‘War is a Drug’: The Quote That Fooled Leftist Critics
by Tom ShillueUsually when I’m moved to write a searingly original piece for Big Hollywood, I do a quick search of the Internet to see if my thoughts might not really be as groundbreaking as I thought. More often than not, I come across an article that says exactly what I was trying to say, only more clearly and eloquently. I then post a link to it on Twitter with the caption “good read!” and I’m done.
Blogging is easy!
Such was the case with my analysis of The Hurt Locker. I loved the film. After watching it, however, the thing that bothered me was the quote at the beginning, “War is a drug.” In the end, it serves as the theme of the film, but I found it to be way off the mark, and not even supported by the film itself. To me, The Hurt Locker seemed to be clearly not about addiction, but about purpose. What would motivate someone to return to a horrific war zone, to face death and dismemberment on a daily basis? A sense of purpose. That is what motivates people, not “a rush.”
I set to writing. Then I read Walter Owen’s piece in Vanity Fair, who put it together better than I would have:
But the director of The Hurt Locker brings you close. Which makes all the more baffling the epigraph that fills the screen, a line of slipshod poesy by the respected war correspondent Chris Hedges: “The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.” That might have served as profound insight in Avatar, but in The Hurt Locker it only raises the question of how a director who could conceive such a spare and unremitting movie could also fall for such facile hokum.
I love that. And I wish I said it, because I love using phrases like “facile hokum.” But it bears repeating: The Hurt Locker is a great film, but it’s stated theme is way off base. Did the director and writer really believe this? I often find myself watching movies and saying, “I love this! But these filmmakers don’t seem to know what this film is about!”
That, I believe, is not the case with The Hurt Locker. I think that Katherine Bigelow and Mark Boal knew exactly what film they were making, and they knew that the quote was facile hokum, too. So why open the film with it? O.K., here’s where I get to have an original thought: The quote is marketing. It is there to give reviewers permission to praise the film. Just think what would happen if they made the exact same film, but opened with a quote from, say, Walter Owen:
As long as men still feel they are nothing without a call to duty, they will look for a place in the world where they find themselves excellent at something. One of those places is, and has always been, battle.
Critics would have hated it. It does not buy into their worldview, that soldiers are dumb rednecks who are forced to fight for their country because of lack of education and economic opportunity. They are victims. They are addicts.
The Hurt Locker does not portray these men as victims, but the quote at the beginning gives the critics cover – “It’s not their choice- it’s an addiction. They can’t help themselves.” That explains everything, including the film’s almost universal (and deserved) praise.
So kudos to Bigelow and Boal. They not only made a very watchable film, they played the press and Academy voters like a fiddle, which is, for me, even more fun to watch.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
68 Comments
Wait, so now this site has decided that Hurt Locker is pro-troop, pro-war, pro-America?
Just last week, article after article was blasting all over it.
We have indeed always been at war with….
Bigelow and Boal: "These aren't the 'droids you're looking for."
Leftist Entertainment Establishment: "These aren't the 'droids we're looking for."
Bigelow and Boal: "We can go about our business."
Leftist Entertainment Establishment: "You can go about your business."
Bigelow and Boal: "We will in an Oscar."
Leftist Entertainment Establishment: "You will win an Oscar."
I may see this movie now. I agree with you that all of us need to feel that we're at least good at one thing, other wise why should we continue living. Soldiers are tained to be soldiers, to be in harm's way; just as computer geeks are trained to write codes. I think you, and to a little lesser extend Walter Owen are on point.
"Move along"
"Move along"
LOL! Exactly!
Please see this movie. You will not be disappointed.
Wait, it will be released on DVD. Patience is a virtue.
Uh, not really. Jeremy Renner's character doesn't go back to the war because of any sense of duty. The guy's an adrenaline junkie who finds himself unable to cope with a return to his old, mundane by comparison life.
its on dvd! go rent it.
John – your take is excellent. But oh, it makes me so sad. It is so painful for me to confront the fact that our film media has now become a glittering version of the Soviet Politburo – threatening to crush an artist if she doesn't spout the Party line. I do not denounce Ms. Bigelow for spouting that line – I denounce instead the industry that made it impossible for her to make her film if she didn't.
Apology! I meant to say 'Tom' instead of 'John'. Tom, your take is excellent.
Well that is a good view point of that quote, it upset. As a hardcore christian conservative fundemantalist all up in your face, i was very typically annoyed by this quote. i believe war is a duty, a call to action, an answer to tyranny, genocide, terror, slavery.
and even nolte said he Q&A'd the actors and they had not good responses. you could be right that they place that quote there to cover their own buttocks. i can see liberals doing that, PC'ing it up, like saying Islam spread through trade routes or Immigrants (as opposed to Illegal Aliens) and Gay Rights as opposed to Requirements of Privelege.
but still, very miffed… i did enjoy the movie, but premising the soldier as an Addict, and showing he didn't love his 'girlfriend' and 'bastard' child, and the rows of cereal boxes as grotesque, as if choice & bounty are grotesque, really really bothered me.
i'm hoping, and maybe this is the CAUSE, this BigHollywood, that you are right, and there will be a day, when real men & real quotes can be affixed to a purpose driven movie.
Think I disagree a little there. I believe that the real men and women who serve absolutely do so with purpose. But Jeremy Renner's character is absolutely addicted. He does do it for the rush. He even keeps souvenirs of his past highs.
And when he's home and can't figure out how to choose a boring breakfast cereal? Or get Evangeline Lilly to tell him the ending to Lost? He returns to the place where he can get high on the drug of war.
I don't recall feeling that his character was doing it for god or country or purpose. He was doing it for himself.
Those of use who have had high risk jobs can understand the character's view. For me it was hard to go from years of having your brain dump massive amounts of adrenaline everyday into your system to stopping cold turkey, it actually hurts and you do go through a period of withdraw but there is also the pride of the job and knowing you have the training, skills and experience to do a job few others are willing to attempt let alone be successful at. EOD guys are a different breed, they know that even if they do everything right, the damn thing can still go "BOOM" and ruin everybodies day.
Side note: one of the favorite shirts of EOD reads "Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team: If You See Me Running, Try To Stay Up!"
Oh, I wasn't trying to denigrate the character at all. He felt very much like a real person I could understand, flaws and all.
No one is "pro-war." Not even the military is "pro-war." There are only those who see freedom as something to be extended, and those who see freedom as something to be hoarded and taken for granted. The former are called "pro-war" by the latter.
I disagree as well, the Renner character says to his child that essentially life is kind of disappointing, boring etc; and I suppose diffusing bombs and being in Iraq does get his adrenaline up. He is not in Iraq purely because of duty. This narrative makes little or no attempt to say WHY the jihadists are setting bombs, and or exploding them. If Renner is back in Iraq why is he NEEDED there? The Renner character is pretty static he is what he is, from beginning to end there is little variation .It seems to me that building and detonating bombs is more the act of war addicted junkies than someone who detonates said weapons. The war violence emanates from the jihadists. So I do not agree that ,"the hurt locker is a great film," since it lacks sharp focus. However I do agree ,"that its stated theme is way off base."
good comments. But remember, I didn't say "purely because of duty." I said purpose. That's different. I like the Walter Owen quote, that soldiers "will look for a place in the world where they find themselves excellent at something. One of those places is, and has always been, battle."
I say this is a much more powerful motivator than adrenaline.
Renner's character is portrayed in many ways as a great soldier and an admirable being, however. I disagree with those who find him an unsympathetic whack job. I agree the film is reluctant to portray simple patriotism, but it does show humane American soldiers doing good against a monstrous enemy. This is about the best we can expect from the film world, I think. It's much superior to all the other Iraq films (from a conservative standpoint and in terms of quality), as well as Clint Eastwood's hugely disappointing Flags of Our Fathers.
Word.
War and Combat are two different things. The quote "War is hell but combat's a bitch" comes to mind. Combat can, in some ways, be addictive. I've never found anything close to the rush of combat in anything else I've ever done. I miss it at times. To me, the bad dreams are the ones where I wake up to find that I'm not back in Iraq. Of course telling anyone that gets you some very strange looks.
I know that the "war is a drug" was a prominent theme in the terrible, WWII as proxy for the Vietnam war, anti-war movie "Anzio". I think lots of the 60's anti-war movies used this construct.
Nolte's valid criticism was that the same scene played out several times. However, a la Orson Welles or Tarrantino, I can appreciate film makers that don't follow rigid structure and break rules.
It's a very well made movie and shows what our soldiers volunteer to go through. They are truly a special breed. Better than I.
right after renting Zombieland again
God bless you, Tom
I've been listening to my contemporaries on this website run a hatchet job on this movie because it doesn't meet their unrealistic standards. Every other character in the film (except possibly David Morse's character) is a sensible, sane, easy-to-root-for soldier, but that's not good enough, we have to make sure that every single soldier is portrayed as a noble Captain America-esque superhero. I tried to join he military (health problems kept me out) and few of the people I met were doing some sort of noble duty, but rather doing it for the money, doing it to for the job training, doing it to be cool, or as my roommate, an ex-soldier told me "doing it cause they got picked on in high school."
I love the military and wanted desperately to be a part of it, but can we not portray these people as actual human beings rather than superheroes?
I absolutely agree with you, Tom that the Renner character was doing it because of purpose. That is totally the vibe I got from the movie. At the end he says "…people were killed (I can't remember how many he said). You know they need more bomb techs." Renner understands that he was put on this earth because he can do something that not many others can do and saves lives doing it. That is the vibe I got from the movie and that's why I loved it. I love this site, but quite frankly, I'm sick of the hatchet job being performed on this great movie.
That's my two cents anyway.
well you dont have to rent. its noy a must see like bridge tii far or saving private ryan or battle beyond the stars!
My final thought on "Hurt Locker" and it's perceived anti-military aspects…
Let's compare "Sands of Iwo Jima" – the John Wayne flick considered one of the great pro-Marine movies, "Patton" – the "ultimate" gung-ho American military movie – and "The Hurt Locker"…
In response to criticism that Jeremy Renner plays a reckless "cowboy" soldier, "SSG William James", without good order and discipline…
See General Patton (George C. Scott) – against good sense and the admonitions of his fellow officer – take on an enemy fighter plane with a .45 pistol, and later slap a soldier under medical care. Then watch Sgt Stryker (Wayne), a staggering drunk in public in uniform who picks up a single mother in a bar and, by the way, smashes a trainee in the jaw with a rifle butt.
To the criticism that Renner's character is unable to love his own son – I say look again at John Wayne's 'Sgt Stryker' – he is a failed husband and absent father who drinks because he is alone – likely alone because of the very intensity that makes him a superb Drill Instructor, just as Renner is a superb EOD technician.
In summary, in my opinion, "The Hurt Locker" is no more 'anti-military' than many of the great 'pro-military' films…
…and the ending… SPOILER ALERT….with SSG James heading into the distance to defuse "one more bomb" is as classic and American an ending as John Wayne walking away from the cabin door at the end of "The Searchers" – the iconic American western – a movie in which John Wayne not only stopped loving his niece, he wanted to retrieve her from the Indians so he could kill her ! – Yipes !
Oh, hell, the best war movie is "GUNG HO" with Randolph Scott . I wish they make an identical movie about the Iraq war like this great patriotic film with terrorists in place of the Japaneze. WOW. Now that would be an adrenaline rush.
I disagree with the article about the quote being hokum to placate liberals.
I think that ultimately, like most good war films, the Hurt Locker is a character study. It picks an interesting person and follows him around. This is not a movie about the Iraq war, it is about an adrenaline junky put in a dangerous situation. I am not a veteran, but I worked as a paramedic and I immediately recognized the personality. Hence "War is a Drug" is talking more about how the main character feels about war, than making a general statement about what war is to everyone. Obviously, to the other two characters war is different, one sees it as a job that whisks him away from familial responsibilities (like many workaholics you meet in life), while the other pretty much hates every moment of it. Hence to some war is a job, to some its a drug, and to some it is just something you want to get out of.
…"the respected war correspondent Chris Hedges"??? The guy is a left-wing nutter…anyone who respects him must be either uninformed or a nutter too…
If you say stupid crap like this, you are definitely a leftist.
This may seem off-topic here, and it may sound very shallow, but I think Kathryn Bigelow is a fine-looking woman. I had no idea she was in her late 50s.
The thing I liked most about this post is that it is not facile hokum.
I don't think it was a dig on choice and bounty. I took it more that Sgt. James was faced with a "puzzle"- choosing the "correct" cereal from the myriad of choices- a mundane task wth zero consequence, as opposed to the puzzles he faced every day in Iraq… where the incorrect solution could mean disaster. Adrenaline junkie? I don't know… possibly. Maybe just an acute sense of insignificance of purpose… akin to what I felt at my desk on 9-11 while the terrorist attacks were happening!
In the movie he tells his wife (NOT girlfriend… listen to the dialogue he shares with his team) that "they need bomb techs"… I suppose you can take that as him making excuses to go get his "fix"… or you can take that as his desire to resume doing something that has greater purpose and is infinitely more challenging than cleaning his gutters.
Well I dove a 100 miles to go see it, Its a good movie. And another thing Its a movie its suppose to entertain. As for war being a drug, well there are a very few percentage wise in Military service that are drawn to it like moths to a light. The Fact of the matter is that in all the wars fought by this Nation, You can see examples of it, Their I men who are on there fifth or sixth tour in either Iraq or Afganistan. They are not crazy or lacking, no they are soldiers and like the soldiers life, I had friend that I flew with when I started flying, he had what was and is called a checkered career. He started out flying for the Army Air Corp in 1937 flew the hump in WW-II , Berlin Airlift, Korea then Viet Nam (Air America) and ended up flying for a little freight company that I gotten hired to fly for. He put it in simple terms, I just liked it, Simple answer for a complicated question of why? The guy in Hurt Locker when back because he just liked doing the work. Its why some become cops merchant saliors, and near do well pilots like myself, I do what I do not so much for the pay check is because I just like living the bush pilots lives style. And Yea Ms. Bigelow is a looker, You would have to be out of your mind to divorce that.
We have a generation who has had their sense of purpose and being part of something bigger stolen from them by the previous generation. Gen-X, Y, Z or whatever generation we are currently in now. Having served in the late 90's -not in combat- and gotten out, I remember what it was like to be part of something "bigger than me" and having a clear purpose.
There is little that can compare with the knowledge that you are doing the right thing. The adrenaline rush is cool too!
I haven’t seen the film yet, but that’s the impression I got. This film doesn’t sound like it’s about the Iraq War at all; the war is merely a backdrop for the deeper story about a man with an addiction. Renner’s character isn’t the typical American soldier, and he isn’t supposed to be. So when I do get around to watching it, it’ll be the soldier characters other than Renner that will determine in my mind whether the film is respectful of the military or not. Of course, this David Morse scene Nolte keeps bringing up gives me pause.
If you are pro-war you are a Leftist – there is no larger government program.
Just a little confused. I'd thought the left love drugs. The more the better even.
[...] more Oscar-related reading, you should check out this hilariously moronic misinterpretation of The Hurt Locker by Tom Shillue; this snappy breakdown by the AV Club; and the assuredly ongoing [...]
Our constitution & founding fathers certainly hoped that the War Machine would be our largest govt program. But alas… Liberals believe our lives, our children, our health, our business, our housing projects & welfare checks, and solar panels and electric golf carts and light bulbs and trans fats and tobacco should be our largest government program.
This seems like a good take on the film. I think the film will be – good. Does it deserve the Oscar? If only to keep Avatar from getting it, I'll give that a yes. Other than that, I doubt it. I haven't seen it yet either, and I haven't commented on it, but all along I was wondering about where it was going to end up on the BH hit-o-meter.
ANY job can become addictive like a drug. You eva hear of being married to your job, or needing to work to be able to pay all of your (or your wife's / family's) bills. I work in Hwood because I like it, too. Could have made a "better" life for myself if I had chosen not to persue whatever it is that I'm persuing here. Some people might say that I've been acting like an addict for almost thirty years. And I recognize that in my actions, but – and here's where the rubber meets the road – it's my choice!!
"War is a drug"
*Sigh* I'm tired of drug metaphors. I was tired of them in the 1970s. The 60s generations thinks entirely in terms of drugs, addicts and rehab. Can we please have new metaphors?
I'll see it after I watch Jeff Goldberg's Pittsburgh again.
Let's think about it this way; we join the military for a variety of reasons. Purpose is one, patriotism is another and there are many more. Once we decide on the military we try for the job that shows the promise of the most satisfaction. Some of us like a little excitement ( and no, real Army life is not 24 hour a day adreneline regardless of your job) and others like to maintain records and others like to work on trucks. It's just like real life. Some are cops, some are accountants. The real difference is that we don't have to figure out what to wear every day.
I will now have the Cantina Theme stuck in my head the rest of the day, thank you.
Kathryn Bigelow’s Oscar acceptance speech:
"… And I’d just like to dedicate this to the women and men in the military who risk their lives on a daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. And may they come home safe. Thank you."
Even the military is not truly "pro-war"
Tom,
I think you drank the koolaid. You were 'entertained' by leftist drivel. Here's the thing. The movie may be entertaining to those who need the 'drug', but it doesn't potray the protagonist truthfully or tell the real story. It is a twisted version of the truth that meets the leftist mindset agenda. If you take off the rose colored glasses for a second you can see that. I still think this movie is crap no matter how much you were 'entertained'. I also think this piece of crap disrespects our military and for that reason i will never contribute a penny to see it.
Got no problem with the "war is a drug" thing. For some people, it probably is.
Hurt Locker isn't unique. We've had Patton looking out over a field full of dead Germans and GIs and remarking "I love it. God help me I do love it so. I love it more than my life." There was Stachel from The Blue Max, with his obsessive quest to be the top ace. And of course Col. Kilgore in Apocalypse Now, loving the smell of napalm in the morning. Or, in the real world, Robert E. Lee: "It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it."
Civilians – especially liberals – just don't get it. That's one reason they make movies about it. They want to put fictional war-lovers under the microscope & try to dissect them, figure them out. I don't think they're *always* trying to criticize. Sometimes they're just fascinated. But I think they *are* insulting when they reduce their subjects to mere "adrenaline junkies." There's a lot more to it than that.
As many a combat vet has discovered, you are never so fully alive as when death is very near. Excitement, fear and adrenaline can become addictive. Usually with fatal results.
Which is what's fun about a site like this. Enjoying "The Hurt Locker" doesn't pigeonhole Mr. Shillue as a dissenting voice that must be silenced. There isn't necessarily a party line which contributors must adhere to. Isn't that one of the reasons the various mainstream outlets are useless?
I don't think the opening quote is as off-the-mark as you do, but I DO think the second quote resonates more with the film's themes. The Hurt Locker is more politically ambivalent than both its left-wing and right-wing defenders have allowed: on the one hand, it unapologetically adopts the viewpoint of the American soldier, consigning the Iraqi perspective to inscrutability (it doesn't render them inhuman, just indecipherable – as they no doubt appear to most Americans on the ground). On the other hand, it is ambivalent James' "addiction" – remember that for all his skill at disarming bombs, his leadership qualities are often implied to be lacking: many times he leads his men into unnecessary risks and his judgement is often incorrect (as with – spoilers – both the misidentification of the Iraqi boy and the decision to leave the base on a personal mission of vengeance).
Some veterans have even criticized the film for this bit of characterization and I think the notion that the film emphasizes the risk-taking aspects of its star rather than his professionalism is fair grounds for criticism, at least if your concern is realism (admittedly, I'm more concerned with how it impacts the film dramatically, which is a mixed bag). For a telling contrast, compare the real-life figure upon whom James is based – Boal's Playboy article portrays this fellow as a risk-taker and messy in his personal life, but a flawless pro on the battlefield. In other words, I don't think we can say James is a perfect soldier nor that his attachment to service is for entirely "noble" reasons – he obviously gets a thrill from combat and as the political motivations or purposes for the war are never discussed, this personal aspect is what's foregrounded.
BUT, you – and the writer for Vanity Fair – are onto something. Namely, that while James' soldiering may not exactly be presented as entirely high-minded, in the context of the film it seems a reasonable alternative to the tedium of home-front life, where one is unable to feel that one is doing something important, participating in the great events of the world, or truly challenging oneself. However, in terms of its political connotations this "message" is as much a critique of the "go-shopping" ethos of the Bush administration as it is of liberal inertia.
A fascinating film, at any rate, and certainly a worthier look at the Iraq conflict than the feel-good lefty pap of Avatar (great spectacle, but incredibly silly as an allegory).
Great comparison with Patton. Someone else pointed that out recently, and I think it's one of the best analogies one can make. In both cases, a very flawed figure, whose attachment to war is viewed skeptically by the film itself, but whose romantic qualities are undeniably charismatic, and whose character remains impressive whatever its excesses (or perhaps because of them).
Ambiguity is almost always a virtue, and need not compromise a more overarching moral vision; indeed, it usually strengthens such.
Hollywoodron,
As mistercalm points out there are other readings of the cereal scene but I don't think your wrong to see at as a critique of consumerism. Choice and bounty are fine and dandy, but they are not ends unto themselves as Jesus never tires of pointing out in the gospels (but I don't need to tell you that). As someone who tries to approach issues one at a time and eschews ideology, it still baffles me how many conservatives conflate a fetishization of capitalism, respect for traditional values like duty, responsibility, and challenges (as embodied in the military), and the moral precepts of Christianity. To my eyes, these values often seem to be in competition with one another: libertarian values of individuality with the notion of subservience to order, the materialistic aspects of free-market purism with the spiritual message of Christ, the shallowness of consumer culture with the tenets of Western civilization which have fallen by the wayside. The '08 primaries, with Republicans representing different strands of the GOP without any of them able to touch every base, seemed to exemplify the growing recognition of these tensions.
I think Hurt Locker correctly locates this tension in the supermarket scene, between the ethos of the Bush era ("go shopping" while the president takes care of the terrorists behind closed doors, a missed opportunity for leadership and mass involvement in the wake of 9/11) and the call of adventure, duty, responsibility, and excitement (all values in tension themselves, but not necessarily contradictory) as represented by another deployment in Iraq. A true "purpose driven movie", I think, has to recognize the vapidity of consumer culture and complacent security – and to hold not just postmodern values responsible, but also the engines of capitalism and materialistic, greedy philosophies.
At any rate, the movie gives us a lot to talk about, which I greatly appreciate.
Incidentally, for whatever it's worth, this scene has been the #1 sequence that resonated with veterans of Iraq – my cousin, who recently returned from a deployment, mentioned it right away, and I've read numerous interviews and commentaries with do the same. Obviously it's hitting a nerve – one to do with, I think, both ambivalence about this complacent normality and also genuine awe and probably relief to be confronted by such "bounty" as you put it.
Thank you, Movieman, for your compliment and comments – I visited your websites – I am not worthy !… ; )
Shocking, I know, but I've read a variety of contradictory movie reviews on this website. It's one of the best things about Big Hollywood.
But I didn't pay attention to, nor particularly notice, the reviews of Hurt Locker since it had been talked about on Blackfive.net and they liked and recommended it, and that is pretty much that as far as I'm concerned.
Hey thanks, nice to get a +1 on this site for once, ha ha…
Incidentally, your comment makes me want to see Sands of Iwo Jima again. I caught it on TCM a year or two ago; as of then I don't think it was on DVD but it looks like it is now…
I'm looking strangely at you.
Seriously, though, I'm sure that most people would not understand that statement, it's not actually that far out there. I always thought that the best recruiting commercials would be ones that essentially said, "Do something hard; do something important." There is something to the notion of belonging to something much bigger than yourself and to what becomes, in a sense, a profound existence.
And maybe that's the "drug" from the quote.
I'm glad you're back safe and sound, and it's okay to miss it. It really is.
Really?
When this very first came out it was reviewed at Blackfive.com. There were a few nits and wishes but no accusations from the veterans there that it was an anti-military film or disrespected the military.
Blackfive.net. Not .com. .net.
Now you got two + 1… ; )
…me, I'm a big-time "point grubber" – if I was in Jack Black's class in "School of Rock" he'd bust me..!
Hmmm. Still in the hole – but every little bit helps!
Alright, 'cause I like ya', I'm gonna give you one of my secrets…
…you want to make some quick points – take on the first troll that attacks Sarah Palin on any given thread…
…if the article is about Sarah, the Soros-troll will be in the first 5 or 10 commenters…
…the Left has decided she must be destroyed – they FEAR her – and if you lay a snappy put-down on the troll, MovieMan, you could be looking at crazy big-time points from all the Sarah fans in BigWorld….
…ok, that's all I'm giving ya', and keep it to yesself – this ain't no Candyland….
Unfortunately FDS, I would more likely be that troll than the one that scolds them so this trick won't fly, but thanks anyway!
Well, then I can score mega points slammin' you !
It's all good…
Are you familiar with the movie The Kid, where Jackie Coogan goes around smashing windows and then Charlie Chaplin just "happens" across the scene with some panes of glass for sale? (There's a similar gag in Harold Lloyd movie.)
Sounds like a plan, ha ha…
You must be logged in to post a comment.