..............
well, on 2 web pages that i go to, the news spots that are always reserved for news on iraq, that decaprio guy, or wynona ryder, mention welles' daughter suing for the film. i guess that makes it official now.
that warners reaction was odd. "we've always had a good working relationship with beatrice, i'm sure we can resolve this amicably." that doesn't sound like they are sure she has no ground to stand on.
Beatrice sues RKO for Kane
-
Jeff Wilson
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 936
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 7:21 pm
- Location: Detroit
- Contact:
-
jaime marzol
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2001 3:24 am
she might visit here undercover. don't give her any ideas.
i saw no reason to rerecord the othello sound track other than for the press. if they wanted stereo, i have this bogus feature on my surround sound unit, it says simulated stereo. i can make fats waller sound hi fi. it's not a big deal to make mono sound like stereo.
having that antiseptic digital score under a deliberately archaic, barbaric looking film just doesn't jive.
i saw no reason to rerecord the othello sound track other than for the press. if they wanted stereo, i have this bogus feature on my surround sound unit, it says simulated stereo. i can make fats waller sound hi fi. it's not a big deal to make mono sound like stereo.
having that antiseptic digital score under a deliberately archaic, barbaric looking film just doesn't jive.
-
Jeff Wilson
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 936
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 7:21 pm
- Location: Detroit
- Contact:
The sad thing is, she could have released the film as it was, with minimal clean-up, strike new prints, and claim that she had rescued it from oblivion and people still would have been wowed, given the film's relative obscurity in America before then. And she could have saved some cash for more lawsuits.
I hope a possible result isn't a scenario that I fear the most: Beatrice's litigation just puts Warners' eventual plan to release The Magnificient Ambersons (of which there has been no announcement yet) on the farthest backburner they can find -- since if they may lose the property or piece of profits from its dvd release, why would they invest in it?
It could just end up in a long, winding legal maze that wastes more time and leaves fewer fans in its wake. And Beatrice's track record has been spotty when it comes to delivering to her father's fans completed pieces of his legacy.
Personally, I think we've got a better chance of seeing a premium TMA release through our own Dr. Marzol, who has toiled so hard on it that OW himself would be grateful, no doubt...
It could just end up in a long, winding legal maze that wastes more time and leaves fewer fans in its wake. And Beatrice's track record has been spotty when it comes to delivering to her father's fans completed pieces of his legacy.
Personally, I think we've got a better chance of seeing a premium TMA release through our own Dr. Marzol, who has toiled so hard on it that OW himself would be grateful, no doubt...
-
Welles Fan
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 10:27 pm
- Location: Texas USA
I agree that "more Beatrice" = "less good Welles on video".
This reminds me of the problem of Chaplin's films reverting to the Chaplin Estate. Over the years, some beautifully remastered Chaplin films have appeared on VHS, LaserDisc and DVD. Now that the Estate owns the rights to them all, Chaplin is going out of print. The Image DVDs are out of the catalog, and when they return, they will apparently not return in the remastered versions on the Fox LDs and Image DVDs.
For instance, Chaplins longer short films with First National (The Pilgrim, The Idle Class, Shoulder Arms, A Dog's Life) will only be available in the slowed-down versions supervised by Chaplin in 1960's as "The Chaplin Revue" (Chaplin had some of the frames repeated to slow down the action and make them more "realistic" looking to modern audiences. The result is a collection of draggy, jerky films that cease to be funny). Also, Killiam's restoration of the original Gold Rush with intertitles and a piano score will no longer be sold, and only Chaplin's 1942 re-issue with sound, narration (and cuts) will be available.
I expect the Estate does not want to share any potential royalties with the people who did the resorations of the films in the 90's, so they are using the versions that are owned by them outright. I fear that Beatrice owning Kane and Ambersons would result in a similar situation as the Chaplins, or at least of Othello, so I am not real jazzed about this. If, as Jeff says, they pay her a royalty, I agree w/dmolson that it will shove Amvbersons even further back on the schedule.
