Why BAD Films Are Better Than You Think (feat. The Room, Sharknado, Troll 2) – Wisecrack Vlog

What’s up guys? Jared here. As you all know, we spend a fair amount of
time here at Wisecrack waxing poetic about a lot of great cinema and TV. But we also love stuff that some would consider
“not great” like this: “Garbage day!” “No!” “Ha ha ha ha!” Or this: “Ahhhhhhhhhhhh” And of course, we wanted to know: WHY IS THIS
SH*T SO GOOD? Is it for the same same reason we can’t
look away from a train wreck? But, by the time we were done researching,
we stumbled on some writers that made a pretty convincing argument that bad films can actually
be MORE profound than “good” films? How? Well let’s find out in this Wisecrack Vlog
on bad movies. First, what makes a certain form of bad film
so compelling that you’ll go to the theater to see it every month at midnight instead
of watching an academy-award winning film like Roma as you’re supposed to? Film scholar Jeffrey Sconce dubbed cinema’s
sleazy underbelly “Paracinema,” a term meant to encompass all films that fall outside
the of mainstream, from fake-blood-happy splatter films to Trolls 2. “Their eating him!” “And then their gonna eat me!” “Oh my God ahhhhhh!” Sconce says that the “explicit manifesto
of Paracinematic culture is to valorize all forms of cinematic ‘trash’,” that is,
cinema that’s been rejected or ignored by those who know better than you. If you’ve ever called a film ‘so bad it’s
good,” congrats you might just be a budding connoisseur of what Sconce calls the “badfilm.” It’s one word. Badfilm. In appreciating badfilm, fans turn “the
bad” into the “sublime”. Pretty dope. Now, let’s narrow down what exactly a badfilm
is. There’s actually some consistency across
this genre besides “you just know it when you see it.” Is it money? Not quite. A low budget does not necessarily a badfilm
make, just like a high budget doesn’t mean your film is going to rock. For example, the genuinely good 1999 film
Blair Witch was made for 60 thousand dollars, approximately 1/100th of The Room’s inexplicably-large
6 million dollar budget. Film scholar Rebecca Bartlett waded through
the cesspool of cinematic history and found that these flicks frequently display “issues
regarding post-production sound: “ * Here they come!” Excessive use of recycled footage, Unconvincing acting, “I’m glad to see you, Grandpa. Did you see? I managed to keep them from eating.” “Now you have to convince them to leave
here.” And incoherent editing styles, while other
researchers point to shoddy cinematography, bad direction and lack of continuity. Take this moment of The Room, famous for just
how totally… off it feels. “I did not hit her, it’s not true. It’s bullshit, I did not hit her. I did not. Oh hi Mark.” A good actor might keep his tone of voice
consistent, rather than cheerfully saying: “Oh hi Mark.” while a good editor might cut to a shot of
Mark BEFORE Wiseau addresses him so that the audience isn’t so freaking confused. For badfilms like The Room, the incompetence
we love is the disingenuity, the “nope, we don’t buy it” gut reaction that it
elicits. Badfilms also, in existing outside the realm
of major studios, tend to be more unfiltered, often expressive of a single person’s individual
vision and quirky Originality. As a result, badfilms are full of stylistic
oddities, and excessive, failed attempts at tragedy, or comedy, or shark-induced violence. “Oh man!” The same way a film scholar waxes poetic about
Godard’s camera motions, a bad film fan will delight in the corny character reactions
or melodramatic transitions in Sharknado. So how is it that these films can actually
be smart? Because they exist on the fringes of culture,
badfilms are sometimes incredibly subversive in ways traditional films can’t be. Our love of them isn’t some newfound hipster
ironicism either. Rabid film lovers have long harbored weird
obsessions with those bizzaro films trapped in the basement of cinematic culture. Take famous badfilm director Ed Wood’s most
bewildering flick Glen or Glenda (1953), which was both a remarkably progressive take on
trans issues and a remarkably bad film. Some of the earliest scholarly declarations
of love for bad cinema came in tandem with the cultural and cinematic revolutions of
the late 60s, like in 1968 when critic Pauline Kael declared the hippie exploitation film
Wild in the Streets to be superior to to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 A Space Odyssey. “Ever since the- the accident I… I’ve been under the care of an LSD therapist.” Now 2001 inarguably changed cinema, forever. Wild in the Street, on the other hand, was
a psychedelic satire about a teenage hippie who becomes president, poisons D.C.’s water
supply with acid, and forcibly moves every American over the age of 35 to concentration
camps, where they are forced to drop acid on the reg, and it’s somehow 100% MORE bananas
than it sounds. Kael defended her provocative opinion by arguing
that the entire purpose of cinema as an art has never been to copy the pretensions of
“European high culture” but instead, to embrace the childish, the fun. She points out that the earliest films took
their cues not from James Joyce but from the “peep show, the Wild West show, the music
hall, the comic strip, from what was coarse and common.” Thus, Kael argues that high-art quote “sophisticated”
films are less authentic than outsider art seen in shitty films like Wild in the Streets,
and indeed, The Room. Para-cinematic movies like Wild in the Streets,
Kael says, are also more far more interesting because they “had, in some rudimentary way,
some freshness, some hint of style, some trace of beauty, some audacity, some craziness…” While 2001 takes itself seriously, Kael says,
films like Wild in the Streets have “the joy of playfulness.” In explicitly “good” “artful” films
like 2001, we go to the movies and silently, reverently consume the film and then say “WOW!”
when we leave. In contrast, Wild in the Streets is blatantly
NOT a masterpiece of American filmmaking, but you will have a fun, irreverent time watching
it. And there’s value in that. In being completely bizarro, Kael contended,
Wild in the Streets can actually tell us a lot about its moment in time, in which youth
rebellion was seen as the biggest threat to the status quo and the boogeyman of hallucinogens
loomed large. No tasteful scene could have expressed those
anxieties quite like the tacky absurdity of old people screaming as their dose of acid
kicks in. Not even this: But what’s actually going on when you watch
a badfilm? A lot, actually. Recognizing a movie like The Room for what
it is – so bad it’s mega-good – actually requires some pretty sophisticated thinking. “You’re lying. I never hit you.” “You’re tearing me apart, Lisa!” That’s because deciphering a badfilm mandates
extra-textual analysis, which means you’re not merely deciding if you like the film’s
storyline or camera angles, or relate to the film’s characters- Instead, you’re addressing
the creator’s intentions, judging if those intentions were met, and lolling at the ways
in which they weren’t. Take this early love-scene in The Room. Why do they keep hitting each other with pillows? Why is Wiseau ripping rose petals? Extra-textual analysis tells us that he was
trying to mimic the romantic spirit of smoochy love sequences, trying to make the scene both
sexual and sensual. Maybe he even was inspired by your other favorite
creepy rose petal scene. This process of reading the film necessarily
“calls attention to the text as a cultural and sociological document,” which allows
for even more interesting analysis. Ok, so what’s the value of The Room as a
cultural artifact? According to filmmaker and professor Ross
Morin, “Through the complete excess in every area of production, The Room reveals to us
just how empty, preposterous and silly the films and television programs we’ve watched
over the past couple of decades have been.” In attempting to mimic Hollywood, and failing,
Wiseau’s film actually reveals the ridiculousness of the tropes that have saturated much of
mainstream commercial filmmaking. While badfilm originated amongst film nerds,
we’d argue that the growing sophistication of audiences makes badfilm more relevant to
the masses than ever. As the line between audience and artmaker
continues to disintegrate, we’re increasingly primed to engage in the sophisticated analysis
that is the appreciation of bad filmmaking. Today, the cult of badfilm has increasingly
moved online. Indeed, just like grad students snickering
wryly as they watch The Garbage Pail Kids Movies on VHS in 1987, we’re all sharing
and disseminating what can only be called… internet Paracinema. You can see this in everything from the overly-earnest
pleas of Leave Britney Alone to the addictingly-bad tunes of Rebecca Black to any one of those
wedding aisle dance videos. These specimens are on face badfilms- often
shooting for a goal that’s way beyond their reach. And yet, they are often strangely compelling
precisely because of their oddities, eccentricities, or spectacular failures. Like Morin’s analysis of the Room, one could
argue that things like Rebekah Black inadvertently reveal important truths. In this case, economic inequality, or put
more bluntly: the utter decadence of growing up the daughter of parents who have way more
money than brains. At the end of the day, there are plenty of
arguments as to why we should discount “good taste” in cinema, and why this video of
a corgi riding a pony is A. truer to cinema’s roots, B. more fun and C. more reflective
of our culture than Academy Award winning film The English Patient. But what do you think, Wisecrack tastemakers? Is there a higher truth in art that’s so
bad it’s good? And is The Room a fascinating cultural artifact
or a goofy-ass fluke? Let us know what you think in the comments. But before you go, I want to give a shout
out to this video’s sponsor, ExpressVPN. If you don’t know, a VPN is a virtual private
network that allows you to connect to servers outside your country and encrypt all of your
online actions. We use a VPN at the office, and I even got
one for my apartment. A VPN gives me that extra sense of security
when I’m out using stuff like passwords or credit card information online, and I always
find myself having to use my phone to buy time sensitive things like movie tickets or
concert tickets, and with a VPN I can just do it without worrying about sketchy Wifi
hotspots. ExpressVPN is faster than any other provider
and can be used on any of your devices. Right now, it’s only $7 a month with a 30-day
money back guarantee. So, find out how you can get 3 months free
by clicking the link in the description, or by going to EXPRESSVPN dot com slash WISECRACK. So, take back your internet privacy today
with EXPRESSVPN. And as always, thanks for watching guys, peace.

100 thoughts on “Why BAD Films Are Better Than You Think (feat. The Room, Sharknado, Troll 2) – Wisecrack Vlog

  1. TCM has late night 70s and 80s movies occasionally and recently had Garbage Pail Movie on, so even they recognise that derided by mob rule movies are still worthy cinema. Shot out to awesome, Another Son of Sam 1977, a great thriller flick on a puny budget.

  2. Why the attack on high art? High art requires much more skill and brilliance, and I'd argue it is significantly more enjoyable than garbage. This love of bad films is terrible, as if society is loosing its sense of what the purpose of art even is. In addition, the reason film originally consisted of magic tricks and illusions was because people didn't understand that film could even have been a medium for high art, and merely thought of it as an extension of illusionism.

  3. In 1983 in their Holy Work The Book of the SubGenius (from the Church of the SubGenius), the term BadFilm was used, defined as any film that feels as if someone reached into the demented mind of a fringe of society person, grabbed their twisted and/or sick psyche and jammed it into a movie camera. In RE/Search volume 10: Incredibly Strange Movies, whole articles were written (and rather in depth interviews as well) about films that are, um, Incredibly Strange.

    So, yeah. There is that.
    Have to say, though, I understand that you need to make money (I like money: I wish I had some right now), but an ad before your video and then a lengthy shout out to a sponsor? Well, I just cut you off when I start hearing about them.

  4. I dunno if The Room being accidentally genius is a good thing or not.

    But I do know Wisecrack's barely been a husk of its former self without Sparky Sweets. It's been a year and a half already, when's he coming back with more lit??

  5. Does this mean is time to admit the Super Mario Bros movie is actually a mf MASTERPIECE? People been shitting on that movie for too long when is actually the best video game movie ever produced by a long shot.

  6. Movies like Sharknado are failed attempt to commercialize badfilms. They aren't badfilms – they're just bad.

  7. Quoting some drunk guy, "maybe you didn't noticed but your brain did". We take for granted that things in a movie are going to be done properly, we can identify good acting or effects or a script without noticing, but when the lack of skill that went into making a bad movie come into play we start to get taken out of the movie giving us a sense that somethings off. Movies that are so bad they're good let's us reach a different catharsis a good moviewill, because now you're not engage on how thrilling the movie is but because of how lackluster the production was, of course this is just my opinion.

  8. I just want to relate this issue with music. Everybody with musical sophistication claims that modern pop music is horrible, but fail to see the reason its popular. People would rather hear what appeals to them and makes them think than to be forced to listen to what is beyond them. The auditory is only one aspect of film which, considered in relation to 2001, is a signpost for its intention for sophistication. This is similar to the music of Wes Anderson. My point is that music that the masses enjoy, but the puritans despise, is art.

  9. Patting yourself on the back for laughing at someone else’s incompetent film making doesn’t make you smart…

  10. sconce's definition of paracinema might as well be simply "outsider art but on screen." the problem of that definition in my eyes is that it leaves necessarily precludes the AAA blockbuster failures that swerve into so bad they're good territory, like Gods of Egypt or Batman & Robin. those films play the genre cliches of event movies straight, but they don't fall flat from ineptitude on a technical level necessarily.

  11. I think some of this analysis is wonky. Bad films are beloved by film nerds because they lay bare what GOOD films do so well. When you watch a bad movie, it's like being able to play a game of figuring out what went wrong and allows you to appreciate the good. It makes you realize how much more we should treasure great film making.

    Which is why, if you don't really have an interest in the components of film and just enjoy it for what it is, a piece of entertainment, most of the time, bad films don't do it for you. You see it as a waste of time. Enjoying them requires analysis of film making writ large.

  12. what about hatewatching? stuff like uwe boll, that is not "so bad, its good" but plain shite, still enough people watch it only to then complain about how bad it is.

  13. i've watched the recent wisecrack vid abt the audience as part of the movie making process and i generally do not enjoy films that pander.
    with that said, the room is a singular vision put to celluloid – without apology – and i applaud that. but, in a vacuum, it fails on all other criteria.
    without internet/meme culture, i don't think anyone would give it a second viewing or seriously recommend it to someone else.
    badfilm may have value through a camp lens. is there good camp? and, is there bad camp?

  14. "The generally good 1999 film Blair Witch"

    And with just one sentence, you have convinced me you guys don't know a badfilm from a good one

  15. you have to understand the established context, before you can laugh at how utterly it fails. yes, you are hip


  17. Have someone watched "La casa de mi padre". It's a badfilm with the intention of being a badfilm. It's genius. And Gael Garcia is superb there!

  18. Whether The Room is a cultural landmark or not, I'd like to talk about what you said about VPNs. You said you want more protection while e.g. online shopping. Except that's pretty dumb, since websites nowdays, especially those used for transaction processing, are protected by TLS. VPNs are more for anonymity, than security.

  19. Obviously a excellent topic…but India it's not so rare and very celebrated…if you want to experience it see Arya ek dewana movie

  20. "It's a fine line between stupid and clever." Take a stupid idea, but then be very serious about it. That's how you make a masterpiece.

  21. This video gives plenty of arguments for how/why bad films can be enjoyed, but none for how they are good. What needs to be made clear is the definition of what we consider 'good'. Jared seems to imply here that the ability to analyse a film is sufficient to call it good, which I would argue is only the case sometimes. What I don;t think was made clear was that there are two ways he's talking about 'analysis'. The first is to anayse the craft of the film making – which I think becomes a meaningless task if the film maker is simply idiotic – you'll only ever be delving into the mind of someone not really worth devling into. The second analysis is to use a film to analyse the culture it was born from – this is the type that is possible and potentially worthwhile for bad films; but you have to remember that there isn't a single film in existence that isn't the product of the cultre/environment from which it came. Therefore to say a bad film is good purely becuase you can anlyse it culturally becomes meaningless – as every film would be good, at most you could only say it becomes a bit more interesting to talk about. This for me is the hole in Jared's argument – the failure to make this distinction.
    The other definition of 'good' Jared touches on is the idea that something is good to a specific person provided they find enjoyment in it. This is a much stronger argument for what constitutes a good film, but the problem of course is that if we only embrace this definition then we lose all objectivity in film analysis and must submit to a purely subjective view of things. So I don't think this can be all required to call a film good. The other part I think is essential is the filmmakers' intentions vs. what they acheived. This I tihnk is absolutely key as it does allow for the creation of a good bad film – if it was the filmmaker's intentions to make a bad film to reflect, for example, how silly hollywood tropes are – then if they achieve this there is no reason the film can't be good. This is why I don't think you can call the Room a good film – because in Tommy Wiseau's eyes he really was making a masterpiece and not attempting to ridicule the industry.
    Modern analysis (and this isn't confined to just film but applies to pretty much all art) tends to strongly reject this intention argument – saying instead that meaning is given purely by the observor and not the original artist. But I must disagree – while other readings and interpretations can be perfectly valid and interesting in their own right, I think there must be some inherent importance of the creators own intentions. It's analoguous to the scientific method – in which any theory that explains all observations is just a valid as any other BUT in order to say anything about the universe we must still commit to a particular theory (which in science is usually given as the one that requires the least number of assumptions – though there are other factors) – we still hold on to the other theories in our mind and they do still have importance, but to make sense of anything we have to hold one above the others. This, I argue, is largely the same in art. Again we have many different interpretations – but if we stop there they are all equally meaningless. The difference is art is looking for a different kind of truth – the best explanation of a film is not the one that requires the least assumptions becuase we are not trying to simplfy and explain them in a way we are with the universe. But we must still have an interpretation that is more meaningful than the others otherwise we can again only view film in a purely subjctive way – and at that point who is anyone to say anything about a film and why are we even talking about it in the first place? So in the absence of any better alternatives I argue that se go with what for most is the intuitive answer and say it is the creators intent that should be held above the rest. After all, it is their creation.

  22. Oh my gosh I'm so glad you made this video. EVERYBODY I know hates my passion for a really good bad movie. I think things like Sharknado, Zombeavers and Megalodon are the best kind of comedies. It's just like someone said "u know what no shark movie will ever be as good as Jaws so rather than try beat let's take every trope and cliche and take it to the max for a good laugh". To me "good bad films" are the perfectly exemplifies that you should never take life too seriously 🙂

  23. At one point, if you're just consuming serious/art movies, it's the same as eating the same meal over and over. Deep down we want variety, and a bad movie (shitty plot, bad acting etc.) can be fun and leave us with the feeling that we just went on a wacky adventure. I can watch the ridiculously over the top 1985 Transformers cartoon and enjoy my simple childlike reactions, and then watch a movie after that which puts me in a mindset where I have to contemplate morality or free will. I remember someone turning on the San Andreas movie, with the Rock. The entire start of the movie I was like, this is going to be trash. It was, but the context of when I was seeing that movie (the people around me, and the care free turn on your idiot brain vibe) really made the movie enjoyable because of how bad it was.

    I appreciate your teams analysis of movies like this. This was a great episode.

  24. No bad movies are bad but people want to see them out of curiosity and inadvertently find value in the movie usually by over analyzing it

  25. Arguments about which kind of film is more authentic – the so-called badfilm or the avant garde cinematic masterpiece – are frankly elitist and arrogant on both sides. As a medium, film is an expression of the filmmaker's intention. Sometimes that intention is completely cornball or carried out in an amateurish way and you get a badfilm. Sometimes it's carried out with technical skill and an aim to comment on some deep aspect of the human condition, producing an art film. Most often in Hollywood, the intention is entirely about selling a big, loud action flick to the widest audience possible. All three are equally authentic expressions of the medium, as is any other sort of expression I didn't mention.

  26. How fucking dare you call Rocky Horror Picture Show a bad film!! It is a well down camp masterpiece! The Room is just plain terrible, stupid, unremarkable, badly acted, badly directed – in short, a piece of unredeemable SHITE!!! You fucking Big Bang Hating assholes are pissing me off!!!

  27. "Paracinema" is such a weird & pretentious concept. A movie is a movie, whether or not it meets Hollywood's standards or plays by its rules.

  28. I personally like some of the "badfuilms" just because they can be funny and goofy sometimes, that's all. I don't think there is some "supreme truth" or something else in them. And their "intertextuality" and making fun of movie tropes is just called "parody", it's not something mind-blowing. I completely disagree with this film critic lady you quoted, about how movies are supposed to be "childish" and stuff. To me, that's not how it works. Cinema is a form of art, it can't be constrained by fooling around and making fun stuff. Films ought to provoke some thoughts and/or emotions. Ideally, they have to bear some universal ideas. No matter how highbrow or snobbish the "European culture" is, its exemplars have some meaning in them, some ideas, which make some of them immortal, because their ideas are always relevant. As I see it, cinema can and should be more than just "lmfao das shit's so bad it's good omg xDDD".

  29. I like bad movies cause it's like, yeah, why should someone else or some system tell me what's good or what I'm supposed to like? Award winning movies are all the same. Same stories, same morals, same emotions they're trying to make you feel, which results in me feeling nothing but frustrated. I'd rather see an original movie where I don't already know where it's going by the first 5 minutes. Besides, being told that I suck as a person all the time by my "superiors" I feel kinship to movies that have been treated the same way. Lolol

  30. This'll probably get lost but @wisecrack, do you have the links you used for anyone who wants to do further reading into the subject of badfilm? I'm planning to write my dissertation on Neil Breen and Tommy Wiseau.

  31. None of my friends ever take any of my recommendations on movies any more because the only things I ever tell people to watch are "hot steamy piles of garbage".
    I really do love me some shitty cinema though.

  32. I have view Troll 2 more times than any other movie or form of consumption for that matter. I have met George Hardy before. He is a very nice guy.

  33. Japanese gamers are ahead of the curve in this regards with Kusoge, a term that crudely translates to "shit game" and are games celebrated for their eccentricities and failed executions in the same way we might enjoy Badfilms.

  34. did you get sponsorship from apple ? If not, please hide the logo, it hurts me like a bad movie on so many levels.

  35. I wish Jared mentioned Tim and Eric’s Awesome Show Great Job. It is intentionally bad and it succeeds at its goal.

  36. I think the main problem in trying to invoke badcinema in film is that most of them we're made accidentally.If it was my intention to make a badcinema indie, it would look forced,therefore would turn out corny.

  37. I think badfilms are actually meta-slapstick rather than anything. In slapstick, you laugh at a guy trying to do something, like chase after a girl, but completely fails for a predictable reason, like falling on a banana. When I watch "The Room" it's exactly the same thing. Only the person I'm laughing at is Jonny Wiseau, who's failing to make a film due to evidently terrible writing, acting, directing and producing. I'm not laughing at the content of the film, I'm laughing at the attempt of making the film in the first place.

  38. Why do I love Wisecrack videos about movies so much when I generally don't like movies? So confusing. I love you guys.

  39. I have always been a big fan of movies that portray themselves as one thing but then totally shift tone or even genre towards the end. When I was in film school I was always ridiculed for having such a blatant change mid project. That’s just what I like fuck you. Not you wisecrack. You’re doing just fine.

  40. The corgi and pony video is amazing <3
    Two pure small animals planning something it's a whole untold story

  41. Back in '68 when "2001" came out, with the idea that humans couldn't have
    advanced without alien intervention, there was controversy about E. von
    Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" with the racist idea that darker skinned
    southern hemisphere people couldn't have built the pyramids, Nazca lines,
    etc.–it had to be due to alien intervention.  Which is junk science.

  42. When most of an art piece’s intent (merit) is inferred and not actually a conscious attempt, it doesn’t make it good. You cannot elevate something past the creator’s actual intent and execution. The majority of badfilm and film in general, lacks conscious purpose and execution. The fact that a minority of badfilms may rise to the rank of solid institutional critique doesn’t mean that most of it isn’t just wasting everyone’s time. Too much great work out there to argue more people should watch trash. There many great filmmakers but very few John Waters and Roger Cormans in the world.

  43. 5:34 so that dumbass said that the retarded fears of what liberals would do to the old generation made into a film, was better than 2001 Space Odyssey, and why are giving her attention because?

  44. A lot of the "high art" films that the academy would have you believe are the pinnacle of film-making generally haven't been innovative in 20 years and largely succeed by playing to the tastes of the snobbish types of critics incapable of forming an opinion that hasn't been approved by the rest of their pretentious inner circle.

    Badfilms, on the other hand… well, some of the crap they stumble upon could be high art in 20 years. At least they have the chance to do something like that. Academy Award winning nonsense can't achieve the same distinction.

  45. Sure there are movies so bad they're good, but are there movies where they're so good they're bad? These are the kinds of things I wonder about.

  46. Nope, bad films are irredeemable, there is no such thing as so bad it's good. It is either bad or it is good it can't be both at the same time.

  47. Does that mean we'll ge an in-depth analysis of the Star Wars Holiday Special, notorious in so many ways? Though House of Lies philosophy video would also be interesting.

  48. So a video on the same topic a few years ago on Ideas Channel, Mike Rugnetta mention some call these movies "Nanar" 😀

  49. Love you guys and am an academic so obvs love academia – but the 2001 parallel is such a bad example! It's such a playful movie dripping with irreverence and lack of concern for its audience. I think they should have chosen Citizen Kane or Battleship Potemkin – truly joyless slogs.

  50. It's been a while since I completely disregarded academy winners as "good movies", because it's been many years since the academy has been so separated from its audience that it's opinion means s*** to the average person.
    It makes me so sad seeing that all the movies that truly move me and hundreds of thousands of people go almost completely ignored by the academy awards, while movies that are barely watched by the bigger audience win a lot of their awards.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *