion on 'Citizen Kane', as she had never seen the film, and had avoided seeing it. She still makes an interesting comment.

"Ignore it and it goes away" - that's the way it used to be with all media before the internet. Especially if the copyright holders would have it so!
Now media products like movies and music and news articles never "go away", they only become "tough to find online".
"Ignore it and it becomes tough to find online" - sadly that just doesn't have the same ring to it.

By the way - happy new year to all reading this!

7:30 AM  
Blogger DBenson said...

Davies's reputation has been upgraded in recent years, thanks to increased exposure of her comedy work. She was out of the game by the time of "Citizen Kane", but away from Hearst's overblown dramas she was successful.

On an impulse, revisited "The Golden Age of Comedy" yesterday. Will probably be digging into your archived posts about Youngson's work later. And a timely reminder to everybody here to take a look at all the good stuff posted at Greenbriar before they discovered it.

3:27 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Thanks very much for making that suggestion, Donald. The Archive and search options are wide open 24/7, covering 2,378 columns published since 12/29/2005.

Happy New Year to you and all readers of Greenbriar, and especially those who have been so generous as to leave comments over these past seventeen years.

4:12 PM  

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