This reminds me of the problem of Chaplin's films reverting to the Chaplin Estate. Over the years, some beautifully remastered Chaplin films have appeared on VHS, LaserDisc and DVD. Now that the Estate owns the rights to them all, Chaplin is going out of print. The Image DVDs are out of the catalog, and when they return, they will apparently not return in the remastered versions on the Fox LDs and Image DVDs.
For instance, Chaplins longer short films with First National (The Pilgrim, The Idle Class, Shoulder Arms, A Dog's Life) will only be available in the slowed-down versions supervised by Chaplin in 1960's as "The Chaplin Revue" (Chaplin had some of the frames repeated to slow down the action and make them more "realistic" looking to modern audiences. The result is a collection of draggy, jerky films that cease to be funny). Also, Killiam's restoration of the original Gold Rush with intertitles and a piano score will no longer be sold, and only Chaplin's 1942 re-issue with sound, narration (and cuts) will be available.
I expect the Estate does not want to share any potential royalties with the people who did the resorations of the films in the 90's, so they are using the versions that are owned by them outright. I fear that Beatrice owning Kane and Ambersons would result in a similar situation as the Chaplins, or at least of Othello, so I am not real jazzed about this. If, as Jeff says, they pay her a royalty, I agree w/dmolson that it will shove Amvbersons even further back on the schedule.
(I don't want to go off topic of Welles, so I'll be brief.)
I think you may be mistaken Welles Fan, but what the Chaplin Estate is doing may not be as bad as what many of us fear Beatrice will end up doing.
If memory serves correct, the Chaplin Estate is working with, or possibly sold the rights to, the Roy Export Company on Chaplin's feature films. The announced plan is to release them through MK2 (a WB unit?) as remastered DVD versions with some extras and each accompanied by a related documentary. The first title released was the Great Dictator in France. It included the "Tramp and the Dictator" documentary that aired on TCM last fall. The Region 1 US version is supposed to be released sometime this summer. All his features will gradually follow and I heard somewhere that when the Gold Rush is released, it will include both the 1925 silent and the 1942 narrated versions. Of course how these "remasterd" versions will compare to the already released versions on VHS, DVD, and LD, I am not sure.
Of course, if I am mistaken on the above information, I stand corrected.
I think you may be mistaken Welles Fan, but what the Chaplin Estate is doing may not be as bad as what many of us fear Beatrice will end up doing.
If memory serves correct, the Chaplin Estate is working with, or possibly sold the rights to, the Roy Export Company on Chaplin's feature films. The announced plan is to release them through MK2 (a WB unit?) as remastered DVD versions with some extras and each accompanied by a related documentary. The first title released was the Great Dictator in France. It included the "Tramp and the Dictator" documentary that aired on TCM last fall. The Region 1 US version is supposed to be released sometime this summer. All his features will gradually follow and I heard somewhere that when the Gold Rush is released, it will include both the 1925 silent and the 1942 narrated versions. Of course how these "remasterd" versions will compare to the already released versions on VHS, DVD, and LD, I am not sure.
Of course, if I am mistaken on the above information, I stand corrected.
-
Welles Fan
- Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 10:27 pm
- Location: Texas USA
I finally stumbled over the news about Chaplin's films that I mentioned earlier. It was from alt.movies.silent, and was a post by David Shepherd, who did the restoration work on the Chaplin: A Legacy of Laughter laserdisc series for Fox. These versions were later ported over to the Image DVDs, which are now out of print. You can read the sad news about the upcoming fate of these films here.
Does anyone know what finally happened in this law suit?
Orson Welles' Daughter Says She Owns 'Citizen Kane'
3 February 2003 (StudioBriefing)
Beatrice Welles, the daughter of Orson Welles, has filed suit against RKO Pictures Inc., a unit of AOL Time Warner, claiming that she owns the copyright for Citizen Kane and demanding that the company hand over profits from the movie. In an interview with Bloomberg News, Steven Ames Brown, a lawyer for the Welles estate, said, "The contracts could not be clearer that Mr. Welles had a continuing interest in Citizen Kane after he left the studio. Now the time had come to put right the family's heritage."
Orson Welles' Daughter Says She Owns 'Citizen Kane'
3 February 2003 (StudioBriefing)
Beatrice Welles, the daughter of Orson Welles, has filed suit against RKO Pictures Inc., a unit of AOL Time Warner, claiming that she owns the copyright for Citizen Kane and demanding that the company hand over profits from the movie. In an interview with Bloomberg News, Steven Ames Brown, a lawyer for the Welles estate, said, "The contracts could not be clearer that Mr. Welles had a continuing interest in Citizen Kane after he left the studio. Now the time had come to put right the family's heritage."
Probably still in litigation.
The last word of "Citizen Kane" may not be "Rosebud," after all, but "lawsuit."
The youngest daughter of actor-director Orson Welles has sued two Hollywood studios in a federal court in San Francisco, saying she owns the copyright to the 1941 classic as her father's sole heiress.
Beatrice Welles' suit is based on a newly revealed document written in December 1944, around the time her father left RKO Radio Pictures. The document, according to the suit, was an agreement between Orson Welles and RKO to cancel a 1939 contract granting the studio the copyrights to "Citizen Kane" and another future film, "The Magnificent Ambersons."
Attorney Steven Ames Brown, who filed the suit Friday in U.S. District Court, said the document means one of two things: that the copyrights were transferred to Welles and are now owned by his daughter; or that the 1939 contract remains in effect, including an obligation to pay Welles 20 percent of the profits from "Kane" and 25 percent from "Ambersons."
The films were financial flops for decades, despite their artistic success, but have become moneymakers through videos and DVDs, Brown said Monday. He said neither RKO nor Turner Entertainment Co., which holds the distribution rights, has paid royalties.
"We just need a judge to determine where the rights are," Brown said.
His client, a Nevada resident, is Welles' daughter by his third wife, actress Paola Mori.
RKO spokesman Jonathan Marshall said the studio has not seen the lawsuit but maintains that its copyrights are valid.
The last word of "Citizen Kane" may not be "Rosebud," after all, but "lawsuit."
The youngest daughter of actor-director Orson Welles has sued two Hollywood studios in a federal court in San Francisco, saying she owns the copyright to the 1941 classic as her father's sole heiress.
Beatrice Welles' suit is based on a newly revealed document written in December 1944, around the time her father left RKO Radio Pictures. The document, according to the suit, was an agreement between Orson Welles and RKO to cancel a 1939 contract granting the studio the copyrights to "Citizen Kane" and another future film, "The Magnificent Ambersons."
Attorney Steven Ames Brown, who filed the suit Friday in U.S. District Court, said the document means one of two things: that the copyrights were transferred to Welles and are now owned by his daughter; or that the 1939 contract remains in effect, including an obligation to pay Welles 20 percent of the profits from "Kane" and 25 percent from "Ambersons."
The films were financial flops for decades, despite their artistic success, but have become moneymakers through videos and DVDs, Brown said Monday. He said neither RKO nor Turner Entertainment Co., which holds the distribution rights, has paid royalties.
"We just need a judge to determine where the rights are," Brown said.
His client, a Nevada resident, is Welles' daughter by his third wife, actress Paola Mori.
RKO spokesman Jonathan Marshall said the studio has not seen the lawsuit but maintains that its copyrights are valid.
Sto Pro Veritate
Here's an interesting, related article from 2003.
One of our classics is missing
Why won't Beatrice Welles let audiences see her father's greatest movie? By Geoffrey Macnab
Geoffrey Macnab
Friday August 29, 2003
Guardian
An Orson Welles season without Citizen Kane? Thanks to the litigation surrounding the film, that is the prospect confronting London's National Film Theatre on the eve of its Welles retrospective. "Unless we're able to clear the rights, we won't be able to show it and we're having difficulty in ascertaining exactly which distributor owns those rights," NFT spokesperson Brian Robinson explains. "It will be a tragedy for an Orson Welles retrospective not to have Citizen Kane."
NFT programmer Geoff Andrew is more sanguine about the non-appearance of Kane: "Obviously it's regrettable if the legal situation stops us showing Kane, but it's not as if it's a rare or unknown film. The purpose of the season anyway was to suggest that there was far more to Welles than just this film, which keeps getting voted the best film ever made."
Welles himself would surely relish the absurdity of the situation. The actions of his own daughter, Beatrice Welles, are seemingly threatening to scupper the screenings of a movie the NFT has shown countless times before, which has recently been released on DVD, and which has been voted the top film of all time in five consecutive Sight and Sound polls: in 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992 and 2002.
This January, 47-year-old Beatrice (the film-maker's daughter by his third wife, actress Paola Mori) filed a lawsuit against Turner Entertainment Co and RKO Pictures in the US district court in San Francisco, arguing that she was the owner of the rights to Citizen Kane. According to Variety, she claimed that there was a 1944 agreement between Welles and RKO (the studio behind Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons) that restored the copyright of both films to Welles. She believes that this contract makes Welles's heirs the real owners of the rights. Moreover, even if the court rules that Welles's original 1939 contract with the studio still stands, she insists that Welles's family is owed a large amount of unpaid royalties.
It's hard to know how seriously to take Beatrice's latest gambit. After all, this is only the latest in a series of interventions that have long vexed Welles fans and archivists. In May 1998, she threatened Universal with legal action over its restoration of Touch of Evil, thereby forcing the studio to cancel the long-planned Cannes premiere of the film that actress Janet Leigh had travelled to France to attend. She has also stifled an attempt by US cable company Showtime and Oja Kodar (Welles's partner in the latter part of his life) to complete The Other Side of the Wind, Welles's late film about an ageing movie director.
Beatrice hasn't won all her battles. Earlier this year, she was thwarted when she tried to auction off Welles's original screenplay Oscar for Kane (shared with Herman J Mankiewicz) at Christie's. Under rules drawn up by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1950, Oscars cannot be sold. (Bizarrely, it was once thought that the original award had been lost. Beatrice was issued with a replacement. She therefore now has two Oscars, neither of which she can put on the market.)
Few observers were able to work out precisely what she was complaining about when she challenged Universal over Touch of Evil, but the more noise she made, the more seriously she was taken.
"Universal did not consult with her or obtain her consent prior to their unauthorised alteration of the film. The suit was subsequently commenced to protect her rights. Later the suit was settled," her adviser Thomas A White explains by email. In other words, she was effectively fighting to protect the bowdlerised cut released by Universal in 1958 rather than the version put together by producer Rick Schmidlin and sound editor Walter Murch. The latter incorporated the specific changes Welles himself suggested in a 58-page memo he wrote to the studio after production was complete and he had been locked out of the cutting room.
"Studios, she learned from her experience on Touch of Evil, respect litigation," points out Jonathan Rosenbaum, film critic of the Chicago Reader and world-renowned Welles expert. "She said that once she saw it she had no problems with the film at all, and she was very apologetic to Janet Leigh. But she none the less brought litigation against Universal Pictures and they made an out-of-court settlement. So she has been making a living doing things like this."
Rosenbaum, a consultant on the re-edited version of Touch of Evil, remembers that Beatrice wasn't consulted because no one could see any reason why she should have been. The rights to the film were held by Universal, not her. However, her suit was taken very seriously by the studio: "She was able to hold up the release of Touch of Evil on DVD for about a year!"
It occasionally seems that Beatrice is on a one-woman crusade to stop her father's movies being shown. "There is nothing that she has done to my knowledge that has improved the appreciation of Welles, unless you count the re-release of Othello... [the result of] everything else she has done has been to prevent people from seeing his work, or from reading his work, or from even writing about his work," says Rosenbaum.
Even the 1992 restoration of Welles's Othello (which Beatrice was behind) was dogged by controversy. Different actors were hired to re-dub some of the dialogue and there were complaints about the way the music and sound effects were changed. But it did introduce the film to a new generation of viewers. "Quite apart from the damage she did to the film, the fact that people became aware of it was a good thing," Rosenbaum concedes.
When I approached Orson Welles's estate to try to speak to Beatrice, I received a terse email from White, telling me that "Beatrice Welles does not do interviews". I asked why she was so wary about speaking to the press. White, an "artistic rights consultant" based in Beverly Hills, replied: "I don't think the word 'wary' is accurate. Not doing interviews is her general policy, and has nothing to do with what you're writing about." It's therefore difficult to quiz her about her relationship with her father, her Nevada-based cosmetics business, or why she has such an appetite for litigation.
Ironically, in her actions suppressing her father's work, she is behaving just like the production companies and distributors who treated Welles so shabbily. As Rosenbaum puts it: "If she has any interest in improving the quality of his [Orson Welles's] legacy, I have to be convinced. The results have been negative, not positive." That is a sentiment the programmers at the NFT are bound to share as they struggle to find someone else to fill Charles Foster Kane's shoes.
One of our classics is missing
Why won't Beatrice Welles let audiences see her father's greatest movie? By Geoffrey Macnab
Geoffrey Macnab
Friday August 29, 2003
Guardian
An Orson Welles season without Citizen Kane? Thanks to the litigation surrounding the film, that is the prospect confronting London's National Film Theatre on the eve of its Welles retrospective. "Unless we're able to clear the rights, we won't be able to show it and we're having difficulty in ascertaining exactly which distributor owns those rights," NFT spokesperson Brian Robinson explains. "It will be a tragedy for an Orson Welles retrospective not to have Citizen Kane."
NFT programmer Geoff Andrew is more sanguine about the non-appearance of Kane: "Obviously it's regrettable if the legal situation stops us showing Kane, but it's not as if it's a rare or unknown film. The purpose of the season anyway was to suggest that there was far more to Welles than just this film, which keeps getting voted the best film ever made."
Welles himself would surely relish the absurdity of the situation. The actions of his own daughter, Beatrice Welles, are seemingly threatening to scupper the screenings of a movie the NFT has shown countless times before, which has recently been released on DVD, and which has been voted the top film of all time in five consecutive Sight and Sound polls: in 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992 and 2002.
This January, 47-year-old Beatrice (the film-maker's daughter by his third wife, actress Paola Mori) filed a lawsuit against Turner Entertainment Co and RKO Pictures in the US district court in San Francisco, arguing that she was the owner of the rights to Citizen Kane. According to Variety, she claimed that there was a 1944 agreement between Welles and RKO (the studio behind Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons) that restored the copyright of both films to Welles. She believes that this contract makes Welles's heirs the real owners of the rights. Moreover, even if the court rules that Welles's original 1939 contract with the studio still stands, she insists that Welles's family is owed a large amount of unpaid royalties.
It's hard to know how seriously to take Beatrice's latest gambit. After all, this is only the latest in a series of interventions that have long vexed Welles fans and archivists. In May 1998, she threatened Universal with legal action over its restoration of Touch of Evil, thereby forcing the studio to cancel the long-planned Cannes premiere of the film that actress Janet Leigh had travelled to France to attend. She has also stifled an attempt by US cable company Showtime and Oja Kodar (Welles's partner in the latter part of his life) to complete The Other Side of the Wind, Welles's late film about an ageing movie director.
Beatrice hasn't won all her battles. Earlier this year, she was thwarted when she tried to auction off Welles's original screenplay Oscar for Kane (shared with Herman J Mankiewicz) at Christie's. Under rules drawn up by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1950, Oscars cannot be sold. (Bizarrely, it was once thought that the original award had been lost. Beatrice was issued with a replacement. She therefore now has two Oscars, neither of which she can put on the market.)
Few observers were able to work out precisely what she was complaining about when she challenged Universal over Touch of Evil, but the more noise she made, the more seriously she was taken.
"Universal did not consult with her or obtain her consent prior to their unauthorised alteration of the film. The suit was subsequently commenced to protect her rights. Later the suit was settled," her adviser Thomas A White explains by email. In other words, she was effectively fighting to protect the bowdlerised cut released by Universal in 1958 rather than the version put together by producer Rick Schmidlin and sound editor Walter Murch. The latter incorporated the specific changes Welles himself suggested in a 58-page memo he wrote to the studio after production was complete and he had been locked out of the cutting room.
"Studios, she learned from her experience on Touch of Evil, respect litigation," points out Jonathan Rosenbaum, film critic of the Chicago Reader and world-renowned Welles expert. "She said that once she saw it she had no problems with the film at all, and she was very apologetic to Janet Leigh. But she none the less brought litigation against Universal Pictures and they made an out-of-court settlement. So she has been making a living doing things like this."
Rosenbaum, a consultant on the re-edited version of Touch of Evil, remembers that Beatrice wasn't consulted because no one could see any reason why she should have been. The rights to the film were held by Universal, not her. However, her suit was taken very seriously by the studio: "She was able to hold up the release of Touch of Evil on DVD for about a year!"
It occasionally seems that Beatrice is on a one-woman crusade to stop her father's movies being shown. "There is nothing that she has done to my knowledge that has improved the appreciation of Welles, unless you count the re-release of Othello... [the result of] everything else she has done has been to prevent people from seeing his work, or from reading his work, or from even writing about his work," says Rosenbaum.
Even the 1992 restoration of Welles's Othello (which Beatrice was behind) was dogged by controversy. Different actors were hired to re-dub some of the dialogue and there were complaints about the way the music and sound effects were changed. But it did introduce the film to a new generation of viewers. "Quite apart from the damage she did to the film, the fact that people became aware of it was a good thing," Rosenbaum concedes.
When I approached Orson Welles's estate to try to speak to Beatrice, I received a terse email from White, telling me that "Beatrice Welles does not do interviews". I asked why she was so wary about speaking to the press. White, an "artistic rights consultant" based in Beverly Hills, replied: "I don't think the word 'wary' is accurate. Not doing interviews is her general policy, and has nothing to do with what you're writing about." It's therefore difficult to quiz her about her relationship with her father, her Nevada-based cosmetics business, or why she has such an appetite for litigation.
Ironically, in her actions suppressing her father's work, she is behaving just like the production companies and distributors who treated Welles so shabbily. As Rosenbaum puts it: "If she has any interest in improving the quality of his [Orson Welles's] legacy, I have to be convinced. The results have been negative, not positive." That is a sentiment the programmers at the NFT are bound to share as they struggle to find someone else to fill Charles Foster Kane's shoes.
Sto Pro Veritate
And a (somewhat) related blog from 2004:
A federal court has ruled that Orson Welles' daughter may sell his Citizen Kane Oscar to the highest bidder. It is all very complicated, but the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had argued that a terms of ownership rider it has attached to all Oscars awarded since 1950 applied to the 1942 Kane fetish as well.
As for Beatrice Welles, she claims the up to $1 million the sale is expected to bring would be used to help abused animals. Why that is important is unclear. Presumably the funds are fungible and will relieve Ms. Welles of the burden of raising funds for her cause. If the Oscar is hers to do with as she pleases, she can hock it and hit Vegas with a nice bankroll
A federal court has ruled that Orson Welles' daughter may sell his Citizen Kane Oscar to the highest bidder. It is all very complicated, but the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had argued that a terms of ownership rider it has attached to all Oscars awarded since 1950 applied to the 1942 Kane fetish as well.
As for Beatrice Welles, she claims the up to $1 million the sale is expected to bring would be used to help abused animals. Why that is important is unclear. Presumably the funds are fungible and will relieve Ms. Welles of the burden of raising funds for her cause. If the Oscar is hers to do with as she pleases, she can hock it and hit Vegas with a nice bankroll
Sto Pro Veritate
-
Jeff Wilson
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 936
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 7:21 pm
- Location: Detroit
- Contact:
I haven't heard anything either, but I've been curious as to whether this lawsuit was to blame for why we haven't seen a Region 1 DVD of Ambersons yet. Warner has claimed they're still looking for the best materials, but they've been looking an awful long time. Perhaps they simply don't want to spend money on the film while it's at the heart of a legal fight.
-
Clive Dale
- Member
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:12 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
The more $ she wins the more $ she has to cause greater damage.
If she gets a big payout from either selling the Oscar or The Other Side of the Wind, I don't think the main group affected will be stray cats. It will be anybody who tries to do something positive to enhance the legacy of Orson Welles. It's like Harry Potter, She Who Must Not Be Named gets stronger after each episode.
If she gets a big payout from either selling the Oscar or The Other Side of the Wind, I don't think the main group affected will be stray cats. It will be anybody who tries to do something positive to enhance the legacy of Orson Welles. It's like Harry Potter, She Who Must Not Be Named gets stronger after each episode.
Return to “Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest