|
Post by doddgerhardt on Dec 1, 2019 3:05:58 GMT
People complaining about Paquin not having many lines are so ridiculous. THAT IS LITERALLY THE POINT. He alienated his daughter so much that she won’t talk to him. Scorsese has gotten many women nominations and wins over the years. Honestly it makes that one scene where she speaks all the more impactful.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Dec 1, 2019 5:29:03 GMT
Wonderful movie, not Scorcese best, but still a masterpiece. Al Pacino should be Oscar nominated, and maybe win. Because is his best performance in the last 30 years.
The Difference between Pacino and Di Caprio, are DiCaprio Portray of J.Edgar, and Pacino as Hoffa. What a mesmering performance
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 1, 2019 13:07:15 GMT
Imo the story of Peggy Sheeran and the relationship with her father should have been developed a bit more. But not with Anna Paquin, because I found the trick of her having only one quote to be very interesting.
Maybe they should have added a few more scenes with De Niro and the girl Peggy early in the film, to make that relationship issue even more credible.
|
|
|
Post by doddgerhardt on Dec 1, 2019 13:12:39 GMT
Imo the story of Peggy Sheeran and the relationship with her father should have been developed a bit more. But not with Anna Paquin, because I found the trick of her having only one quote to be very interesting. Maybe they should have added a few more scenes with De Niro and the girl Peggy early in the film, to make that relationship issue even more credible. Maybe they could have given her a scene or two before he beat up the grocery guy. That way we see a complete change in her demeanor towards her dad.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 1, 2019 13:17:23 GMT
Imo the story of Peggy Sheeran and the relationship with her father should have been developed a bit more. But not with Anna Paquin, because I found the trick of her having only one quote to be very interesting. Maybe they should have added a few more scenes with De Niro and the girl Peggy early in the film, to make that relationship issue even more credible. Maybe they could have given her a scene or two before he beat up the grocery guy. That way we see a complete change in her demeanor towards her dad. Or maybe one or two just after that! It was easy for Marty to handle this a little better but he chose not to. Anyway, it doesn't really bother me. Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 1, 2019 16:43:37 GMT
Ok, fingers crossed this isn't now a "rah-rah isnt The Irishman the greatest"cheerleading thread, because while it's clear much of the forum is fully in the tank for the movie, it's also clear that there are some dissenters on this board, and quite a lot of dissenters outside this forum.
Hopefully dissenting points of view can be met respectully and not shut down with "you have no taste or you are just blindly hating" rhetoric.
I'm betting (maybe too hopefully) that there's still a certain level of collective maturity in discourse and people who just want to talk about the film without resorting to flaming tactics.
Anyway, as someone who thinks the film has numerous problems, I think at least some of them could have been papered over by having Robert DeNiro share the lead role with another actor, or fully recast him with another actor (Leonardo DiCaprio being the most obvious choice for many reasons, not least because he already has a shorthand with Scorsese). DeNiro for me works in parts of the film, but not others. His scenes when he's older work fine, but he lacks the vitality to convince as a younger man and energise the movie. DeNiro is a low-wattage actor and has been for a long time. He still had that vitality circa Casino, and it kept the film propulsive. You'd get no claims of anyone being bored because his energy and intensity was still at full tilt. Ray Liotta served the same function in Goodfellas. That youthful vitality was essential to making the film pop. Dicaprio could bring that, and also be aged up where neccesary.
But DeNiro could be kept as the older Frank Sheeren, and a younger actor who could believably pass for a younger version of DeNiro could play Sheeren in his younger years, and bring the kind of energy someone like Liotta had.
Just some thoughts. Hopefully no one bites my head off!
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 1, 2019 17:19:01 GMT
Anyway, as someone who thinks the film has numerous problems, I think at least some of them could have been papered over by having Robert DeNiro share the lead role with another actor, or fully recast him with another actor ( Leonardo DiCaprio being the most obvious choice for many reasons, not least because he already has a shorthand with Scorsese). DeNiro for me works in parts of the film, but not others. His scenes when he's older work fine, but he lacks the vitality to convince as a younger man and energise the movie. Part of the very appeal of the film is that there is not a younger actor to play any of them and how that ties into the script - it feels different when you see De Niro talk about the phrase "I am little concerned" and then use the exact phrase himself later, sadly and that kind of cross-connection can only come by these actors playing these parts the whole time. The energy is purposely sapped out anyway right at the start - one way that is done is by the death manner and date popping on the screen - a genius level directing choice which reduces everything we see to a finality which is the larger whole theme itself of course. So you have 2 things working together and intersecting - the 3 actors being Godhead level (what's the last American film to have 3 male performances like this .........maybe LA Confidential with Spacey/Crowe/Pearce - which is hardly the same thing to me) - and the fact that the 3 actors are not seen with a different actor adds a poignant layer in and of itself.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 1, 2019 17:38:55 GMT
Anyway, as someone who thinks the film has numerous problems, I think at least some of them could have been papered over by having Robert DeNiro share the lead role with another actor, or fully recast him with another actor ( Leonardo DiCaprio being the most obvious choice for many reasons, not least because he already has a shorthand with Scorsese). DeNiro for me works in parts of the film, but not others. His scenes when he's older work fine, but he lacks the vitality to convince as a younger man and energise the movie. (what's the last American film to have 3 male performances like this .........maybe LA Confidential with Spacey/Crowe/Pearce - which is hardly the same thing to me) Off the top of my head, Django Unchained. And I didn't think any of them were weak links or (partially) miscast. Your premise only works if you believe The Irishman's performances are that unimpeachable, and I don't believe they were. Which is why I think DeNiro should have been fully recast or only should have played the older Sheeren. I mean Pacino was miscast as well, but crucially his vitality helped the film, wheras DeNiro's lack of it hindered the movie (imho). The extremely divisive social media reaction (a lot of it from diehard Scorsese Gangster Movie Worshippers) cannot be ignored or dismissed out of hand. There is a lot of disconnect between how many viewers are seeing this movie, and how critics rated it. That's not common for Scorsese in this genre. I've seen 4 seperate articles about "The internet calling The Irishman boring" this weekend. That should never happen for a Scorsese gangster picture, and there are underlying reasons why many feel that way.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Dec 1, 2019 19:02:44 GMT
Back to the good stuff -- Anyone check out that bonus roundtable on Netflix, The Irishman: In Conversation .... 23min, Scorsese De Niro Pacino Pesci playfully talking about the project and their careers. I love this, them asking each other questions - like Pesci asking Scorsese if he thinks he's a better filmmaker now. Could've watched that for five hours.... Yeah, that was absolutely delightful. A little too much talk of the de-aging though. Loved how Pacino was kind of the moderator for the first couple of minutes. And the first time in forever that we've seen Pesci talking normally and actually (somewhat) happy to be doing it. Loved his line about De Niro/Scorsese taking him out of the gutter.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Dec 1, 2019 19:49:15 GMT
(what's the last American film to have 3 male performances like this .........maybe LA Confidential with Spacey/Crowe/Pearce - which is hardly the same thing to me) Off the top of my head, Django Unchained. And I didn't think any of them were weak links or (partially) miscast. Your premise only works if you believe The Irishman's performances are that unimpeachable, and I don't believe they were. Which is why I think DeNiro should have been fully recast or only should have played the older Sheeren. I mean Pacino was miscast as well, but crucially his vitality helped the film, wheras DeNiro's lack of it hindered the movie (imho). The extremely divisive social media reaction (a lot of it from diehard Scorsese Gangster Movie Worshippers) cannot be ignored or dismissed out of hand. There is a lot of disconnect between how many viewers are seeing this movie, and how critics rated it. That's not common for Scorsese in this genre. I've seen 4 seperate articles about "The internet calling The Irishman boring" this weekend. That should never happen for a Scorsese gangster picture, and there are underlying reasons why many feel that way.The fact that it's a total deconstruction of all that previous stuff? Like a generation of people who grew up watching Rawhide, or The Dollars Trilogy, High Plains Drifter, Josey Wales, Pale Rider, etc. Then Unforgiven comes out and they're like "What's all this old man shit?" It's not the same thing, is it? You can't discount the fact that a lot of the movies that get dragged into this discussion - Raging Bull, more so Goodfellas and Casino, have a habit of attracting the most idiotic, juvenile fanbase attracted to nothing but their most base elements. That such folks would not be attracted to this film which buries that stuff in amidst history, frailty, and sprawls itself out to lengths that would deter anyone without patience is no surprise. Further to that you're also overlooking the fact that a great many people on the internet are morons who don't know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not saying everyone that dislikes this movie are morons, I'm simply saying that not all critics can be grouped under the same umbrella. See the recent Marvel vs. Marty social media war where you would again and again hear the most tired attempts at burns of Scorsese's work by people who thought he'd never made anything but a gangster movie, or by people who think like this... Who cares what they think? This movie is not playing wide at the box office, its success is not tied to mass appeal.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Dec 1, 2019 20:16:04 GMT
The prospect of Pacino winning for this is so exciting not just because it's been so long since his last Oscar, but it would also give us the neat situation where he and De Niro (assuming he's also nominated) co-star with each other in another 3.5-hour crime epic 45 years later and basically flip places in terms of awards recognition... the supporting actor wins while the leading actor (presumably) doesn't, in which case Pacino and De Niro would become tied for number of Oscar wins per category.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 1, 2019 20:18:06 GMT
Off the top of my head, Django Unchained. And I didn't think any of them were weak links or (partially) miscast. Your premise only works if you believe The Irishman's performances are that unimpeachable, and I don't believe they were. Which is why I think DeNiro should have been fully recast or only should have played the older Sheeren. I mean Pacino was miscast as well, but crucially his vitality helped the film, wheras DeNiro's lack of it hindered the movie (imho). The extremely divisive social media reaction (a lot of it from diehard Scorsese Gangster Movie Worshippers) cannot be ignored or dismissed out of hand. There is a lot of disconnect between how many viewers are seeing this movie, and how critics rated it. That's not common for Scorsese in this genre. I've seen 4 seperate articles about "The internet calling The Irishman boring" this weekend. That should never happen for a Scorsese gangster picture, and there are underlying reasons why many feel that way.The fact that it's a total deconstruction of all that previous stuff? Like a generation of people who grew up watching Rawhide, or The Dollars Trilogy, High Plains Drifter, Josey Wales, Pale Rider, etc. Then Unforgiven comes out and they're like "What's all this old man shit?" It's not the same thing, is it? You can't discount the fact that a lot of the movies that get dragged into this discussion - Raging Bull, more so Goodfellas and Casino, have a habit of attracting the most idiotic, juvenile fanbase attracted to nothing but their most base elements. That such folks would not be attracted to this film which buries that stuff in amidst history, frailty, and sprawls itself out to lengths that would deter anyone without patience is no surprise. Further to that you're also overlooking the fact that a great many people on the internet are morons who don't know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not saying everyone that dislikes this movie are morons, I'm simply saying that not all critics can be grouped under the same umbrella. See the recent Marvel vs. Marty social media war where you would again and again hear the most tired attempts at burns of Scorsese's work by people who thought he'd never made anything but a gangster movie, or by people who think like this... Who cares what they think? This movie is not playing wide at the box office, its success is not tied to mass appeal. I can't recall any widespread dismissal of Unforgiven as some"boring old man shit" by the unwashed masses on release. But the internet wasn't around back in the early 90's. We do know that it did phenomenal box office for a western (100 million + domestic) which suggests that it was both a critical hit and one that worked just fine for Joe and Jane popcorn eater. You make salient points, but as someone who found the movie extremely boring at times that's well versed in cinema and watched hundreds of long epic movies stretching back to the 1930's, the execution was lacking. I felt every minute of this thing, as did stephen and futuretrunks . We can all handle long movies and films about old people. Well, Scorsese got to make a 160 million dollar film that only needs to satisfy Netflix's algorithm and subscription model. It needs to have mass appeal in that sense, though Netflix being Netflix tend to be cagey about figures. But there may be consequences for that particular business model if it doesn't deliver. Anyway, appreciate the response.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,054
Likes: 1,051
|
Post by chris3 on Dec 1, 2019 20:19:32 GMT
Drove 40 mins to see it at a movie theater last night, as it was meant to be viewed. Some thoughts: 1. If you look earlier in this thread I had some nitpicks about Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography. I completely retract those statements. The film looks GLORIOUS on the big screen. Whereas on a TV I felt like the nighttime digital scenes in the 50-60s looked really off, on a giant projected screen it becomes much clearer how each time period of the film has its own specific aesthetic. Late-era Sheeran is clearly influenced by the more muted, realistic palette Michael Ballhaus uses in Goodfellas and The Departed, whereas the old mob days are much more Robert Richardson-inspired. I definitely prefer the cinematography of Goodfellas over Casino, so naturally I prefer the look of the modern scenes, but overall the film is wonderfully shot and this was easily the most eye-opening aspect of seeing it in theaters. 2. I think this might be the best edited film of the decade. I was curious to see how the movie would play without the option to pause it (I didn't take lengthy breaks but did pause twice to use the bathroom). The pacing of this movie is downright masterful. Thelma and Marty's ability to keep an ultra-long, stylistically baggy, purposefully slow narrative from ever seeming boring or dull is a revelation. There are many, many sequences throughout the film where I felt a sense of cinematic nirvana just from the cutting (Sheeran scoping out the laundromat he's planning to torch is one of many). Thelma's work has been GOAT level for decades but this film in particular truly highlights her genius at the craft. 3. After three viewings I think I'd go Pesci, then De Niro, then Pacino in my ranking of performances, with a HUGE shout-out to Stephen Graham for nearly stealing the movie from these legends. De Niro's work in the final hour is the best he's been since the early nineties. 4. The script gets better and better with each viewing, as more nuances come to the fore. "I know it sounds crazy, but a higher power told me to kill Jimmy Hoffa." Didn't pick up how pertinent this line is to Frank as well. The mob is certainly a higher power in his life. 5. I haven't seen this film brought up in the conversation yet, but to me The Irishman feels very much like what The Godfather: Part III was going for and failed to achieve. "Aging mobster reflects on the sins of his past and attempts to rebuild the bridges he's burned within his family and rediscover his Catholic faith before death knocks on his door." Scorsese succeeds where Coppola failed (IMO).
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Dec 1, 2019 20:22:43 GMT
I rewatched it again and found myself now thinking about Pesci the most. He feels even more sinister in his last scenes. Both him and Pacino are likely to switch back and forth for me this season.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 1, 2019 20:35:53 GMT
5. I haven't seen this film brought up in the conversation yet, but to me The Irishman feels very much like what The Godfather: Part III was going for and failed to achieve. "Aging mobster reflects on the sins of his past and attempts to rebuild the bridges he's burned within his family and rediscover his Catholic faith before death knocks on his door." Scorsese succeeds where Coppola failed (IMO). I have heard this comparison a lot actually and don't think it fits for me- and I kind of love The Godfather Part III too (but it is a lesser film to The Irishman). To me The Godfather films are all about family, Michael Corleone isn't like Frank although the general outline is similar - and what was explored in that film is all family - Vincent Mancini, Mary Corleone - the family eats itself. It seems to me when people compare it to that film it is because of genre rather only. I said earlier that The Irishman starts like Goodfellas in the jokes until Hoffa comes in and is established.......then JFK in the middle with a whole US history and political vision and ends as Manon of The Spring (or something like that) but maybe I'm too close to Godfather Part 3 and Once Upon A Time In America to see it. To me it evokes Unforgiven in general much more than anything in the genre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 21:03:23 GMT
After three viewings I think I'd go Pesci, then De Niro, then Pacino in my ranking of performances, with a HUGE shout-out to Stephen Graham for nearly stealing the movie from these legends. De Niro's work in the final hour is the best he's been since the early nineties. For me I’d go: De Niro (agree strongly with whoever said on here that this is his film - it is, through and through, which makes sense as he’s the one who most wanted this whole thing to be made) > Pesci > Pacino > Keitel > Graham, with Paquin hard to rank because of how small and quiet her role is, though I do think she was just about perfect in what she did. I’m not sure how many will agree with me on this, and I’m absolutely no expert or deep thinker on acting the way some on here are, but this was one of De Niro’s five best performances ever, in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Dec 1, 2019 21:08:04 GMT
underrated legendary moment:
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Dec 1, 2019 21:11:19 GMT
I can't recall any widespread dismissal of Unforgiven as some"boring old man shit" by the unwashed masses on release. But the internet wasn't around back in the early 90's. We do know that it did phenomenal box office for a western (100 million + domestic) which suggests that it was both a critical hit and one that worked just fine for Joe and Jane popcorn eater. You make salient points, but as someone who found the movie extremely boring at times that's well versed in cinema and watched hundreds of long epic movies stretching back to the 1930's, the execution was lacking. I felt every minute of this thing, as did stephen and futuretrunks . We can all handle long movies and films about old people. Well, Scorsese got to make a 160 million dollar film that only needs to satisfy Netflix's algorithm and subscription model. It needs to have mass appeal in that sense, though Netflix being Netflix tend to be cagey about figures. But there may be consequences for that particular business model if it doesn't deliver. Anyway, appreciate the response. Well, like I said, I'm not dismissing all critics of the movie. You brought up Scorsese Gangster Movie Worshippers, and in my experience such people are simpletons more often than not. Whenever anyone asks me my favourite movies I hate naming so many of these types of films because I know exactly what kind of impression is bound to be formed about me and my tastes based on naming them Anyway, back to the movie itself. I feel like the DeNiro performance is maybe not on the level of the other two fellas, certainly in the class of his best work, but I think it's being too easily dismissed. The thing with it is I think it's such a passive role that asks him to perform in a key that makes him look like he's just wandering through the movie on autopilot, which considering it's exactly what he's done for so much of the past 20 years makes it easy to condemn him. But to dismiss is so easily is to ignore the way he works all those stutterings in there so seamlessly, the physical discomfort he so effectively conveys especially in the latter stages of the movie, the good stuff that he's doing is subtler, quieter, smaller stuff. I think it's really the writing that comes to his rescue and validates what he's doing. I think Forrest Gump has already been mentioned in this thread, and it's SUCH a similar role (and movie... narratively, I mean ) the difference being that this movie ultimately damns and condemns Sheeran for his shocking lack of agency. He's not just a quiet man coasting through this turbulent time in American history, all those conversations at the end, the one with Marin Ireland in particular comes to mind, this movie sort of needed him to be the way that he is for it to work in that way. Would the movie have had more pop if he were a more fiery character? Probably, but not only would it totally transform the fire and ice relationship with Pacino, and probably dilute the almost paternal one with Pesci, but I think it would also greatly dilute/alter/ruin the power of the downward spiral scenes as he stands by helpless in that Appreciation Night scene with Hoffa, and as Russell is making him that fucking salad and breaking the bad news to him. What a hurtling express train of passivity this guy proves to be is key to all that stuff working and the tragedy of the films closing stages. I really do think this movie is a(n almost) perfect calibration of so many small details that help make up a bigger picture that works in so many ways on so many levels because of the amount of small details in it. Except for that grocery store scene, that really is awful.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 1, 2019 21:20:25 GMT
underrated legendary moment: Seems like Marty put that scene in there just as a treat. We should have Pacino and Keitel in the same shot, even for just a few seconds.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 1, 2019 21:28:38 GMT
Well, like I said, I'm not dismissing all critics of the movie. You brought up Scorsese Gangster Movie Worshippers, and in my experience such people are simpletons more often than not. Yeah I was a little insulted by that - I don't rank Goodfellas in my top 10 of the 90s (just misses), I merely "like" The Departed and I often say Casino is one of his two career low points so I don't think my reaction to this movie is because I'm a worshipper or anything. In some ways this is like Barry Lyndon - plebs thought that was boring probably (and had a better argument in that case actually imo) but you have to trust the director legend there too for what clearly works in each film and the totality of how it's received also. You can't really say "if anybody else made this it would be getting panned" because well no one else would have made either film like that anyway.....
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 1, 2019 21:30:45 GMT
Still think Pacino is MVP for me and his is the performance I've found myself thinking the most about -- maybe because I tend to prefer maximalism in my acting, and because of that might have some favoritism towards Al in general. For as much as the Hoffa role plays to his strength and he gets to be big and loud and just dominant with his screen presence, there's also so much intimacy that he shares with De Niro in particular and when he gets more contained and personal his performance is allowed to be soft and funny and touching in a way that we don't always see from him. His relationship with Peggy is also key to this side of the character and showcase this subdued and paternal side of Hoffa in these moments where he becomes the soul of the film. Pacino really just exudes confidence in the role throughout the film and his arc winds down we start to see that slowly crumble and turn to desperation, and Pacino pulls off this desperation beautifully especially in the masterful sequence in Detroit -- it's very subtle at first and the facade slowly starts to slip, and he absolutely breaks your heart with the delivery of his last which is (I think) "Come on let's get out of here Frankie" -- it's this split second moment where we already know what's gonna happen and Hoffa kind of does too but know he knows what's gonna happen and we as the audience know to that this is the moment -- it's quick but brilliant and so heartbreaking I can't get it out of my mind. As I've said in another thread I think, Pacino is one of my two favorite performances of the year along with Dafoe in The Lighthouse, which is great because Pacino and Dafoe may be my two favorite actors still working today and this year they both get these phenomenal roles that only they could play and allow them to do some of their career-best work as these loud and billowing and over-the-top characters, getting to be hilarious and intense and play off incredible co-stars beautifully ... and in The Irishman it really can't be overstated how well these three main performances work together, and how much they really couldn't work without the others. They really are just insanely generous performance where each of the three kind of has their own different conceit that they're playing with, and not only do each serve their part to perfection but none of them steal the spotlight from the others, instead giving the co-star just enough to work with and shine in their own right. It really is something miraculous and it's hard to think of something else quite like it...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 21:31:58 GMT
Well, like I said, I'm not dismissing all critics of the movie. You brought up Scorsese Gangster Movie Worshippers, and in my experience such people are simpletons more often than not. You can't really say "if anybody else made this it would be getting panned" because well no one else would have made either film like that anyway..... Yes, yes, yes. This is one of the laziest “criticisms” of a movie I can think of.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Dec 1, 2019 21:49:47 GMT
I remember in 2006 bristling at dismissals of The Departed as merely entertaining fluff compared to Taxi Driver or Raging Bull, as it was and still is (for me) clearly his greatest demonstration of directorial control and storytelling verve after the masterpiece that is Goodfellas. I feel as strongly about The Irishman being a void, and not having been conceptualized with a strong sense of purpose and intention. I literally said to myself when the credits rolled: "I don't know what I just watched." It just felt like an improvisatory ramble.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Dec 2, 2019 6:53:53 GMT
I remember in 2006 bristling at dismissals of The Departed as merely entertaining fluff compared to Taxi Driver or Raging Bull, as it was and still is (for me) clearly his greatest demonstration of directorial control and storytelling verve after the masterpiece that is Goodfellas. I feel as strongly about The Irishman being a void, and not having been conceptualized with a strong sense of purpose and intention. I literally said to myself when the credits rolled: "I don't know what I just watched." It just felt like an improvisatory ramble. The Departed is slick as fuck, probably more than any movie he ever made, but to say this movie had no purpose and intention is a hell of a reach I mean it's long, I do think you could lose scenes here and there, but no way is it some improvised, cobbled together on the fly sort of movie. It's riddled with echoes of, and callbacks to his other movies, I mean the entire opening stretch is like Goodfellas Got Old. That opening shot, he's gone from the girlfriend wowing immortal track into the Copa to this, an old folks home, all those names thrown up on screen, that's a trick from Mean Streets but with the deaths thrown in (how can THAT be called lacking purpose or intention, it clearly has an aim) the entire thing sets about flipping his previous work on its head.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Dec 3, 2019 1:55:45 GMT
|
|