607 A Hollis Frampton Odyssey

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#76 Post by zedz » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:37 pm

swo17 wrote:And yes, I believe that the letters disappear in an order consistent with how common they are in the English language.
I think that's not quite accurate (if so, z and q would disappear before x and e would be the last man standing), and one of the pleasures I had while watching the film was speculating on the more banal aspects of the filmmaking process. For example, I wondered whether Frampton had simply gone about New York accumulating images of letters first, then organized them into the structure of the film, and simply kept going until he ran out of images of each letter. Thus the frequency of the letters would be roughly analogous to the frequency of their appearance "in the wild" (which wouldn't necessary correspond to their frequency in language as a whole, since New York City signage provides a very specific context and set of constraints), but would also be influenced by other factors - e.g. letters that photographed well or were more commonly separated might have an advantage, as would ones which simply took Frampton's fancy (maybe he was more susceptible to the curvy charms of a good C than the average bloke?) The limitations of Frampton's sample would also be a big factor, as the further away he was from documenting the totality of language, the further from the actual native distribution of individual letters we'd expect him to be. All of these beautiful imperfections splash his structural rigour with animating colour.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#77 Post by zedz » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:40 pm

Gregory wrote:
When we wee and read a written word within the cinematic screen. . .
I don't think we should condone that kind of behaviour in movie theatres.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#78 Post by domino harvey » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: theories on letter representation being based on sample size: How would one factor in the altered images-- there are a couple shots where it appears Frampton has taken the same still of a building exterior and placed different words written in the same typewritten font over it. It happens at least twice and struck me as odd. Maybe these come from a magazine or something, but they seemed constructed in a way most of the other examples are not. Does anyone remember what I'm talking about?

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#79 Post by Gregory » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:56 pm

zedz wrote:
Gregory wrote:
When we wee and read a written word within the cinematic screen. . .
I don't think we should condone that kind of behaviour in movie theatres.
I knew if I typed it that quickly there'd be at least one typo.
Hoping there will be more discussion of Frampton's choices of film footage.

User avatar
YnEoS
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:30 am

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#80 Post by YnEoS » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:20 pm

domino harvey wrote:Re: theories on letter representation being based on sample size: How would one factor in the altered images-- there are a couple shots where it appears Frampton has taken the same still of a building exterior and placed different words written in the same typewritten font over it. It happens at least twice and struck me as odd. Maybe these come from a magazine or something, but they seemed constructed in a way most of the other examples are not. Does anyone remember what I'm talking about?
Yeah I do remember those shots and where it seemed like the word was superimposed later on the film. I believe it happens quite a bit more than twice, and that does complicate the randomly shot footage arranged later theory.

I suppose it's possible they were generated without any direct intention of balancing out the number of shots per letter to fit some predetermined scheme. That's the best I can come up with without re-watching the film with a pen and notebook, or doing actual research into how it was made.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#81 Post by zedz » Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:31 pm

There may well be a unified field theory for letter representation (i.e. a reason behind the various anomalies), or maybe it's a nonunified field theory: Frampton deliberately messing with his 'data' in order to frustrate certain potential theories? For example, maybe he took pains to not exactly replicate the natural frequency of letters in the English language?

Or maybe he had to optically create some components simply to make his structure work cinematically in a certain fashion? For example, if he had exactly the same number of shots for B, N and U, but didn't want to have all three letters transmogrify simultaneously, he might have needed to generate additional shots in order to sustain the flow of the transformation. And maybe once he did that he needed to generate even more examples in the same vein to cover his tracks? We'll probably never know, but I like the fact that the closer you look at the film the less clinical and more artisanal it becomes.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#82 Post by swo17 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:33 pm

zedz wrote:
swo17 wrote:And yes, I believe that the letters disappear in an order consistent with how common they are in the English language.
I think that's not quite accurate (if so, z and q would disappear before x and e would be the last man standing), and one of the pleasures I had while watching the film was speculating on the more banal aspects of the filmmaking process. For example, I wondered whether Frampton had simply gone about New York accumulating images of letters first, then organized them into the structure of the film, and simply kept going until he ran out of images of each letter. Thus the frequency of the letters would be roughly analogous to the frequency of their appearance "in the wild" (which wouldn't necessary correspond to their frequency in language as a whole, since New York City signage provides a very specific context and set of constraints)
I was working from memory of something that I read a long time ago, which was probably more along the lines of what you are suggesting. This process would actually go really well with the idea behind Zorn's lemma that I described earlier, assuming it went something like: 1) take a thousand or so shots of signs that randomly strike you; 2) in the editing room, group your footage into 24 "like categories" (i.e. one for each letter); 3) order the words within each of the 24 categories in a particular fashion. (I'll need to watch again to look out for this, but are each of the sets simply presented in alphabetical order? Just skimming through the film again, it looks like a lot of the earlier words have 'a' as the second letter, whereas the very last word to appear in the film is "cycle." If this is really how Frampton ordered each of the letter subsets, that would make cheeky juxtapositions like "long member" all the more fortuitous.) Under this system, the last word shown for each letter before it transforms into pure image is the "upper bound" for that subset, and "cycle" is the maximal element of the entire set of words.

That being said, the superimposed words that domino mentioned obviously throw a wrench into this theory. Perhaps Frampton didn't want his film to fit the prescribed form too neatly? Or he really wanted to feature those words in his film but couldn't find them anywhere on the sides of buildings? Or he did film them but the property owners threatened to sue at the last minute? Or maybe he just thought of them in a dream? I don't know, but like zedz suggested, it adds a colorful human element to the mix.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#83 Post by zedz » Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:45 pm

swo17 wrote: Under this system, the last word shown for each letter before it transforms into pure image is the "upper bound" for that subset, and "cycle" is the maximal element of the entire set of words.
Talk about fortuitous, since this entire section of the film is a cycle (the overall process of replacement) of cycles (the individual alphabets) comprising a whole lot of discrete cycles (the repeated actions, and perhaps alphabetically ordered sequences of words) and signifying a different kind of cycle (rote learning).

User avatar
Emak-Bakia
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:48 am

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#84 Post by Emak-Bakia » Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:34 am

domino harvey wrote:Re: theories on letter representation being based on sample size: How would one factor in the altered images-- there are a couple shots where it appears Frampton has taken the same still of a building exterior and placed different words written in the same typewritten font over it. It happens at least twice and struck me as odd. Maybe these come from a magazine or something, but they seemed constructed in a way most of the other examples are not. Does anyone remember what I'm talking about?
Yeah, I definitely remember this happening quite a few times. Has anyone else listened to Frampton’s remarks that are on the blu-ray? I don’t have my copy with me at the moment, but I’m pretty sure he stated that the order in which the word images are transformed into non-word images was dictated by the frequency with which first letters occur in the English language. Or maybe I misunderstood, since I did watch this at about 3 AM on a work day.

Also, zedz, I had similar thoughts about the “banal aspects of the filmmaking process.” Regarding the order in which the word images are assembled, it’s also interesting to note that it seems like the words are consciously edited so that they move around the screen from shot to shot. For instance, word A might be in the center of the screen one shot, word B in the top right the next, word C in the bottom left after that, etc. This movement, combined with the constant, subtle camera shake (also a conscious decisions, Frampton notes in his remarks), really gives the film a visual vibrancy.

I'm enjoying so much reading people's thoughts on this film. Everyone's articulating thoughts I had so much better than I could and also expanding my understanding of the film. I need to watch it again this week.

User avatar
jindianajonz
Jindiana Jonz Abrams
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#85 Post by jindianajonz » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:51 pm

Perhaps Frampton inserted the "brick words" so that the rest of his words line up as he wanted. I.e. perhaps he included them to ensure that things like "dildoe", "long", and "member" all occurred in the same cycle.

I understood this film to be a process of unlearning- Frampton takes the typical sequence for learning a language (we start with a picture book that associates an image with a certain letter, like A is for Apple, B is for Bear, and then once we know the letters we put them together to form new words with new meanings) and runs it in reverse. We start by seeing words, but quickly strip these words of their meaning and instead focus so intently on the letters that the word becomes the letter, and finally convert these letters to wordless images. This is emphasized by the narration in the opening and close of the film- although the words make sense, the meaning behind them becomes unimportant and instead we focus on the rhythm of the words. I also think that combining the letters i/j and u/v empahsizes the fact that this is a process of unlearning- instead of sticking to the 26 beat alphabet that's been hammered into our heads since preschool, Frampton wants us to forget that pattern and instead conform to his own 24 beat alphabet. What's most remarkable to me about this film is that Frampton succeeds in teaching us to unlearn language without ever actually utilizing language to instruct.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#86 Post by Gregory » Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:03 pm

Emak-Bakia wrote:Has anyone else listened to Frampton’s remarks that are on the blu-ray? I don’t have my copy with me at the moment, but I’m pretty sure he stated that the order in which the word images are transformed into non-word images was dictated by the frequency with which first letters occur in the English language. Or maybe I misunderstood, since I did watch this at about 3 AM on a work day.
I believe that's correct—that is, the letters are replaced in the opposite order of their frequency of occurrence as initial letters of words in English.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#87 Post by swo17 » Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:31 pm

Hopefully this doesn't spoil too much of the film's mystery, but here is a list of all the words shown throughout the middle section. Read along the rows to see how they are presented in the film or down the columns to see the ordered components of each letter set. Some observations:

- We go through 109 rounds of the alphabet during the film. There are anywhere from 1-13 rounds between each letter disappearing. You see words for a little less than half of the film and images for a little more than half.

- There are 1,268 words presented in total. 25 of these words appear superimposed over a wordless image (these words are listed in parentheses in the above listing). Perhaps Frampton looked up some statistics about frequency of the letters' appearing at the beginning of a word (not necessarily the same as frequency in the English language in general) and then added these words to fill in the gaps of his sample? Or maybe he just really likes the word "uvula." (Who doesn't?)

- Each of the 24 word sets is indeed ordered alphabetically. i/j and u/v are treated like they are the same letter, so you get orderings like "idea/jewel/imitation." You can kind of sense how much longer a letter has in the film based on how far along the second letter of the word (or third, in the case of 'q') is through the alphabet, though sometimes, the final word from a letter set has a second letter of only 'n' or 'o'. Since the words are all so strictly ordered, a lot of the seemingly clever word juxtapositions are likely just happy accidents--you could get rid of a couple of words in one place to line up a pairing that you like, but that could mess up other pairings that you like elsewhere.

- The word "gallon" is actually not presented in word form (that I could see). Instead, we are simply presented with an image of a gallon of milk. (Perhaps the word is actually shown on the milk jug, but just very small.)

- Random thought: You could get a lot of good band names pulling from random word sequences in this film. (I call Lunch Month. Someone else can have Bonanza Cock Drink.)

- It's actually "limp" member!

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#88 Post by zedz » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:14 pm

Gregory wrote:
Emak-Bakia wrote:Has anyone else listened to Frampton’s remarks that are on the blu-ray? I don’t have my copy with me at the moment, but I’m pretty sure he stated that the order in which the word images are transformed into non-word images was dictated by the frequency with which first letters occur in the English language. Or maybe I misunderstood, since I did watch this at about 3 AM on a work day.
I believe that's correct—that is, the letters are replaced in the opposite order of their frequency of occurrence as initial letters of words in English.
That doesn't add up, as T is nearly five times more common as an initial letter than C (which is only the tenth or eleventh most common initial letter: W, which is whisked off about halfway through the process, is actually twice as common as C at the start of words) - unless Frampton had some really bad linguistic advice when he was making the film!

EDIT: I'm working from the Project Gutenberg analysis provided on this wikipedia page. Older analyses vary greatly, ranking C a lot higher, but S has usually topped traditional frequency charts, and P appears much higher in Frampton's rankings - third - than it does anywhere else. Maybe he's based his frequencies on some other specific context, such as entries in an encyclopedia?

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#89 Post by swo17 » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:27 pm

Hmmm...according to Wikipedia (sourcing a text written 11 years before the film came out), the letters rank as follows when considering how words in the English language begin: s a c m p r t b f g d h i n e l o w u v j k q y z x. This actually doesn't show 't' as more common than 'c', but it's still not quite what this film is following. Frampton's sample looks like just that, more or less following the order observed in the entire population of words, but with a little bit of unpredictable shuffling. Of course, none of this explains the presence of the "brick words."

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#90 Post by domino harvey » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:27 pm

I'm glad swo is putting his summer interns to good use

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#91 Post by zedz » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:43 pm

swo17 wrote:Hmmm...according to Wikipedia (sourcing a text written 11 years before the film came out), the letters rank as follows when considering how words in the English language begin: s a c m p r t b f g d h i n e l o w u v j k q y z x. This actually doesn't show 't' as more common than 'c', but it's still not quite what this film is following. Frampton's sample looks like just that, more or less following the order observed in the entire population of words, but with a little bit of unpredictable shuffling. Of course, none of this explains the presence of the "brick words."
Actually, I think I've figured out the wild discrepancy: one tally is dictionary-based (i.e. how many different words begin with each letter) and the other is ranking the totality of usage (or as best an approximation as can be attained), in which case extremely common words, like the articles, tip the balance in favour of T and A. So basically, Frampton's film could have done with a little more T and A.

(Of course, none of this completely explains Frampton's particular ranking, and I don't doubt he was working from some specific source we haven't yet identified.)

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#92 Post by zedz » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:44 pm

domino harvey wrote:I'm glad swo is putting his summer interns to good use
swo has been waiting his entire posting career for a thread this maths-centric.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#93 Post by swo17 » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:56 pm

domino harvey wrote:I'm glad swo is putting his summer interns to good use
I thought the joke would be that now finally the film can be subtitled for the hard of seeing.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#94 Post by domino harvey » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:57 pm

And here I thought the joke was

Image

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Zorns Lemma (Hollis Frampton, 1970)

#95 Post by swo17 » Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:57 pm

Gregory wrote:One area that I find comes out of repeat viewings of this film, once one gets past what is going on in terms of the basic structure, is the choices of footage. I like warren oates's description of it as a kind of city symphony—because there's some connection there in the use of location shots, the urban world, and repetitive motions and so much more that are a part of the city symphony, put here to drastically different purposes.
Hollis Frampton wrote:it's a journey through an urban environment, through night streets where only the lights are visible, and that is the last part of the cycle proper. I did try to take a little care—not quite Joycean care, but a little care—to keep the depicted events in the part of the hourly cycle where they wouldn't seem to outrageous, to present things at appropriate times of day in relation to the frying of an egg and the journey through the night.
Sloper wrote:Perhaps that final image, of a couple walking a dog across a field blanked out by snow, heading away from us towards a forest (which in medieval/Renaissance literature is often a symbol of erring confusion), embodies some sort of rejection of what has come before.
Before discussion ends, I thought I'd connect these two points in an effort to better understand the film's ending. The middle section/bulk of the film is frantic and difficult to keep up with (but at least familiar), not unlike city life itself. The end, in contrast, is almost a palate cleanser in a visual sense. However, the soundtrack that accompanies it is jarring and opaque. Is this representing the disorientation that comes from a change in routine? It's been noted that the rhythm of the city section persists through to the end of the film. Is there truly no escaping the city? The essay on Zorns Lemma in the Criterion booklet notes that Frampton migrated to a more rural part of New York soon after making the film, so I don't doubt that these ideas would have been weighing on his mind at the time.

fantasy
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:43 am

Re: 607 A Hollis Frampton Odyssey

#96 Post by fantasy » Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:42 am

Just blind bought this new for $10 through Amazon Warehouse Deals. Very excited. I've barely scratched the surface when it comes to experimental, and the Brakhage set is a bit out of my price range.

Any essential reading I should do before it arrives?

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 607 A Hollis Frampton Odyssey

#97 Post by zedz » Sun Nov 16, 2014 3:05 pm

fantasy wrote:Just blind bought this new for $10 through Amazon Warehouse Deals. Very excited. I've barely scratched the surface when it comes to experimental, and the Brakhage set is a bit out of my price range.

Any essential reading I should do before it arrives?
I'd say just dive in and see how you find it when it arrives. Some of the fun of structural films is trying to intuit the thinking behind them yourself (see above). Then look at Frampton's on-disc commentary (where available) and the book. If you're still hungry for more information, the long Frampton interview in McDonald's A Critical Cinema is excellent. I'm pretty sure it's in the first volume.

User avatar
theflirtydozen
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:21 pm

Re: 607 A Hollis Frampton Odyssey

#98 Post by theflirtydozen » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:44 pm

Being as it's Frampton's (and my own) birthday, and that we talked about that notorious lemma in my abstract algebra class today, I decided to share my thoughts on my favorite of his films, Zorns Lemma. I've searched for more information on the film of the more mathematical variety but haven't found much beyond a journal article that I actually paid to download. Between this forum, the dedicated website to Frampton's films, and that article, I don't remember reading one specific detail that I have been recently contemplating. Frampton in this film actually makes a completely isomorphic alphabet of film. Frampton himself operates as the function that maps each individual letter to its film equivalent; however, one could make the argument that the length of the shots that replace some letters would have determined what letter the shot substitutes (e.g. the beans filling up the frame). A more astute viewer would most likely be able to "read" a series of these images immediately after that middle section. I take this to express the theme of film as a universal language, although I'm entirely unsure if he intended that message.
I have a ton of more random thoughts on this film (and I'll have to watch it again soon and read more resources), but I've been working on an ordering operation and system that would make Zorn's Lemma (with the partially-ordered sets and chains, etc.) directly applicable to what happens on screen. However, it's been a long day already and I'm hoping this is a fair enough birthday tribute for this fantastic filmmaker. Hopefully, this gets discussion going again -- I'm looking at you, Swo -- and I didn't accidentally repeat something someone else already noticed.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 607 A Hollis Frampton Odyssey

#99 Post by swo17 » Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:04 am

I still feel like I only have a vague notion of how set theory actually works/applies to this film, so I'd appreciate anything more you have to say about it.

The "film as a universal language" idea seems apt, especially since the images that come to be associated with each letter only really retain that meaning while you're watching the film, or while it's fresh in your mind.

Oh, and happy bi/jrthday!

User avatar
theflirtydozen
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:21 pm

Re: 607 A Hollis Frampton Odyssey

#100 Post by theflirtydozen » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:23 pm

Having reread that journal article (by Clint Enns, easily found on a Google search), I can summarize the ideas there a bit.

Frampton actually used a Lemma that is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice. So, in this system of set theory, Zorn's Lemma is assumed to be true and needs to be true for the system to work. I think it's a quaint coincidence that Frampton chose (pun intended), perhaps unknowingly, something that is fundamentally mathematically true to construct his film around. Now for the two statements:

Zorn's Lemma according to Wikipedia: Suppose a partially ordered set P has the property that every chain (i.e. totally ordered subset) has an upper bound in P. Then the set P contains at least one maximal element.

So, for a basic example (it doesn't really follow all the rules for the Lemma, but it works for illustration), assume we have the set of numbers and colors {13, blue, red, orange, 4.5, 1, 92, green}. This set is partially ordered; we can't think of 1>blue or red>13, no matter how we're defining < or >. So, for numbers, let < and > be how they're normally used and for colors let < and > denote priority of order in the colors of the rainbow (ROYGBIV). Now we have two subsets that are totally ordered: {1, 4.5, 13, 92} and {red, orange, green, blue}. By Zorns Lemma, we know that these must have maximal elements: 92 and blue, respectively. However, we still can't say anything about the ordering between these two maximal elements.

Axiom of Choice: The actual statement is tricky to express here, but let's say we have a set of sets. Each set can be different sizes, but let's say they're all sets of numbers. Now the axiom of choice guarantees that we can construct a subset of single elements from each of these sets (we're choosing elements from each set).

Enns decided to view the film from the Axiom of Choice standpoint. After explaining the relevant background, his analysis really comes down to the fact that the Axiom of Choice is superfluous when applied to finite sets. So, since we have a finite set of letters in the film, it's not that surprising that we found 24 maximal elements, each one from 24 subsets of words that all begin with the same letter. This is, of course, not the only way of looking at this; see next paragraph. Enns then discusses how Frampton wanted to continue with this idea to make "an infinite film" with Magellan. Now Magellan is one of his films I'm least prepared to analyze at the moment, so if someone has more input to springboard off that idea, it would be appreciated.

I'm still playing with the idea of a way the set of letters can have an extension to make an infinite set as well as applying more algebraic mapping stuff with the association of letters/film frames, but you can see I've only found the time for this "brief" writeup in the past two weeks.

I do also want to give a little promotion for my second favorite Frampton, Maxwell's Demon. Apparently Frampton, much like with Zorns Lemma, didn't know too much about the subject matter (thermodynamics this time), but that didn't stop him from creating a great tribute to James Clerk Maxwell. Whenever the topic of the actual thought experiment comes up, I can't help but picturing the man in the film exercising. I did happen to show MD to my physical chemistry professor; however, I don't think he was convinced too much on its quality :lol:

Post Reply