As a college student, I should be used to hearing my oftentimes ignorant peers saying ludicrous, ignorant things. This particular instance, however, aggravated me to such a point that I feel compelled to share it on IMDb.
I'm in a film criticism class, where we have about an hour long lecture on a film, then we view it, then we take a quiz. My professor made a point to say that this film is about a ménage à trois, as well as saying that the French are more comfortable about speaking about their sexuality. Yet, when it came time to actually view the film, the students in the lecture hall would not stop making comments about how Catherine was "a hoe", et cetera. They were actually baffled at how she was acting, as if that wasn't part of the story.
I guess all I'm trying to say is, I wish I watched this film without the distraction of people making petty comments. I feel like it would have been a better experience
All you touch, and all you see, is all your life will ever be
I am in America, yes. My impression of Catherine was indifferent, in a sense that I accepted her wanting to express her sexuality in any way she so chose. The people commenting were both men and women.
All you touch, and all you see, is all your life will ever be
a tad busy right now and this is a fairly complex [but most important] question as it not only involves 2 totally different cultures but also at times displaced by a century.
so please keep tuned in as I will get back to you
Have you seen the 2 Lolita versions - 1962 and 1997, as they show the totally different audience reaction to sex displaced by 40 years in the SAME country [and totally in line with your observations of your classmates].
hoe is a new pronk for me [I am Australian] - kinda like a hooker?
I am so awful at getting back to people in a relatively quick manner, I apologize.
I have not seen that film, but it sounds like it would be something I would like. I wish people could see how culture plays a huge role in how people act; what is acceptable and unacceptable, et cetera. Some people, I guess, are just too narrow-minded.
That is so cool that you are Australian. But, anyway, to answer your question, a hoe is kind of like a hooker, but it is a term used interchangeably with "whore" and "slut"
All you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be
I wish people could see how culture plays a huge role in how people act; what is acceptable and unacceptable, et cetera. Some people, I guess, are just too narrow-minded.
---
well said, but to be a bit more precise, culture plays a huge role in the way people REact [ie to actions of others eg in a movie] BUT the way people [and animals] act has not changed since Adam and Eve, and in fact Jules and Jim is simply about "Eve Syndrome".
I hope your classmates allowed you to hear the main comment by the narrator "the Queen bee was not happy, so Jim had to leave the hive".
movie is not about sex itself but the POWER of sex, and how, wielded indiscriminately by certain women, can cause total disaster.
more to come in explanation so stay posted cont.
the local disaster of movie was bad enough but the REAL disaster was that Germaine Greer who was to lead the small f feminists into a war against men in 1970 styled her hatred ON Catherine - here it is from my own book: *** 3.1.4. It is with great apology that I have to reveal that the particular woman that instigated this catastrophic revenge was actually an Australian, Germaine Greer, and her channel was via her book The Female Eunuch. Here is what Wiki has to tell:
The Female Eunuch hit the bookstands in London in October 1970. By March 1971, it had nearly sold out its second printing and had been translated into 11 languages.
The main thesis of The Female Eunuch is that the "traditional" suburban, consumerist, nuclear family represses women sexually, and that this devitalizes them, rendering them eunuchs. It is a "fitful, passionate, scattered text, not cohesive enough to qualify as a manifesto," writes Laura Miller. "It's all over the place, impulsive, and fatally naive -- which is to say it is the quintessential product of its time."
3.1.5. Please note the sarcastic but true note of the final sentence, which says such a stance was “fatally naïve” (and should have been aborted before getting read) but in fact was just what J Doe wanted – or rather what Mrs G Doe (soon to become Ms G Doe) thought she wanted, but had to “repent at leisure” once her biological timeclock ran out and she was as alone as when an aged Greer finally saw herself in the mirror in Big Brother, didn’t like it, and put her bat under her arm and went home to lick her wounds, taking up on her new folly of pedophilia via her new book The Beautiful Boy.
3.1.6. And speaking of abortion, all mention of her plan to abort all males before birth and set up a sperm bank have been surgically removed by (Ms) HAL from Wiki etc, which is to say once the movement reached fever pitch and all males waved the White Flag, there was a certain amount of “I never said that” from HAL. Indeed while the song (see below) said “if I have to, I can do anything”, a quieter reflection on the situation over victory drinks said why not keep the men and have then do all the leg work for us, and it was that backdown that gave birth to the SNAG model (see below), ie as long as bloke reformed to a new vision of “sensitive” (meaning working his guts out at work and home), then he would be spared the extinction of his race. Thus spake Zarathustra and the rest is history.
3.1.7. So to return to and de-launder “Pussy Power”, Germaine had already set out the means in 1969 in her learned Article “Lady, Love Your *beep* Now this was not about downward gazing in loving awe but what women have know (and sometimes used) since the Garden of Eden (and I will return to Eve), ie that there is no other power in this world to match Pussy Power. It’s just that Germaine did it with more fury than anyone else.
3.1.8. The scorn that bore the fury was that at university, the young Germaine was considered a tad “queer” (though not in the homosexual meaning, now pronked to “gay”) by way of her strange looks and sexual preferences (see below). The boys therefore nicknamed her “Genetically Queer”, which was quite clever when you think about it. Worse still scorn wise, it is said that the boys made a deal to never jump her bones unless she put a plain brown paper bag over her head.
3.1.9. But even stranger for the young Ms Greer was her fascination with the “reverse” ménage à trois concept, as told by Ms Greer 46 years later:
“When François Truffaut's Jules et Jim was released in 1962, it was an instant hit with girls like me, francophile, penniless and non-monogamous. In those days, when contraception was available if you were sufficiently guileful, there were a fair few sex adventuresses about, though nowhere near as many as there are now. Enough of us took Jeanne Moreau's Catherine as a role model to establish a fashion for heavy black eye-liner, pale lips, sloppy jumpers and flappy skirts. Some even went so far as to try the Jackie Coogan cap worn by Catherine when she is masquerading as Thomas. We could all whistle "Le Tourbillon de la Vie". Catherine seemed a woman after our own hearts, who followed her desires rather than the rules.”
3.1.10. By reverse ménage à trois, I am saying that the “normal” ménage à trois was the “Two Ladies” one as sung in Cabaret (1972). There is nothing “genetically wrong” or “sexist” with the Jules et Jim one, or that the young Germaine should not prance around like a “McMansions” hotch-potch of an Australian university student on frogs legs. What was wrong was that she could not find a Jules et Jim (either singularly or the combination), and when you think about it, 2 blokes having sex with Germaine with a bag over her head could well be construed as rape, so it never happened, so she just felt more and more scorned, and her scathing remarks about Steve Irwin after his death are testimony to the longevity of her resultant fury.
3.1.11. Out of all that came the Nietzsche style Super Feminist Greer and her Bible The Female Eunuch and the rest is history. We will see the sad result via the destruction of the family unit as we knew it in a later Age as we examine American Beauty.
Thank you so much for your thorough reply! I really enjoyed all of the information you provided. I agree with your point in how culture shapes how people react to things, too, it is so very true and I think it explains why some of my classmates totally missed the entire point of the film.
Since we watched it with subtitles, I got to read every part of it, but was still very distracted since, like I said, a lot of people could not keep their mouths shut. I identify with feminism and studied it a bit last semester. Catherine was, in a sense, trying to establish some equality and therefore speak to feminists out there, but on another hand, she was completely mentally incompetent and could not for the life of her make up her mind. I think that was supposed to represent something about having multiple love affairs with people. I really enjoy your replies to my post, they're much appreciated!
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
I sent you an extract from my book which was from Chapter 3, or AGE 3 and here is the Index
*** Age 3. Affirmative Action Stage 2 - Women (circa 1970)
3.1. Hell Hath No Fury …
3.2. Could the Hell have been avoided?
3.3. Song of the Sisterhood
3.4. Support of Government
3.5. The First Stone
3.6. The Alpha Female
3.7. About Femimen
3.8. Eve Syndrome ***
the full book is at link below
now you say you identify with feminism so I hope that is "proper" feminism [refer to 3.5 The First Stone - a book by Helen Garner] and not the so called small f feminism of 3.1 Hell Hath no Fury - about The Female Eunuch that was to take over the Western world. Or perhaps you identify with 3.6, ie Angela from American Beauty.
the psychic thing is while I wrote the book 3 years back it was only last year after watching Jules and Jim [and All About Eve] that I added 3.8 Eve Syndrome, which as I say gets far more up close than I intended with the book, but I felt I HAD to do it having been able to "see inside Catherine's head" [and hence into Greer's head] by virtue of my own bitter experiences.
also have you seen Almost Famous and Crowe's depiction of the small f feminist movement of 1970 via William's "mother from Hell"?
when you explained your class I immediately thought of the "a rock and roll group has kidnapped my son" with Elaine as the college professor
is your professor male or female?
Almost Famous also has your star Hoffman [RIP] as Lester Bangs and his Guess Who T-shirt to signify "American Woman, get away from me", and his assessment of when rock started to suck [ie 1970]
I have seen Almost Famous! I love, love, love that movie! Philip is so memorable in his role, and yes, I love William's overprotective mother, and his sister who goes off to be a stewardess. Now I need to watch that film again.
The professor for my film class was a male, but the professor for my woman's studies class was a female. The students in my film class, I think are very one dimentional. Not to say I am above them entirely, I just understood the concept of the film a little more than they did. They were acting all too juvenile.
I am so thrilled that you are sharing all these interesting things with me. I hope you keep them coming! Or we could discuss more amazing films, I wouldn't mind that.
The students in my film class, I think are very one dimentional. Not to say I am above them entirely, I just understood the concept of the film a little more than they did. They were acting all too juvenile.
---
and I don't really think you really need me to tell you WHY the students are as they are, ie you don't need to be "entirely" above them in perception to understand the problems OF the "American Beauty" that has taken over America as well as most Western countries, like Australia.
but given the examples I quoted of 1962 and 1997 Lolitas [surely the benchmark of "wild oats sensuality"] I am minded of a time back in 1962 as a 17 year old student at Sydney University I went to a lunch time screening by the Students Union of D H Lawrence's epic Sons and Lovers.
when it got to the part where the gal essentially goes Politically Correct [for England in 1910] and says sex is a matter of close eyes and pray to Sweet Jesus, the whole theatre erupted to boos and catcalls AGAINST such "non liberated" attitudes.
so as for the 35 years displaced Lolitas, your own classmates had done a complete 180 degree flip [50 years later] AGAINST "liberation", and back to a Jane Austen type "existence".
and there is the great irony that the 1970 Affirmative Action on behalf of women was CALLED "Women's Liberation", but it turned out as just good old BORING Political Correctness, and anything BUT liberated.
Exactly, I understand these problems all too well. I'm sorry to hear that sort of phenomenon has taken over in Australia also. So many people I know, myself included, would love to visit Australia, so it saddens me to hear that it has fallen under the same relative category.
That is ironic and funny how the theatre noted the non liberated attitudes. So many people think that they are liberal, only to spout out conservative views. I'm very liberal and although I respect conservative views, I do not find them to be my cup of tea.
My classmates were showcasing strange reactions considering I am sure many college students have had sexual encounters before. To be shocked that there were sexual relationships on screen is nonsensical, at least to me it is. *sigh*
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
I hope you don't feel I am raving on too much about the "Affirmative Action" re women we had in 1970 [called Wimmin's Lib back then].
if you look at it from films' POV, virtually every other movie makes reference to it but of course it always MUST be done softly-softly or we would never be allowed to SEE the movie.
and without it [for better or worse], kids today would not be HAVING the classes that prompted your OP
if I might just return there, IMHO there is a huge problem in the name "film criticism class" as it ASSUMES there IS something to criticize - Film Appreciation Class would be far more democratic, don't you agree?
then we have the first mistake OF your professor "the French are more comfortable about speaking about their sexuality" - no they are not, they simply DO it, as the old adage says the best way to put a person off sex is to talk about it.
and that gets back to WHY your classmates are so "prudish" about sex, ie since 1970 America does nothing BUT talk about sex [as shown by Angela (Hayes) in American Beauty, who Mendes includes as the 1997 version of Lolita (Haze) as a frigid big mouthed virgin, totally "desexed" from the 1962 version of Lolita who was simply HOT sex].
more to come re Wild Oats if you wish - have you seen Across the Universe?
I hope you don't feel I am raving on too much about the "Affirmative Action" re women we had in 1970 [called Wimmin's Lib back then]. ________________________________________________ HA HA HA!!!!
You're not, I like reading about what you know, it's interesting to me.
I think the title of the class would have been more democratic, yes. Though, I think criticism was being used in a more "critique" sort of way, as in, students were supposed to be taught how to analyze film and then critique it through their own perspective. I still understand your point, all the same, and I do agree with your opinion.
I'm glad you corrected my professor, I could totally see how the French simply tended to their natural sexual desires, they did not necessarily speak about them. Haha! So true, talking about sex frequently can put someone off easily.
Angela Hayes in American Beauty is a brilliant character in my opinion. She is objectified the entire film, and at first she puts on a face where she totally loves getting sexual attention, but a softer side is shown later on. I just love that dynamic.
I have no seen Across the Universe, though I wholeheartedly always intended to, for I love Evan Rachel Wood and her cover of "Blackbird".
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
You're not, I like reading about what you know, it's interesting to me.
---
gosh, thanks for that - it makes me believe there are still young people in America/Australia etc that are willing to actually LISTEN to the "older generation" and not simply pass them off as "lost the plot"
you know I am 69 [if you did the math(s)] but I would love to know how old you are as a person with such astute perception of the "American Beauty" that you are destined to live in.
as for Angela, yes she got softer [with Lester] as you say but way too late to get softer with her own age group [which she despised]. So in her newly acquired perspective on life/sex Lester WAS in fact the ideal solution for her, despite the age difference.
but the Beauty said Lester HAD to die, and there were many lining up to do the deed.
so yes, AB reads as a true Greek Tragedy, but few American kids [from 8 to 80] could possibly understand that with their McCarthy/Hayes Code "morals" firmly embedded into their all-American "brains".
You do not have to worry about me shunning off what you say simply because of your age, I actually prefer talking to people much older than myself, I'm like Angela in that sense, because I often despise my own age group.
I'm twenty years old, American Beauty came out in theatres when I was still too young to see it and appreciate it fully. I bought it on DVD not too long ago actually, and it quickly became my favorite movie. Some characters are tragic, Lester was definitely a tragic character, and from the beginning of the movie his fate was to die. That sounds harsh, but like you said, it is lined up throughout the film.
One of my dear friends is fifty-three, so he is more than thirty years older than me. Age differences are often shunned but they don't bother me.
It's funny that you put the word "brain" in quotations. When I watch people out in public sometimes I'm convinced that some people absolutely never utilize their brain
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
our conversations have convinced me to view again Jules and Jim [only seen twice] and Across the Universe, Almost Famous [both viewed 10 times] and maybe American Beauty [viewed 20 times, but not for 5 years], just to check on all my perspectives "standing up" over time.
I would be interested in your Jules and Jim "quiz" but I guess it was all verbal and forgotten by now - I bet he never mentioned the Germain Greer connection.
as for ménage à trois it was not really one by normal definition which is a threesome SHARING sexual [and domestic] "chores" and normally 1 man and 2 women. As I say in my book it was BECAUSE Greer could not get any 2 blokes to "perform" with her [all together] that spawned her vitriolic hatred of men and her turning to pedophilia with boys [who she explained "ejaculated more often than hairy men"]. And such was her fairy tale view of this movie that it seems she never understood the 3 were never involved in the "group sex" she yearned for.
then again one would ask if the Liza Minnelli "ménage à trois" of Cabaret [1970] was a further variation with both men also in a homosexual arrangement as well as having sex with Liza [but at different times].
one of the great annoyances of the American education system is the belief everything can be fitted into tidy little boxes with a label on the outside saying "gays", "homophobes" etc etc
and on that subject here is the deleted scene from Almost Famous Crowe was so upset about not being included in the movie, but he did get some revenge via the classic scene where Elaine is lecturing her class on "little Jung boxes" when she suddenly loses it and blurts out "a rock band has kidnapped my son" and we see the students are so much in robot mode they simply write that down as part of the lecture.
so here is the Stairway to Heaven deleted scene where I try to explain how Plant calls on Tolkein in trying to save bloke from his fate - what a pity it was cut from movie.
BTW there is a UTube of the FULL Across the Universe - see below
I would love to hear your comparison to the vibes in Almost Famous as these are two films DELIBERATELY placed by the film makers firmly on either side of the dividing date of 1970 when [as Lester Bangs says] William was simply too late and missed "rock and roll" [and all the great stuff that went with it].
You should watch all those films again! But first, I need to watch Across the Universe, so I will be using the link you sent me.
The quiz was a printed quiz, not verbal, and I do not recall a Germain Greer connection, I really do not recall it that well, though, I wish I could! The concept of a ménage à trois is intriguing to me. Who is Greer? The person who you mentioned turned to pedophilia behavior? You'll have to tell me more.
There are several annoyances I have with the American education system. What is more annoying is our society, how there are still an abundance of people who even bat an eyelash at homosexuality or even just homoerotic subtleties. It's frustrating.
Is the deleted scene on the DVD? I'll have to look into that, which will be easy considering I own the film! I'll watch the one you provided still, of course. Thank you for sharing.
So if Almost Famous is supposed to placed "after" the rock and roll scene, you're saying that Across the Universe is before it?
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
You should watch all those films again! But first, I need to watch Across the Universe, so I will be using the link you sent me.
I watched Jules and Jim again last night and it struck me as even "darker" than before, like the fact she was prepared to kill herself to extract her "revenge" on the boys [and on everything in general?] is quite extreme. The relationship between the boys is quite unique, a bit like D H Lawrence Women in Love [1970].
but there is something really special in Catherine singing Le Tourbillon de la Vie.
The quiz was a printed quiz, not verbal, and I do not recall a Germain Greer connection, I really do not recall it that well, though, I wish I could! The concept of a ménage à trois is intriguing to me. Who is Greer? The person who you mentioned turned to pedophilia behavior? You'll have to tell me more.
Greer wrote The Female Eunuch which in 1970 became the bible of the "women's liberation movement", per Laura Miller:
The Female Eunuch hit the bookstands in London in October 1970. By March 1971, it had nearly sold out its second printing and had been translated into 11 languages.
The main thesis of The Female Eunuch is that the "traditional" suburban, consumerist, nuclear family represses women sexually, and that this devitalizes them, rendering them eunuchs. It is a "fitful, passionate, scattered text, not cohesive enough to qualify as a manifesto," writes Laura Miller. "It's all over the place, impulsive, and fatally naive -- which is to say it is the quintessential product of its time."
as I was saying, Greer revealed 47 years later she had been INSPIRED by Catherine in Jules and Jim, per:
“When François Truffaut's Jules et Jim was released in 1962, it was an instant hit with girls like me, francophile, penniless and non-monogamous. In those days, when contraception was available if you were sufficiently guileful, there were a fair few sex adventuresses about, though nowhere near as many as there are now. Enough of us took Jeanne Moreau's Catherine as a role model to establish a fashion for heavy black eye-liner, pale lips, sloppy jumpers and flappy skirts. Some even went so far as to try the Jackie Coogan cap worn by Catherine when she is masquerading as Thomas. We could all whistle "Le Tourbillon de la Vie". Catherine seemed a woman after our own hearts, who followed her desires rather than the rules.”
Is the deleted scene on the DVD? I'll have to look into that, which will be easy considering I own the film! I'll watch the one you provided still, of course. Thank you for sharing.
it is in a "directors cut" type version called "untitled" or something similar, which I have not seen myself
So if Almost Famous is supposed to placed "after" the rock and roll scene, you're saying that Across the Universe is before it?
yes that is very clear where Julie Taymor STOPS her story short of the big change that took place in 1970 with Greer's women's liberation, whereas Crowe is essentially lamenting those great times in Almost Famous, using Lester Bangs as his "mouthpiece" and modelling Elaine ON Greer [who also became a "professor of women's affairs"] as well as showing [via William] his own experience of being "deflowered" and missing out on his wild oats [as William really wanted with Penny Lane]
I almost wonder if Catherine was mentally ill. At the end, when she does drive the car off the bridge (I believe it was a bridge?) is when I would argue that her mentally instability is most blatant. The film is a little dark, but it also has great, positive bonds showcased in it.
I need to do more readings from these dated women's movements. I can read a lot of present-day ones online, on feminist blogs, but the ones you speak of are now so important and interesting, I think I need to pay more attention to them now rather than the newer ones. They speak a lot of truth, at least from what information you're giving me. I definitely like it. It's also strange to me now that my professor did not mention Greer. I wish he had.
That is so great to know about Almost Famous and Across the Universe ! Lester Bangs is now even more intriguing of a character than ever to me. There is so much more to things that I never even stop to consider. I suppose I do need to take the time to appreciate things like what you're saying to me. You're really helping me open my eyes a little bit.
I have an off-topic question, and I only ask because you said you're from Australia. Have you seen the Australian film Candy ? It has Heath Ledger and Abbie Cornish in it. It is very dark and depressing, but it used to be regarded as one of my favorite films.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
first please read this article below on Greer from 1999, particularly last paragraph on her "legacy", though not as she intended it to be, but in a way one might conclude it "worked".
Then one needs to ask IS that "American Beauty" what we really wanted/needed.
you should recognize a lot of Catherine in the article re Greer's "fall from grace" and her 180 degree flip on many matters, but NEVER admitting any fault.
I want to really give a good response to what you're asking me to consider, please bear with me the next few days - I will provide a thought-out response! I just wanted to respond now so you wouldn't think I had forgotten about this conversation.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
I too would be very interested in knowing exactly WHAT "women's studies" entails 44 years after the rise of the "women's liberation movement".
like is it still bitching about how bad men are or is it far more positive, or maybe in between like Angela in American Beauty.
I gave you the article by Laura Miller as she was one of the many women of the time that got "partially taken in" by the movement but was enough on the fence to be able to plot the course at least for 30 years and come up with some good conclusions about pros and cons of the "American Beauty" it spawned.
but seems strange to me there is very little info since 1999 or so and I was a bit surprised there even WERE such courses in 2014.
although it would be considered "sexist" [a word invented BY the movement] the most definitive way to describe the 2 sides of "feminism" is Big F Feminist to describe those genuine women since Pankhurst etc and small f feminist to describe the opportunist women whose main aim was power over men.
strange as it may seem the best depiction of the difference I know is Ang Lee in Brokeback Mountain with Alma as small f and Lureen as Big F
what I would love to see is a study on just what is the ratio f:F in today's version, and IS she really as happy and "liberated" as Lucy in Across the Universe, pre 1970 [or MS B when she was Mrs B ie "where is the girl" in American Beauty].
of course the advertising industry knows EXACTLY what people IMAGINE it to be as in these "bookends" car ads for gal and guy of now.
I don't watch much TV but my impression is KIA dropped the male one fairly quickly, so maybe there was some backlash against the doctrine of "only men must wear the blame" surviving to 2013?
I want to really give a good response to what you're asking me to consider, please bear with me the next few days
---
I will bear with you as long as you like [and I love your latest "aviator" thingo].
because of the "targeting based on cookies" the big players [eg Google] do I have been getting a deal of advertising re "feminist issues" and I was fascinated by a series of Utubes where the theme is "I am not bossy, I'm simply the boss".
Is this part of the present teachings regarding feminism? - it seems a curious "back down, when you are not having [or needing?] a back down"
Expressing her sexuality while she was single is okay (though frankly a bit unlikely given the era it's set in). But then later she is married and has a child. having chosen to settle down, she lost my sympathy when she took up with the other man again. As did he. Neither of them behaved well.
In a modern sense saying its about a ménage à trois is misleading (and many think that's a sex act so maybe even incorrect). In fact, that doesn't happen until the third act. I can see the value in marketing or when trying to interest young students about the film. It does in a way create Hitchcockian suspense and a feeling of tension from the start of the film.
I wonder how one today would react going into the film cold: Not knowing what will happen an hour into it, not knowing who Truffaut is, etc.
For film fanatics, I wonder if it distracts from the film's other virtue: Its use of techniques. Truffaut was a great admirer of film as an art form and this is probably the best evidence of such. His use of stock footage, freeze frames, etc., are a joy and still by modern standards an amazing feat in terms of storytelling. It would be great if modern studies in schools focused on pointing out techniques and why they are incorporated and how they affect/progress the storytelling.
I had a similar experience in film school with Citizen Kane which left many students walking out saying "I can't believe this is consider one of the best films ever made. It's not even that good." But why its good can be explained on several levels, the story is only a small part of why its considered great.
No one has to love this or Citizen Kane, but to shrug them off as bad shows they aren't being taught well why these films are considered masterpieces by others.