HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:30:43 BST
From:         John Smyth <eeijsh@EEIUC.ERICSSON.SE>
Subject:      JFK

Richard Clawson writes:
I SAW JFK DURING A FOUR MONTH STAY IN HONDURAS, NEEDLESS TO SAY SITTING IN
AIR-CONDITIONING FOR THREE HOURS WAS WORTH THE 75 CENTS IT COST ME TO GET IN TO
 THE THEATRE. HAVING BEEN BORN AFTER THE FACT I CAN'T CLAIM ANY INTENSE EMOTION
AL REACTION, YET FOR THE MOST PART I DID ENJOY THE MOVIE.  (LIVING IN NAWLIN'S
HAS ALLOWED ME TO SIT IN THE BAR WHERE THE FIRST SCENE BETWEEN ED ASNER AND
JACK LEMMON TOOK PLACE)  I DIDN'T LIKE PESCI (OF COURSE, I DON'T LIKE PESCI
IN ANYTHING)  AND I WAS READY TO SCREAM AT COSTNER.  I CAN'T BE THE ONLY
PERSON TO HAVE NOTICED THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF "NO WAY OUT" COSTNER HAS
PLAYED THE EVERY CHARACTER EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, AND THEY ALL GET THESE
OBNOXIOUSLY PREACHY SPEECHES AT THE END OF THE FILM.  I CAN'T SAY THAT I WAS
MOVED, OR EVEN IMPRESSED BY THE COURT SCENE, ALTHOUGH THE FORTY-SOMETHING
PERSON I SAW IT WITH WAS SURE THAT COSTNER DESERVED AN OSCAR FOR THAT SPEECH
ALONE.   MAYBE ITS JUST ME...

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on Kevin Costner. He is
Hollywood's leading whiner. He was soooo bland in Robin Hood: Prince of
Whining and if anyone deserved a Pawnee arrow up the ass in Dances with
Wolves, it was you-know-who. However, I've got to admit he was hilarious
in Silverado.
Costner was recently in Ireland researching the life of Michael Collins,
who led the IRA's guerilla war in the 1919-21 War of Independence. He
intends, apparently, to film the life of Collins (with Costner as Collins).
By any account, Collins was a completely ruthless soldier,so it should be
 interesting to see Costners' performance in such a role.(I admit - I haven't
seen 'Revenge').
                On the subject of JFK, I thought Stone did a good job of
showing how unlikely a single gunman theory now seems. However, I don't
think Stone's assertion that Vietnam was the sole reason for the
asassination was quite so convincing (I had just finished reading Neil
Sheehan's  "A Bright Shining Lie" before seeing JFK  and I got the
impression from the book that the conflict in Vienam just didn't seem
 that big in 1961-62 :- Incidently, I think Sheehan wrote the narrative for
 Coppola's "Apocolypse Now"). I also agree with Richard that the speech at
the end of JFK was awful. If that's how Garrison really closed his
prosecution, it's no wonder he lost the case. It just didn't seem like
a real courtroom speech, which contrasted sharply with the documentary-type
style of the rest of the movie.
                              Sorry to go on and on, but there was a
documentary (on British TV) on the death of Robert Kennedy, which shed
doubts on the lone gunman theory of his death. Has any movie ever been made
on the circumstances of Robert Kennedy's death ??
                           John Smyth
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-To: CINEMA-L@AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vms-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AMERICAN.EDU"
X-Vms-Cc: PGIORDANO
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:58:00 EDT
From:         Peter.Giordano@WILLIAMS.EDU
Subject:      Re: Bette Davis movies

Can anybody name a bad Bette Davis movie?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 08:59:25 -0500
From:         Gary Graffagnino <ACCGSG@HOFSTRA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _Fried Green Tomatoes_

>From: Karen Prestemon <ren@TURING.ORG>
>
>In article <01GOPF4B0B0I96VZDQ@VAX1.UMKC.EDU> PHARRIS@UMKCVAX1.BITNET writes:
>>Yes, Jessica Tandy's charater is MSM's.(Idgie.) There is quite a controversy
>>' about the relationship between Idgie and Ruth. Fannie Flagg refused to say
>>whether they were lesbians or not. The battle cry was indeed,TOWANDA.
>
>Well, I haven't read the book, to be quite honest, but I remember reading
>something in one of the trades that said the relationship in the book
>between Idgie and Ruth was clearly a leasbian one.  The article
>criticized the filmmakers, in fact, for softening this one aspect of
>the novel up to make the movie more palatable to morally conservative
>audiences.  I guess they just didn't want to be shocking, I don't know.
>
>But are you saying that the relationship in the book isn't clear either?
>Who has read the book?

***************************Possible Spoilers***********************************


        Having both read the book and seen the movie, I can say that both chose
to tell the story in a different way.  The movie took more of a "leave it to
your immagination" route, whereas the book is more clear cut.  It is obvious in
the book that the characters of Idgie (MSM) and Ninny Threadgoode (Tandy) were
not the same.  In the movie we are not sure.  But, I found a few things to
support the fact that Tandy *wasn't* Idgie (in the movie).

        Besides the obvious fact that Ninny was supposedly taken in by the
Threadgoode family whereas Idgie was a daughter, Ninny admitted in her stories
to Evelyn that she had a crush on Idgie's brother Buddy.  Now I guess it could
be argued that sisters could have crushes on their brothers, but I doubt if
Tandy was Idgie that she'd say that she had a crush on her own brother.

        Also, when Tandy reveals the killer of Frank Bennet, she says that
Sipsie told her on her death bed that she did it.  Now, if Ninny was indeed
Idgie, she would have been there.  Idgie experienced all of this first hand.

        Just something to keep you thinking!

        As for there being lesbian tendencies, absolutely.  I found subtle
hints in the movie, but the book practically jumps out and grabs ya.  There is
no doubt that the two characters in the book loved each other in a romantic
way.  And it was very essential to the book's story.  I think if you liked the
movie, you'd LOVE the book.  Not only for the shear brilliance of the story,
but the fact that you'll have definite pictures to relate to as your reading.

Gary Graffagnino
accgsg@vaxc.hofstra.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:42:34 BST
From:         Kerr Avon <lcc@WIN.ICL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Plebian Escapism...

>From: Don McCreary <mccreary@PX4.STFX.CA>
>
>As for other ideas, Adrian, I am always promoting Heathers.  How about some
>Monty Python (when was the last time you saw The Holy Grail?) or are you
>interested in something in the New Releases?

Hmmm... _Heathers_, eh?  Wasn't that by the director who also made,
wotsitcalled, _Hudson Hawk_?

OK, OK, I know... only back today and already a mention of _Hud Hawk_.
What can I say...?
			Liam.
			====-

     KERR AVON    |   Work: ICL,   * "Space, the final frontier,
 aka Liam Cairney |Reading, England*  as it was once called..."
  All e-mail to:- | Home: Glasgow, *
lcc@win.icl.co.uk |    Scotland    *       -- from Blake's 7
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%AUVM.BITNET::CINEMA-L
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 00:43:56 -0400
From:         JOURL205@KSUVXA.KENT.EDU
Subject:      Sneakers

Cinema-L'ers:
        Any comments on this one yet?  I was pleasantly surprised to find the
cast actually balanced well.  The pessimist in me was expecting a 'too much
talent' wipeout.  A nice technological contemporary twist to the Robin Hood
legacy.  With the exception of a few loose ends at the film's close, an
enjoyable venture with a satisfying performance by both Redford and Poitier.

                                        -Ryan S. Leasher
                                        Internet:  JOURL205@ksuvxa.kent.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:35:08 BST
From:         Kerr Avon <lcc@WIN.ICL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: "Glory" soundtrack

>From: JACKSOSM <JACKSOSM@VUCTRVAX.BITNET>
>
>The endless variety of human expression never ceases to amaze me.
>What appeals to one person and what mortifies another belongs to those
>gnostic mysteries forever unfathomable to one of our humble station.

You mean: `Different strokes for different blokes'?

I take it you're a fan of Sir Humphrey in _Yes, Minister_ and _Yes,
Prime Minister_?    8-)
			    Liam.
			    ====-

     KERR AVON    |   Work: ICL,   * "What sort of answer is that?"
 aka Liam Cairney |Reading, England* "A succinct one."
  All e-mail to:- | Home: Glasgow, *
lcc@win.icl.co.uk |    Scotland    *    -- Cally & Orac (Blake's 7)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:36:36 -0500
From:         acs_hahr@ENTERPRISE.ACC.UWRF.EDU
Subject:      Re: Blade Runner (Is he a Replicant?)
              12 Sep 92 21:09:23 GMT." <9209122223.AA12780@khan.acc.uwrf.edu>

SPOILERS FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T ALREADY SEEN THIS CLASSIC








It is extremely obvious in the movie that the Deckard is a replicant. In the
book, that fact is muddy (very similar to Total Recall), but the original
short story does not clearly make you belive Deckard is a human, in fact,
the original story made me think he was a replicant and the original movie
confused me.

Gaff knew about the unicorn because he had to study Deckard's replicant
implants because it was Gaff's job to retire Deckard when Deckard was
finished. Gaff says at the end

"You've done a MAN'S job."

He accents MAN'S (not "done", or "job" as is common)

You will notice that Gaff looks at him with disgust when he gives the
gun back. Gaff decided to let Rachael and Deckard live because he knew
both of their lives were going to be short anyways, and he had come to
the fundamental conclusion that replicants were just as human as humans
(after trailing Deckard around everywhere).

It's a very, very intelligent movie.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
From: mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Casey)
Subject: Re:      Re: Blade Runner (Director's Cut)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:52:14 GMT

>Yischon Liaw writes about the Director's Cut of Blade Runner:
>
>> The nod that Deckard makes acknowldges that he knows that he is a
>> replicant (Gaff knew about the unicorn dream). The movie ends with the
>> elevator doors closing with Rachel and Deckard in the elevator.
>>

	Well, even if it has been endlessly discussed before, I believe the
	the discussion can be reexamined since the release of the DC.

	I still think that the idea of Deckard being a replicant is a
	poorly founded attempt at bringing to much conspiracy out of the
	movie.  It is interesting how the unicorn origami at the end
	did seem to have an ironic link to the revelation of Deckard's
	dream, but I think that it is a weak argument for Deckard
	being a replicant because:

		Deckard did not show the superhuman  attributes
		that the other replicants did.  Deckard could feel
		pain much more severely and even the women
		replicants were kicking the shit out of him!

		It would be very strange and paradoxical for Bryant 
		to hire a replicant to kill replicants.  Especially
		if the Blade Runner replicant was inferior to the
		replicants it hunted.  If they had the choice, wouldn't 
		they send in some massive terminator guy or something?

		Besides, if Deckard WAS a replicant, he was a very human 
		one, showing very well developed emotions.  So why, if
		he (or it) is so human-like, would it even matter?  He would
		not represent the threat that the Nexus 6 units did.



					GENESIS:
				     "So don't tell anybody
	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/  what I wanna do
	_/     _/  _/       _/     _/ If they find out 
	_/     _/  _/       _/        you know that Ripley will be there too
	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/   _/        Oh no no it's no fun
	_/   _/    _/       _/        being a Giger Alien
	_/    _/   _/       _/     _/ Oh no no it's no fun
	_/     _/  _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/  being a Giger Alien" 
	Robert E. Casey  (mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu)

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: cinema-l@auvm.bitnet
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:38:52 -0500
From:         Currie Thompson <cthompso@CC.GETTYSBURG.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Dark Side of the Heart

In Message Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:19:00 EDT, saspdm@MVS.SAS.COM writes:

>>      Apparently, the NYT speaks of "Miss" Subiela--Eliseo must have reminded
>> them of Elise.  This is Subiela's fourth feature film; his second one,
>> _Man Facing Southeast_, was unusually well received in the U.S.  I hope
>
>Currie -- can you remind us again of his other two feature films?
>I promise this time I won't lose them.
>
    His first film was _La conquista del paraiso_ (_In Search of Paradise_),
which premiered in 1981 in Argentina.  It is available in video without
subtitles here, but it is not a very impressive film--an interesting idea
with some good camera work sometimes but a number of flaws.  His third film
was _Ultimas imagenes del naufragio_ (_Last Images of the Shipwreck_), which
is excellent in my view (and won 14 international prizes) but has only
been shown in festivales here to the best of my knowledge.
Currie Thompson
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:02:35 PDT
Comments:     Resent-From: Joan Crenshaw <3714P@NAVPGS>
Comments:     Originally-From: JACKSOSM@VUCTRVAX.BITNET
From:         Joan Crenshaw <3714P@NAVPGS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Blackadder (which is not a film, but never mind...)

j-man,

>Thanks to Joan and Liam for the Blackadder update.
>Unfortunately, our PBS affiliate does not carry Blackadder
>(which is an inexcusable breach of cultural sense on their part),
>so I am forced to rely upon the enlightened taste of my local video provider.

   If you are interested in purchasing the series, I have a source!
If I remember correctly, it runs $39.95 for a 6-episode series.
                                Joan
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
X-Organization: Penn State University / CES & CE
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:30:00 EST
Reply-To:     ELGFROEHRER@PSUCES
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was ELGFROEHRER@PSULIAS
From:         ELGFROEHRER@PSUCES.BITNET
Subject:      Re: GLORY soundtrack

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     10-Sep-1992 03:23pm DST
                                        From:     Ellen L. Gfroehrer
                                                  ELGFROEHRER
                                        Dept:     Independent Learning
                                        Tel No:   (814) 865-5403

TO:  VMSMail User _IN%"CINEMA-L           ( _IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET" )


Subject: RE: "Glory" soundtrack

j-man:

Do I recognize some Catholic doctrine in your missive?  mortify...gnostic
mysteries forever unfathomable...humble station...You sound so much like a nun
I had  in Catholic grammer school, my palms started to get sweaty.  I thought I
I was going to be punished for yet another infraction upon the mysteries of
faith.

mea culpa, etc.

Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:32:25 BST
From:         Kerr Avon <lcc@WIN.ICL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Lethal Weapon III (Re: Top Ten Gross)

>From: Sandra Ballasch <CADSANTS@UIAMVS.BITNET>
>
>Scott -
>
>I have to make one minor disagreement with your list of "flat"
>movies (ignoring the box office).  I loved Lethal Weapon III.  The
>Leathal Weapon movies are the only action movies that I have actually
>gone to a theatre to see and I think this one had some great stuff
>(besides Mel Gibson) in it.  It managed to include a woman into
>what is basically a male buddy movie and not destroy the chemistry
>that made the two earlier movies so good.

Sandra and Scott (and anyone else...)

Although I did enjoy the movie, it wasn't that great, really.  It was
pretty superficial; there was no real plot; it seemed to be a succession
of comedy sketches.  Pesci stole the show (for me anyway).  I did like
the new female character, but on reflection it is rather cliche and
stereotypical that it is she who winds up almost dead.

>I view these three movies
>as basically fairy tales so I usually do not get too excited about
>how far they stray from reality (VERY FAR) but for the first time
>it did seem to me that one of the characters actually realized that
>they were shooting at real people and there were consequences.  Granted
>this only occurs when Roger shoots his son's friend - but it is one
>more time than has ever been suggested in the earlier movies.

Hmmm...  it was good to see, but as usual it is all glossed over too
quickly and resolved too easily.  This is made even worse when the
young cop is killed soon after, and completely ignored (apart from a
glib comment by Gibson).  This pointless and even sadistic scene
(there was no need for it, at least I cannot see the point) is
my clearest recollection of the film, for all the wrong reasons.
Glover mourns for a child who was prepared to kill him, yet the death of
an almost as young cop is virtually ignored...

Like I said, I did like the film (I've seen it 3 times now).  However,
it is far from perfect, both morally and technically.

			Liam.
			====-
                                   * "_You_ put on the dress.  _You_
     KERR AVON    |   Work: ICL,   *    pretend to be your wife."
 aka Liam Cairney |Reading, England* "I've got a moustache!  What's
  All e-mail to:- | Home: Glasgow, *    this supposed to be, a great
lcc@win.icl.co.uk |    Scotland    *    big hairy bogey?"
                                   *        -- Polly and Basil Fawlty
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:41:04 BST
From:         Kerr Avon <lcc@WIN.ICL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Blackadder (which is not a film, but never mind...)

>From: Joan Crenshaw <3714P@NAVPGS.BITNET>
>
>j-man,
>
>>Thanks to Joan and Liam for the Blackadder update.
>>Unfortunately, our PBS affiliate does not carry Blackadder
>>(which is an inexcusable breach of cultural sense on their part),
>>so I am forced to rely upon the enlightened taste of my local video provider.
>
>   If you are interested in purchasing the series, I have a source!
>If I remember correctly, it runs $39.95 for a 6-episode series.
>                                Joan

Sorry to drag this out...

Blackadder's Xmas Carol was also released on tape over here and may be
available overseas.  Also, The Cavalier Years (which was originally
broadcast during a Comic Relief charity Telethon) was released as
part of a fundraising Comic Relief video, which may also be available.
Or may not.  And that, in a sense, is the question.  And why not?
All of which brings me, and rather neatly I thought, to the end of the note.

Sorry, I lapsed into my Barry Norman impression...

			Liam.
			====-
                                   *"Did you just crawl over some
     KERR AVON    |   Work: ICL,   *   barbed wire, sir?"
 aka Liam Cairney |Reading, England*"No... I just put my elbow in a
  All e-mail to:- | Home: Glasgow, *   blob of ice-cream."
lcc@win.icl.co.uk |    Scotland    *     -- Baldrick and Blackadder
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
From: ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon)
Subject: Re: _Fried Green Tomatoes_
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:03:40 GMT

In article <01GOPF4B0B0I96VZDQ@VAX1.UMKC.EDU> PHARRIS@UMKCVAX1.BITNET writes:
>Yes, Jessica Tandy's charater is MSM's.(Idgie.) There is quite a controversy
>' about the relationship between Idgie and Ruth. Fannie Flagg refused to say
>whether they were lesbians or not. The battle cry was indeed,TOWANDA.

Well, I haven't read the book, to be quite honest, but I remember reading
something in one of the trades that said the relationship in the book
between Idgie and Ruth was clearly a leasbian one.  The article
criticized the filmmakers, in fact, for softening this one aspect of
the novel up to make the movie more palatable to morally conservative
audiences.  I guess they just didn't want to be shocking, I don't know.

But are you saying that the relationship in the book isn't clear either?
Who has read the book?

--Karen

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
From: MKERBEL@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: wide screen movies on TV (was INTOLERANCE)
Organization: Yale University
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 10:42:49 EDT

In article <01GOJHJP8AVM8Y6PY7@VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU>
FAC_JCLARK@JMUVAX.BITNET writes:
 
>Louis,
>To add to what Michael K. has written in response--and to indulge a button
>of mine that your comments happen to've pressed!--let me add the following.
>
>Even post-TV-or-home-video films that were shot with these formats in mind
>and aren't truly widescreen in their more modest aspect ratios, can still
>suffer from TV cropping.  Yes, the picture and its story can remain intel-
>ligible in its essentials, but you _can_ lose important detail beyond the
>cropped edges--even detail that emerges from the overall picture composition,
>properly presented.  These things, of course, are part of the overall esthetic
>experience of the film.
 
(very good stuff deleted. . . )  Reply from M. Kerbel: Bravo!  Let me give two
examples from movies that were not shot in Scope ratios but that were meant to
be projected in at least a somewhat widescreen ratio (probably 1.66:1). Both
are by Scorsese: MEAN STREETS and ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE.  Both films
open (or in the case of MEAN STREETS, almost open) with a frame within the
frame.  In MEAN STREETS, after the initial scene of Harvey Keitel's character
awakening, we see the home movies, as a frame within the frame.  In ALICE, the
very opening is a frame within a frame showing Alice as a young girl.  In both
films, the frame opens up to become the larger frame of the rest of the film.
For years, I have been seeing these films on 16mm or on video -- in both cases,
the ratio was 1.33:1.  Recently both films have been released on "letterboxed"
laserdiscs.  The letterboxing is certainly not extreme -- again, these films
were not made in Scope formats.  But the letterboxing creates a different
experience.  Previously, when the frame within the frame (1.33:1) opened up to
become the frame of the rest of the film (also 1.33:1), obviously we did not
perceive any difference between the opening and the rest.  Now we do see a
difference and that adds to our understanding of the films' themes.
For instance, in ALICE, we get a more concrete feeling of the discrepancy
between Alice's past and her present -- between dream and reality, etc.       e
You also get more a feeling of her being trapped (because the frame within a
frame is more confining when it isn't in the full wide ratio).  etc. etc.
I can hear the yawns coming from those who think: so what?  Aren't we seeing
same story, characters, etc?  Don't we hear the same dialogue?  If that is your
idea of the aesthetics of watching films, that's ok for you.  I know it's great
 that we can now have access to all of these films, when a decade or so ago we
had to go to museums or specialized libraries, or depend upon the whims of a
revival movie theater.  If all I could watch were a scanned, panned or cropped
widescreen film, I would still be happy.  But now we do have more   choices,
so why settle for inferior versions?
 
 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU