?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Thinkin' About Adaptations

I cross-posted this from tumblr, because Discussions are Important, so... that's why all the pictures. ;)

I remember being still in school, and going to see a movie called Clueless with all my friends. I sat there enjoying myself and then slowly, slowly it started to dawn on me that I KNEW THIS STORY.
SARAH: Guys guys guys! This is Emma! It’s Emma!
SARAH’S FRIENDS: What’s that? Blithering as usual…

I was the only Jane Austen fiend among my friends. But they certainly started to pay attention when I began whispering the plot twists.

They thought I was psychic.

I am a Jane Austen fiend, and I have watched almost all the adaptations I can think of of her books—but Clueless remains, I think, with some fierce competition from the BBC Pride and Prejudice, my favourite Jane Austen adaptation.

Because I am a writer, and because I am a ferocious reader who goes loopy and starts reading cereal packets without regular books, I think about story a lot—and a lot of stories are riffs off ideas, themes, tropes, and sometimes riffs off specific stories. I generally go to see movies adapted from books because I’m curious about what they’re going to do with them. It’s fun to see different imaginations shaping a story.

So I watched both Sherlock Holmes films, and I’ve watched a good bit of Sherlock, too.

I didn’t intend to watch ‘Elementary,’ an American modern version of Sherlock Holmes’s adventures, because I’d heard it described as the American version of Sherlock. No, thanks, said I to myself! I am not American, my books aren’t American, and I don’t see any reason that stories need to be changed just to be American and therefore relatable.

I’m currently at a writing retreat: last year I brought DVDs of a British dark fantasy show called Misfits, and all my Americans loved, loved, loved it. No need to American it up!

But… always a need for a good adaptation.

A rule of good adaptations for me… do something new, do something cool, do something different because you are working in a different space/time/medium/philosophy from the original. Make people have fun and make them think. (Those two goals really should be the goals of all good media, of course…) I mean, one of my long-cherished projects has been to write a modern Pride and Prejudice with a gay storyline.

My new favourite show is an adaptation of a classic story (the Count of Monte Cristo) modern’d up and with a lady lead.



Hello, Revenge.

So yesterday, looking up from my computer where people assumed I was Virtuously Working, I totally blew my cover by announcing ‘LUCY LIU JUST GOT CAST AS DR WATSON!’



The doctor’s in the house.

And instantly, Casa Writing Retreat to a woman and a man, all of whom are writers or artists (Holly and Theo Black, Paolo Bacigalupi, Cristi Jacques, Cassie Clare, Josh Lewis and me) was in.

Because hey, something new and cool! Something that indicated the people making it were thinking of ways to make it their own, and thus more entertaining. Because if we want the same thing over and over, well, nobody has to go to the bother of making a whole show/movie/writing a book.

Amazing ‘rewinding’ and ‘re-reading’ technology has been available for ages.

So I happy-clapped and tweeted my joy, and received… mixed responses. And I was entirely freaking confused by said responses.

1) It will be TOO DIFFERENT from and against the spirit of the original.



Oh, okay. I guess that’s why everybody hates that show Sherlock, where they moved the story a hundred years in the future and solve so many crimes with modern technology…?

2) It will be just like every other show! Cynical grab for cash!

It will be just like every other show with a lady of colour front and centre? Because there are… so many more of those shows than white guys…? There are so many more ladies of colour who are huge box office draws as compared to those poor white guys?

It will be just like every other show with an interracial couple (platonic or otherwise) front and centre?

Is everyone watching TV in Opposites Land? Can someone give me a TV subscription in Opposites Land? I can think of a couple of shows that fit this description, but very, very few.

Besides which, speaking of being like every other show, it’s not like we’re short on bromances. Which brings me to my next point…

3) Le Bromance!

Hey, I am all in. I love a bromance. I wrote a whole trilogy devoted to a bromance! I generally like a bromance which also has a lot of time for the ladies, but… bromance. Sure. In. I love friends, I love family, I love people of whatever gender and in whatever relation to each other having loving complicated relationships!



(Aw, look. Those vampire bros love each other.)

But we have, like, out this very year just gone by, two different Sherlock Holmes franchises separately doing the shimmy and crooning along to ‘Guy Love.’

Nobody is tearing Starsky & Hutch, Supernatural, Sherlock, the Sherlock Holmes movies, House (which is in fact just another version of Sherlock Holmes, and also centers on the bromance of Two White Guys), need I go on, out of anybody’s arms. But a third version of Sherlock ‘I Love You Man’ Holmes in the space of two years sounds a bit like ‘For the Lord’s sake whatever you do, it’s gotta be all about dudes, all the time!’

And it’s not like bromances are doing badly commercially, either.

4) It’s… homophobic to cast Lucy Liu as Watson…

I would like media to be less sexist, less racist, and less homophobic.

Having an Asian lady instead of a white dude as a lead character gives me at least some of that.

Less homophobic, well, I don’t know yet about Elementary, but Holmes and Watson are not portrayed as openly gay in any adaptation I’ve seen. You cannot ‘straighten up’ something that does not contain a gay storyline to begin with! (We don’t even know whether or not they are going to put Lady Doctor Watson and Sherlock in a romantic pairing.)

I am all in for Lady Dr Watson/Sherlock True Love if they do it well, and I am in for just friendship. Romance is awesome. Friendships, also awesome.

I’ve also seen it suggested that Watson had to be cast as a woman because American audiences wouldn’t be comfortable with gay subtext. I think that anyone who has seen the Sherlock Holmes films with Robert Downey Jr. and watched more than an episode or two of House will agree that American audiences appear to be fine with gay subtext and Sherlock (in fact, see above point regarding bromances). Both the TV show and the movie are wildly popular successes. I think the creators of this show wanted to do a new thing — not had to, but wanted to. And that’s fine.

Gay subtext fine with audiences, who can enjoy it or not notice it… gay text happens less.

I would be all in for gay Sherlock/Watson too! I haven’t at any point got it in a movie or a TV show, but I am all in. I own and have read A STUDY IN LAVENDER, a book of short stories where Arthur Conan Doyle’s characters are gay. (I recommend it highly.)

I would be all in for girl Sherlock and boy Watson. I would be all in for girl Sherlock and girl Watson.

All those things would be great things to do, but this thing they have done is a great thing to do, too. And I am all in for the girl Watson we have, and I think it’s especially cool she’s a lady of colour.

I actually saw pictures of the three Watsons, with a note saying ‘One of these things is not like the other.’



One of these things is not like the others? And a good thing too.

To summarise again my Rule For Adaptation: All things new again. Don’t do the same thing over and over, do something new with the material… and do it well.

A show with a girl Watson automatically being regarded as going to be worse than a show with a boy Watson… is very close to saying that girls are not as good as boys.

Is Elementary going to be good? I don’t know. Maybe not! But something I do know… I’m going to watch it.

Comments

( 110 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 3 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>
innocentsmith
Feb. 29th, 2012 02:55 am (UTC)
Seriously!

Considering that there was an adaptation of Sherlock Holmes set in the 22nd century, with an android Watson and a Holmes who'd been preserved for over a hundred years in a giant tub of HONEY and then brought back to life and deaged in order to fight a rogue geneticist clone of Moriarty...*

I think we can safely say that genderswapping Dr. Watson is not the wackiest thing ever done to ACD's canon. Rex Stout wrote "Watson Was a Woman" in, what, 1940? This is not all that new. And, basically, a million +1s to everything you just said: the world seriously doesn't need another White Dudes In Their Thirties Doing Stuff show. It could, however, use a show with a woman of color as one of the two leads.

And seriously, while I too have major issues with the whole gay subtext tease/no actual text thing that's so popular right now in movies and TV, saying that clearly THE ONLY REASON you'd cast a classic role with a woman rather than a man is to avoid Teh Gay is...really kind of problematic. Stage theater is absolutely full of ladies and men taking differently-gendered roles. Let alone the nerdbros talking about "stunt casting" and the implication that the only reason you'd cast a non-white person as Watson is to distinguish it from Sherlock. (And hey, considering the giant pile of racefail that was "The Blind Banker," I think the casting of Ms. Liu is a pretty excellent way of distinguishing them. "We're the show that won't make you want to bang your head against the wall with all the Asian exoticism!")

Will it be any good? Who knows. But now at least I'm interested.

* Yes, really.
sheron
Feb. 29th, 2012 04:06 am (UTC)
OMG LOVE the idea of them BOTH being female...I wish that's what would happen!
nicolasechs
Feb. 29th, 2012 04:21 am (UTC)
Hear hear, Sarah. Thank you for saying this, more fans need to re-examine exactly why they're so opposed to the idea of Lucy Liu as Watson. Speaking as an Asian American woman, it means a lot for me to be able to see someone who looks like me (well, not really since my cheekbones are nowhere near as sharp as Liu's) playing one of my favorite fictional characters on a major TV show.
rai_ryu
Feb. 29th, 2012 04:42 am (UTC)
Clueless is an adaptation? I love that movie. It is like my comfort movie - all that cheesy valley-girl dialogue! Plus I grew up watching the TV show. In any case, perhaps I will check out Emma now...
I'm actually very interested to see what they do with a female Watson. If I can remember, I'll have to give Elementary a try.
regicidaldwarf
Feb. 29th, 2012 05:42 am (UTC)
When I first heard that Lucy Lui had been cast my emotional reaction to the show went from "Eh." to "...Huh. Maybe?" Then I heard that they're removing the "military" part of Dr. Watson's "military doctor" background, and having her lose her practice due to a court case rather than a war wound, and that. That is just Not Okay. Really guys? Female Watson stops practicing because she fucks up? Great. Just great.

I'm gonna let the internet decide this one for me. If they like episode one I'll check it out.
sarahtales
Feb. 29th, 2012 06:12 am (UTC)
Sorry to repeat from the first page, but this is my take on things...

I saw several things which made me go ‘Hmm.’ But every Holmes adaptation does different stuff—maybe the trauma of war is going to be translated to the deep psychological pressure put on doctors specialising in certain areas.

Maybe not, of course, maybe they’re doing it for gross reasons, and then I will be—of course—grossed out. But I don’t know yet, and until I’ve seen a character, I don’t know if ‘altered backstory’ is going to translate to dumbed down, weakened, what have you.

They made Sherlock's Watson psychosomatically disabled (which of course is still real disability), manifesting in being physically disabled, and then cured him via Sherlock’s presence for the majority of the show. I haven’t seen a quarter as many people saying Sherlock is terrible for doing this.

Differences will exist! Media is imperfect. But ‘until we can achieve perfection, let’s stick with the white dudes’ is not something I believe in. I’ll see how Dr Watson of Elementary plays out: and if I don’t like it, I’ll stop watching.

Till then, I am uncomfortable with how much easier, on far less evidence, people seem to find it to dismiss a woman: she won’t be good enough, won’t be strong enough, Elementary hasn’t done ENOUGH.

At least Elementary has done SOMETHING. I’m pleased about it. And I’ll see about the rest.
(no subject) - regicidaldwarf - Feb. 29th, 2012 06:17 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - sarahtales - Feb. 29th, 2012 06:25 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - regicidaldwarf - Feb. 29th, 2012 06:18 am (UTC) - Expand
shanna_souzou
Feb. 29th, 2012 05:43 am (UTC)
I wrote up this REALLY long reply and then just said screw it.

I will say that, for me, I kind of draw a line between "adaptation" and "inspiration." The Mentalist, for example, is inspired by the Sherlock Holmes canon. BBC's Sherlock is an adaptation of the Sherlock Holmes canon. House walks as close to that line as anything I've seen.

The distinction is a certain amount of reverence for the source material. Its one thing to take the idea of a brilliant, crime-solving, anti-hero. Make him an art dealer or a wallstreet broker. Give nice interviews about how authors like Arthur Conan Doyle inspire the choices you make a tv/move writer or creator. But when you keep the same names and certain particulars to the character, then you're venturing into different territory. What I love about BBC's Sherlock is the respect for the Sherlock Holmes canon. They changed the time period but its so beautifully loyal otherwise. There are entire scenes and dialogues transposed almost directly from the original stories. Its not a half-assed job.

Now, if they did an entirely femme!Sherlock, I'd be so onboard. Holmes and Watson are like two dysfunctional halves of the same whole. It would be brilliant to see that how that relationship would be different with female characters. Because as much as we wish we lived in an entirely gender-equal society, we don't. Sherlock's anti-social intelligence WOULD be greeted differently if it was coming from someone with boobs. Even if the character was otherwise completely loyal to ACD's vision, she'd still be perceived differently by the world around her. The same would probably be true if they had cast a black male Sherlock. And it would all go topsy turvy if they'd set the show somewhere besides NYC (the American London). Imagine Sherlock away from the East Coast! You could keep all the same dialogue for Sherlock, but have it delivered by a black female living in New Orleans or a hispanic!Sherlock in Houston , and it'd be an entirely different show because the perceptions and the attitudes and the reactions would be completely altered.

I love the idea of pushing the boundaries with Sherlock Holmes. But casting an asian woman as Watson just doesn't go far enough for me. Its like they're trying to be subversive by doing something that really isn't that radical in modern television. It feels very five, ten years ago.

I plan on watching the show because I like to have an informed opinion, but I can't say that I'm hopeful. Maybe they'll be able to strike the perfect balance of writing a female!Watson who is always singing Holmes' praises despite him being an asshole (without it feeling like I was dropped in the middle of Mad Men.)

sarahtales
Feb. 29th, 2012 06:20 am (UTC)
Concerns about how Watson and Holmes's relationship will be are very valid, of course! Said relationship means a lot to a lot of people.

But I'd question how 'not radical' it is... they're doing something that BBC Sherlock and the movies didn't do. They're doing two things that the movies and BBC Sherlock didn't do.

I'm wary of saying 'it's not enough!' because people aren't saying 'it's not enough' about the other material, which did so much less. It's like the higher standards we hold women to, so a dude can get away with stuff a woman can't--that's unfair. It is life--straight and white goes by unnoticed and anything else gets criticised, but that doesn't mean we should accept it.

As I said, I'd be into a girl Sherlock, a black girl Sherlock, absolutely. But I'm also glad about what we got. We have no evidence so far that it's a half-assed job: all we really know is who was cast.
(no subject) - shanna_souzou - Feb. 29th, 2012 08:14 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - sarahtales - Feb. 29th, 2012 08:52 am (UTC) - Expand
elfie_chan
Feb. 29th, 2012 07:42 am (UTC)
Okay. So, I finally watched Sherlock, after resisting for a very long time because OMG SHERLOCK HOLMES IS VICTORIAN WHERE ARE THE GASLAMPS YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO ME BECAUSE I R A PURIST DAMMIT. (Seriously. My brain gets incoherent with capslock rage sometimes where Sherlock Holmes is concerned. If I had a fandom, it would be the Sherlock Holmes stories.)

I love it. I love love love love LOVE it. The spirit of Sherlock Holmes is there, and I feel so clever when I spot the references to the original stories. It's like playing along at home!

That said, I don't know if I can deal with Elementary. SHERLOCK HOLMES IS BRITISH DAMMIT YOU CAN'T TAKE HIM OUT OF LONDON AND ALSO A FEMALE WATSON WAT. (Sorry about that.) I am not against women as lead characters. I am certainly not against Lucy Liu. I think she is awesome and full of kick-assness. But as Watson? I'm really not sure I can deal with that. I think one would have to change fundamental aspects of Sherlock's character in order to have him even work with a woman on the deeply personal level he develops with Watson, and Romance?! Sherlock Holmes is not about the Romance. Sherlock Holmes is about the Crime Solving. And the Butt-Kicking. And the Friendship. And the Being A Pain To Live With.

These are only my opinions. I think I need to watch the Jeremy Brett series again. (I also think that Mr. Cumberbatch watched the Jeremy Brett series.)
sarahtales
Feb. 29th, 2012 08:37 am (UTC)
Changing someone from Victorian gent to modern dude IS a fundamental change, though--different upbringing, different society, different world. If one is willing to make that change, I see nothing any more radical about changing gender. And definitely nothing radical about the idea a smart modern man wouldn't be perfectly able to be friendly and have a partnership with a woman.

Sherlock's still British in the show...

Also we have no idea whether there's going to be a romance or not. It can still be about the Crime Solving. And the Butt-Kicking. And the Friendship. And the Being A Pain To Live With. A woman being involved precludes none of that.
(no subject) - shezan - Feb. 29th, 2012 09:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - elfie_chan - Feb. 29th, 2012 10:47 pm (UTC) - Expand
jaefire
Feb. 29th, 2012 09:00 am (UTC)
As much as I hope that "Elementary" will be awesome, I just read something on my Tumblr that is making me DDDDDDD:

Here's the link: http://cannedebonbon.tumblr.com/post/18468493046/valid-reasons-to-be-annoyed-with-cbs-right-now#notes

But, basically, here's an excerpt of it that really makes me unhappy about CBS:

"° Watson is no longer the accomplished and decorated war hero and army doctor, two aspects of the character which have always, in some way or another, coloured the way the character behaves and the decisions they make. Not only does it change the character, but it sends a message that women aren’t capable of fighting for their country.

° Related to the above, Watson has no longer been invalided home from anywhere. Again, this is not only important to the character, but sends a message that war wounds are only sexy on men and that women are too weak to go through that.

° She’s a disgraced surgeon who’s lost her license. Oh. Not only has she had the military career erased, but she’s incompetent as well? Fabulous. There are so many other reasons for her to be able to be Jonny Lee Miller’s Boswell without also taking away the one thing that does make her successful. This is completely unnecessary, and once again sends the message that women can’t cope in fields that are predominately male-dominated."
sarahtales
Feb. 29th, 2012 04:43 pm (UTC)
I'm sorry to repeat, but this is really all I have to say about backstory...

I saw several things which made me go ‘Hmm.’ But every Holmes adaptation does different stuff—maybe the trauma of war is going to be translated to the deep psychological pressure put on doctors specialising in certain areas.

Maybe not, of course, maybe they’re doing it for gross reasons, and then I will be—of course—grossed out. But I don’t know yet, and until I’ve seen a character, I don’t know if ‘altered backstory’ is going to translate to dumbed down, weakened, what have you.

Also more women than men now attend medical school, so while men get favored I'm not sure if the field can be described as male-dominated.

They made Sherlock's Watson psychosomatically disabled (which of course is still real disability), manifesting in being physically disabled, and then cured him via Sherlock’s presence for the majority of the show. I haven’t seen a quarter as many people saying Sherlock is terrible for doing this. Giving people troubled back stories is pretty customary, and the back stories will vary!

Differences will exist! Media is imperfect. But ‘until we can achieve perfection, let’s stick with the white dudes’ is not something I believe in. I’ll see how Dr Watson of Elementary plays out: and if I don’t like it, I’ll stop watching.

Till then, I am uncomfortable with how much easier, on far less evidence, people seem to find it to dismiss a woman: she won’t be good enough, won’t be strong enough, Elementary hasn’t done ENOUGH.

At least Elementary has done SOMETHING, unlike the other Holmes adaptations. I’m pleased about it. And I’ll see about the rest.
(no subject) - jaefire - Mar. 1st, 2012 03:04 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - sarahtales - Mar. 1st, 2012 04:25 am (UTC) - Expand
ngc7023
Feb. 29th, 2012 12:58 pm (UTC)
I adore Lucy Liu, but I don't like this new installation of Sherlock... too NCIS-ish, CSI-ish...

When it comes to characterization, I guess I'm still captivated and mesmerized by the way mr. Jeremy Brett impersonated great detective... and Watson - well, only David Burke can be dr. Watson ;)

Edited at 2012-02-29 01:00 pm (UTC)
sarahtales
Feb. 29th, 2012 04:40 pm (UTC)
As nobody's seen it, I don't think anyone can know what it's like.
shezan
Feb. 29th, 2012 09:43 pm (UTC)
I have a problem with the new Watson not being ex-military. Because as we know WIMMIN DUNT FIGHT IN THE ARMY.
sarahtales
Feb. 29th, 2012 11:32 pm (UTC)
I'm sorry to repeat, but this is really all I have to say about backstory...

I saw several things which made me go ‘Hmm.’ But every Holmes adaptation does different stuff—maybe the trauma of war is going to be translated to the deep psychological pressure put on doctors specialising in certain areas.

Maybe not, of course, maybe they’re doing it for gross reasons, and then I will be—of course—grossed out. But I don’t know yet, and until I’ve seen a character, I don’t know if ‘altered backstory’ is going to translate to dumbed down, weakened, no ladies allowed, what have you.

They made Sherlock's Watson psychosomatically disabled (which of course is still real disability), manifesting in being physically disabled, and then cured him via Sherlock’s presence for the majority of the show. I haven’t seen a quarter as many people saying Sherlock is terrible for doing this. Giving people troubled back stories is pretty customary, and the back stories will vary!

Differences will exist! Media is imperfect. But ‘until we can achieve perfection, let’s stick with the white dudes’ is not something I believe in. I’ll see how Dr Watson of Elementary plays out: and if I don’t like it, I’ll stop watching.

Till then, I am uncomfortable with how much easier, on far less evidence, people seem to find it to dismiss a woman: she won’t be good enough, won’t be strong enough, Elementary hasn’t done ENOUGH.

At least Elementary has done SOMETHING, unlike the other Holmes adaptations. I’m pleased about it. And I’ll see about the rest.
(no subject) - shezan - Mar. 1st, 2012 12:12 am (UTC) - Expand
themadfish
Feb. 29th, 2012 10:20 pm (UTC)
It has Lucy Liu, how awesome is that?? (oh, and all your other points--it makes me really happy to see an asian woman in a leading role)
eyelid
Feb. 29th, 2012 10:31 pm (UTC)
I'm kind of annoyed by it - not because there's a woman Watson, but because why must everyone all of a sudden be doing Sherlock Holmes adaptions?

It's like when a given season of TV ends up being all police procedurals or hospital dramas. Just switching in a woman for a previously male character does not automatically make the show a fresh new idea.

backinblack
Feb. 29th, 2012 10:43 pm (UTC)
I have issues with the Elementary adaptation that have noooothing to do with Watson's gender or race -- well, it comes back to that? I feel like they've stripped female!Watson of inherent character power with choices they made (I don't want to spoil anyone too thoroughly, but they changed a situation to reflect very poorly on Watson AND completely took out an element that makes Watson a BAMF/asset in canon, so). Fix those and I'd be on board.
sarahtales
Feb. 29th, 2012 11:34 pm (UTC)
I'm sorry to repeat, but this is really all I have to say about backstory...

I saw several things which made me go ‘Hmm.’ But every Holmes adaptation does different stuff—maybe the trauma of war is going to be translated to the deep psychological pressure put on doctors specialising in certain areas.

Maybe not, of course, maybe they’re doing it for gross reasons, and then I will be—of course—grossed out. But I don’t know yet, and until I’ve seen a character, I don’t know if ‘altered backstory’ is going to translate to dumbed down, weakened, what have you.

Also more women than men now attend medical school, so while men get favored I'm not sure if the field can be described as male-dominated.

They made Sherlock's Watson psychosomatically disabled (which of course is still real disability), manifesting in being physically disabled, and then cured him via Sherlock’s presence for the majority of the show. I haven’t seen a quarter as many people saying Sherlock is terrible for doing this. Giving people troubled back stories is pretty customary, and the back stories will vary!

Differences will exist! Media is imperfect. But ‘until we can achieve perfection, let’s stick with the white dudes’ is not something I believe in. I’ll see how Dr Watson of Elementary plays out: and if I don’t like it, I’ll stop watching.

Till then, I am uncomfortable with how much easier, on far less evidence, people seem to find it to dismiss a woman: she won’t be good enough, won’t be strong enough, Elementary hasn’t done ENOUGH.

At least Elementary has done SOMETHING, unlike the other Holmes adaptations. I’m pleased about it. And I’ll see about the rest.
(Anonymous)
Mar. 1st, 2012 01:18 am (UTC)
Please please PLEASE do a gay Pride and Prejudice. With ladies. It is very rare that you see gay stories in which the conflict is between the two main characters, rather than the conflict being 'this is true love, but the world will not let it be'.
pingback_bot
Mar. 1st, 2012 04:55 am (UTC)
Fun With Casting
User shadowfireflame referenced to your post from Fun With Casting saying: [...] ce between epic bromance and the portrayal of a gay relationship. See ’s post about adaptations [...]
Page 3 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>
( 110 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

unmade
sarahtales
Sarah Rees Brennan
Sarah's Lexicon

Latest Month

August 2019
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

sarahreesbrennan@gmail.com

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow