#Going My Way review

[crowdvscritic]

crowd vs. critic single take // GOING MY WAY (1944)

Photo credits: IMDb.com

The Church of St. Dominic is dying. Enter: Father O’Malley (Bing Crosby), who has been sent by Catholic Church leadership to revive an unenthusiastic congregation meeting in a building they can’t pay for. Father Fitzgibbon (Barry Fitzgerald) has been leading St. Dominic's for 45 years, and change doesn’t come easily. As they fight to relieve the church’s mortgage and support the struggling members of their parish, though, Father Fitzgibbon begins to see maybe he does need help after all, and maybe he needs it from someone less orthodox like Father O’Malley. 

CROWD // Going My Way straivags its way through an episodic story. Fitzgibbon fights a cold and negotiates with creditors. O’Malley supports a runaway teen who dreams of being a singer, bumps into an old flame, and plays baseball with the boys in the neighborhood (with a shout-out to my shuttered hometown team the St. Louis Browns!) The duo plays checkers and golf, and we watch a full song performed from the opera Carmen. The adagio pace is a feature, not a bug, though perhaps it’s why, in a rare move, I needed to watch this Best Picture winner a second time because I couldn’t remember what happened not long after my first watch. 

That said, the tone is also why this is a rare feel-good Best Picture winner. If Bing Crosby is in your movie, almost by default one of your themes becomes the power of music. Music gives hope to all of the parishioners of St. Dominic’s, and it literally solves life’s big problems for several of them. While the plot may not move with the efficiency and humor of White Christmas, it’s hard to complain about any story that gives Crosby the chance to sing.

POPCORN POTENTIAL: 7.5/10

CRITIC // The Best Picture winner this film reminded me of most? 2022’s CODA, another feel-good narrative about the power of music. The biggest reason I kept comparing them in my mind, though, is the eras they were released. CODA was a heartwarming story released as we were exiting a pandemic, and Going My Way won Hollywood’s highest honor just two months before V-E Day. Sometimes when the world around you feels almost too much to bear, you need an escape. The same could be said for last year’s winner Everything Everywhere All at Once or this year’s Best Picture nominee The Holdovers. (We’ll see how world events play out in 2024 and if this trend continues, but it’s unlikely we’ll see another feel-good nom about Catholic priests given the baggage we have now, as outlined in 2015’s winner Spotlight.)

It may have less of a legacy today than competitors Double Indemnity and Gaslight, but at the time, Going My Way was a big winner. In addition to the top prize, it brought home trophies for Best Actor (Crosby, which Christian Blauvelt’s book Hollywood Victory noted was new range for this superstar), Supporting Actor (Fitzgerald, the only person to be nominated in both lead and supporting categories before rules prevented it from happening again—talk about category fraud!), Director, Original Story, Screenplay, and Original Song. Today’s audiences may not find it innovative, but it hits all its marks, and its arcs are universal, such as an older generation dealing with its obsolescence or the rich holding those meant to help a community hostage with their finances. (The Bishop’s Wife and It’s a Wonderful Life would go on to explore this idea with more depth.) Though there is a surprising lack of spiritual experience with God given the setting, it is also refreshing in our moment to watch the clergy devote their lives to bettering their neighborhood. 

ARTISTIC TASTE: 8.5/10

[starcurtain]

One thing I wish I'd see more of among Ratio fans is some thought about how he views himself as a teacher.

Like yes, of course he refuses to compromise on the quality and rigor of the education he imparts, and he would find it unforgivably unethical to lower his standards in order to pass more students who had not genuinely learned the material. This is core to his character.

However, as someone who is a teacher IRL, I know the absolutely miserable feeling setting that kind of standard can cause. There's the obvious disheartening sense of disappointment ("Are students these days really not capable of doing the work correctly? Is our future in danger, if this is the highest level of understanding our current generation of students can achieve?"), but even worse than that is the self-doubt.

"Is this somehow my fault? Am I not teaching this material in the right ways for the students to learn? Is there something I could have done differently to get through to these students? Would a better teacher have a higher passing rate?"

We know that Ratio does (or at least did) struggle with feeling inferior to the Genius Society, so I think it is also likely, as much as he absolutely will not budge on his academic standards, that he has doubts about his teaching ability as well.

This is the man who wants to educate the entire world to cure the disease of ignorance, and yet only 3% of his actual students are able to get there. How can someone who gets so few of his direct students to a state of enlightenment hope to enlighten the whole universe? If so few students are successfully learning the material of a given class, doesn't that mean the teacher is doing something wrong?Would a better teacher--would a genius, maybe--not be able to impart their knowledge more efficiently and educate even the most challenging of students?

As someone constantly struggling with that balance between keeping academic standards high while also meeting the needs of today's students, I think the passing rates of his courses must affect Dr. Ratio much more deeply than I've seen fans discuss. I think he would question himself harshly over his class success rates, and I think he must be constantly trying to push himself to become the best teacher he possibly can be.

tl;dr: I hope one day the HSR fandom will stop sleeping on the fact that Ratio is an actual practicing professor who probably has astronomical levels of teacher angst. 😂

[eyesteeth]

i know the given reason why we never get Richard's last name is because the narrative is meant to resemble religious stories where people are only referred to by one name, but given the fact that his whole character motivation revolves around family and his identity issues, it feels deeper than that.

like, we know Carpenter was formerly Mallory Glass from very early in, and by season two, Paige is Paige Duplass and Hayward is James Hayward. crucially, this is because people know them. there's still people within the church who know Carpenter's last name and family linage, like Mason. and Paige has coworkers, as does Hayward.

but Richard isn't close with anyone who'd feel the need to use his last name. his brother and his father never have a reason to, and he has no connections to anyone besides them that know him as Richard and not Faulkner.

it just feels like a metaphor for how he's become disconnected to his family despite his longing for that kind of love. Carpenter has actively chosen to abandon her family name out of shame, so her lack of last name is intentional. Paige Duplass has her struggles with her father, but still comes to him for help and still writes his name in remembrance in the finale. James Hayward has his mother in his thoughts all the way into the final season, and we hear how she set him on the course he's on.

but Richard's last name is never known to us. and, in a way, it feels like the process of Richard being slowly consumed by Faulkner has taken his last name from him. his attempts to become this ideal self have turned him into something alien, and now he's lost what he truly longs for - his family's love. and, because he cannot have them, he can no longer have his last name, that final anchor.

[sofiaruelle]

We did it yall!!! We beat seasonal depression and artblock~!!!! 😭😭😭😭

[anyataylorjoys]

THE EXORCIST (1973) THE EXORCIST BELIEVER (2023)

[solradguy]

I thought the early 2000s "strong yet naked/mostly naked woman kept in her place by stronger, bigger, beast/monster or gang of racist caricatures" trope* was known by basically everyone but I mentioned it as a criticism of this older art book I'd flipped through recently to a friend and it turns out it isn't lol Maybe I've just read too many Heavy Metal issues... It used to be HORRIBLY inescapable in any sort of mature art scene back in the day lmao

*This trope is different from the pre-2000s one because the women usually look like they COULD fight back for at least a little bit whereas the previous trope had them be completely helpless damsels in distress

[rinbylin]

re: jianghu as a queer space in mlc

here to answer @redemption-revenge !! in reply to this post

(also tagging @markiafc @ananeiah <3)

there are many definitions of jianghu, but this is specifically based on the framing of jianghu as the space people retreat to, away from the mainstream sphere governed by the imperial court. in that is a sense of rejection and defiance against the patriarchal, heteronormative values and norms, which had been enforced through a fixation on upkeeping order in the society. as such i guess it's not too much of a stretch to interpret jianghu as a queer space in a way that's characterised by a spirit of nonconformity to the norms. consequently, it makes sense for stories set in jianghu be used to illustrate and navigate queer identities/experiences/feelings - which I came to believe mlc had made really good use of.

there's always kind of a dichotomy between 江湖 jianghu and 庙堂 miaotang (ie. imperial court). like in mlc, there are two separate, distinct law enforcement bodies from the respective spheres - and jianghu strives to keep imperial court from interfering in their affairs. like how li xiangyi firmly stands against getting imperial court involved in jianghu matters. like how fang duobing is actively running away from the grip of the royal court on his life choices. the rejection of the mainstream (very conveniently and broadly put, confucian) norms in mlc also manifests in many of its key relationships being non-familial (in the sense of blood/marriage-based kinship) and there being little emphasis on the main characters' biological familial ties. (anyway this is for a whole different meta on its own... edit: it's here)

it's then actually a sort of irony that the imperial court's institution of law and order is what sigu sect/baichuan court had been formed to be a de facto counterpart to. so when li xiangyi becomes li lianhua, it triggered the process of deconstructing the meaning of installing such an institution and the need to maintain order to a fundamentally nonconforming space such as jianghu. mama fang's seemingly throwaway line of criticising li xiangyi and his mission is in fact the thesis statement in this particular reading of mlc's story: jianghu makes its own rules. nobody should dare to do it in its place.

now deprived of all means to fight like he used to, li xiangyi's new life as li lianhua is essentially a refresh of how he views jianghu. the death of li xiangyi the leader of sigu sect and top of wulin, meant taking apart the idea that jianghu is a lawless arena where the fittest fight to the top for power and control over wulin. and li lianhua then putting together lotus tower, living a life focusing on a domestic lifestyle this time for real far from the reach of the governance both from the imperial court and sigu sect/baichuan court, is him living the jianghu that's defined as a space away from any form of conformity.

with that, there's also a sense of queerness to this particular way of living as li lianhua, if you consider the chinese conceptualisation of gender being more social than biological. if femininity and masculinity were respectively characterised by inner/domestic sphere and external/any space outside of that, dare I say...it actually makes li lianhua's moving house mindblowingly smart as a metaphor for gender fluidity. lonely wanderers are common in wuxia but housed lonely wanderers? he carved for himself a domestic (ie. feminine) space in the wilderness - among a jianghu space that's still dominated by masculine values of aggression and competition. and being freely mobile makes this feminine space more fluid and less tied down than the more rigid, inert domestic, feminine spaces in traditional mainstream society. when you combine it with how his character has been fem-coded - even as li xiangyi (eg. yin-coded powers/energy) (also a whole other meta on its own... edit: it's here now), it speaks to a part of him that has always found appeal in qualities conventionally associated with femininity of stability, gentleness and non-aggression. and a rejection of expectations to fight and destroy. he is defining who he is in his own terms, in the true spirit of jianghu.

[rapha-reads]

To those of you wondering (aka no one), I finished both The Vampire Armand and Merrick and I have a lot of thoughts and feels. I'm skipping Blood and Gold for now to go directly to Blackwood Farm (I'll read B&G later), but first I'm going to read something else, just to take a break.

TVA thoughts: man, Armand is messed up. And extremely compelling. But so messed up. As always, the theme of faith crisis, which seriously reaches new heights with these bitchy vampires, is not something I can fully immerse myself in, but it was fascinating to see his numerous metamorphosis. I liked how he bridges Western and Eastern Christianisme, especially through art. Now I'm thinking that if Rolin Jones makes him originally Muslim in the show, that could expand even more the conversation on how faith, and especially Abrahamic faith, has been in conversation for thousands of years and could be such a rich, diverse and spiritual, intellectual and artistic theme. I can already imagine some fascinating discussions comparing (not in a superior way but in a complementary way) coming from Muslim faith to Roman Catholic faith, the way book!Armand talks about the richness of his life in Kiev Rus despite the poverty and ascetism, and the richness of his life in Venecia despite the luxury and abundance.

As for Benamin and Sybille... I don't have much thoughts about them. Sybille is one of those female characters AR seemingly favors, not so much human as a nymph or a dryad, "perfectly splendid". And Benji is a caricature of an Arab child. Nuance? 401 not found.

Merrick thoughts: David for the love if everything, shut. The. Fuck. Up. Holy moly. I like David, I do, but damn the entire recollection of his history with Merrick was looooooong. I'm here to see Louis haunted by Claudia and haunting Lestat's coma, not how hard you're pining for the kid you practically raised! Also. ALSO. You're just going to leave that whole thing with the Olmec or possibly another more ancient Mesoamerican civilisation without ever giving us more? That was the most interesting part of it all! The vodoo history, the connection between Louisiana and Caribbean vodoo and old Native South-American religions! More about this, less about Merrick's perfect breasts, I am begging you. (It is at this point that the reader of this post realises OP is 100% definitely ace and more interested in books and witchcraft than breasts and whether a 70yo man can still get it up - also, hey, Anne Rice's vampires are practically asexual and their lust and pleasure is mostly derivated from blood, with some notable exceptions like Armand and Marius, and a love relationship between two vampires is then based on romantic love and blood sharing, so can I hear a hell yeah for some ace representation or are we still conflating eroticism with sex)

Another thing I kept thinking about throughout the book is how Louis is perceived by his fellow vampires. Since basically the second book, since we've lost his own POV, everybody who's ever said anything about him (so Lestat, Armand and David) have insisted on two points: how very weak and meek Louis is, and also how irresistible, beautiful and charming. Granted, I've known Louis first through his portrayal on the show (hi Jacob you're so fiiiiiiine), and then through his own narration in the first book, but I've never had the impression that he was weak. Beautiful and seductive, yes. Weak? I see a human man going through tragedies and still enduring, going through vampiric transformation and then suffering for decades the loss of his humanity, struggling with reconciliating both sides of himself, but mostly I see a vampire who rebuilt himself after losing everything without sacrificing his sense of self. I see Louis as very strong actually (up to the point where resilience breaks, because resilience cannot be sustained on a long term, but that's another debate). He knows who he is, and don't you know how hard that is? He doesn't cling to faith or pride. He knows he's doomed, he knows he's monstrous, he knows there's nothing he can do to change that, and instead of railing against his fate, he goes on about his undead life. He gets his books and he reads them, he surrounds himself with literature and what little comforts he thinks in his shattered self-esteem he deserves (his ragged sweaters and soft trousers); let's not lie to ourselves tho, Louis doesn't like himself, or more exactly he doesn't care about his corporeal body - what matters to him is his mind, and once again, this author is extremely ace and also very aro and very nonbinary, so Louis to me is very much ace and agender coded, though really not aro, because his love for Lestat (and sometimes his fondness, shall we say, for Armand) is the only thing that can rouse him up from his literary slumber.

...

Oh, man, I have a lot to say about Louis, for how little he appears in the books so far. Still have BF, BC and the PL trilogy to devour. So I guess you can say, for as much as Lestat is occupying my entire brain, very much like him, my favorite is Louis? Yeah, that tracks. Melancholy, quiet, dark-haired green-eyed monster with more humanity than humans, preferring his solitude and the company of books to anyone else, hopelessly and helplessly devoted to one person, expert in brooding and grieving, literature specialist, not very attached to his physical self. Yeah. I'm not surprised.

[the-crepuscular-queen]

Something about this quote. Something about how trust is a major factor to Gideon's and Harrow's relationship to work together and how that snowballs into more. It's just going to rotate in my mind forever.

[abyssalzones]

@ most recent anon I'll be honest I don't know how to answer that one publicly but you're good + no need to apologize + glad I could help you I think. legitimately it's fine though

[festeringmoons]

overall I think it’s fine to not like Marcella(you cannot be expected to like every fictional character ever, and she obviously is nowhere near a perfect person; far from it) but if you hate her because she took up space in a book the author has stated is specifically about women reclaiming power and you wanted to see more of your homoerotic serial killer boys then you should reevaluate your fucking biases <3

[billpottsismygf]

73 Yards

I have slightly mixed feelings on this one, but what it did well it did brilliantly. The episode was beautifully shot with a fantastically creepy atmosphere throughout. The Welsh landscape, the close shots, the out of focus semper distans, the mystery of what was being said. Millie Gibson's performance throughout was stellar and this is the most invested I've felt in her character so far. I did miss Ncuti's presence somewhat, but it says a lot that she was able to carry the episode on her own and I do love when the format gets shaken up occasionally and we get a Doctor-lite episode.

I loved Kate's brief appearance and the way it sold the fact that this was a very serious situation. You think UNIT might be able to help here, but Ruby is once again left alone. The themes of abandonment in this one were incredibly potent and really tie into the themes of the series. Unsurprisingly, one of the most effective and upsetting parts of the episode was Ruby's mum also being affected by the mysterious woman. Her anguished screams for her mum were really quite harrowing, as was that awful comment about her birth mother not wanting her.

It also got far darker than I would expect in a Doctor Who episode. The far-right politician and the threat of nuclear war was plenty, but what was done to Marti was absolutely chilling, as was Ruby's apology for not doing anything. It gets away with it because it's all through implication, but that almost makes it more hard hitting. You don't always need to see the monster in action to know what it's doing. It also reminds me of my much younger self not picking up on the Master beating Lucy Saxon until I was a teenager.

The way time began to speed along was actually quite shocking to begin with - I actually gasped when we saw the 25th birthday cards - and it kept bringing to mind various other episodes where companions have been abandoned either in the real world or another timeline/reality, especially things like The Girl Who Waited, Turn Left, Forest of the Dead, The Lie of the Land, World Enough and Time etc. That things get undone at the end was again a little reminiscent of a few of them, but this is also where we come to my criticisms of the episode, because - while I loved the experience of watching it - the ending feels tacked on in a way that is very unsatisfying.

There were a number of things that just never get explained. For a minor example, why did the Doctor disappear? Disturbing the fairy circle released Mad Jack (I'll come onto him) and also made the Doctor disappear? And also made the TARDIS lock in a way that couldn't be opened with Ruby's key? I'm not as bothered by this as the below, but it feels messy and like an attempt to do a Turn Left without an actual reason for the Doctor to be gone.

A bigger gripe is Ruby being the following lady. That on its own would have been fine, but that combined with other elements just frustrates me. Mainly, if the following lady was Ruby, what is it she says to get people to run away? I don't mind things being left to the imagination - for instance, I quite like that we don't get an explanation for why she has to be 73 yards away; I can infer that that's got something to do with the fairy circle - but it appears that whatever she says specifically makes people think there's something horrifying about Ruby.

What could Old Ruby possibly say to that end and why would she? And why would the same thing make a Prime Minister resign? If we had never found out who she was, I would have been perfectly happy to infer that she was a force of some kind that drives people mad, but it's Ruby! Knowing who she is but not what she does or how or why she does it is the worst way round. I want to know neither or both, or possibly the latter but not the former, but this way round just frustrates me.

On that note, the friend I was watching with pointed out that, as she was dying, elderly Ruby had very short hair and suddenly has long hair when she becomes the semper distans lady. A small detail, perhaps, but one that further muddles the conclusion. Why did her hair change? Where did the coat come from? It's a different actress as well and, even at that distance, you can kind of tell. Did Old Ruby just end up embodying an existing spirit to do with the fairy circle? If so, I would have liked that to be a lot clearer. If not, why does she look so different?

Okay, so, Mad Jack. Who or what is Mad Jack? Is he a spirit of some kind that possesses Roger ap Gwilliam? Was he always Roger ap Gwilliam? Does Roger ap Gwilliam exist without him? If Roger ap Gwilliam does not exist without Mad Jack, how come the Doctor still mentions him? If Roger ap Gwilliam does exist without Mad Jack, what is changed by the Doctor stepping on the fairy circle?

In the version of the timeline we end up on (where the Doctor doesn't step in the fairy circle but Roger ap Gwilliam is still mentioned by him as a dangerous Prime Minister), here are a few possibilities and why they don't work for me:

Does he still become Prime Minister and get taken down another way? Perhaps, but it's not like Turn Left where we know the problems would have been stopped by the Doctor (who's not here). Without Ruby's infiltration and semper distans lady, what stops him? And why was that not able to stop him in the timeline we witnessed?

Is he less dangerous? The second time around of the opening conversation we don't get the line about the brink of nuclear war, though only because Ruby interrupts him to point out the woman, but maybe we can infer that this time he's a dangerous Prime Minister but not that dangerous? That seems quite weak and unclear, though, and seems to disregard the horror of the Marti stuff.

Does the timeline only change after the Doctor's comments about him being a dangerous Prime Minister? He does say that before stepping (or not stepping) in the fairy circle both times. I might be happy to assume that Roger ap Gwilliam never comes to power after that diverging moment has passed, except that things have already changed before the Doctor mentions him because Ruby says she's been to Wales three times. Maybe they've changed a bit but not enough until the moment she stops him from stepping on it, but that is not at all clear.

If it's any of these (or none of them), that's really confusing! It's just so messy and unclear. It would have been a simple fix, too! Keep everything the same and just add in a line as they're walking away at the end along the lines of "thank goodness he never got into power; people never found him that convincing". That would have clarified a) things have changed since a few seconds ago b) that Mad Jack is what allowed him to get to power and c) in this timeline, that won't happen and Ruby won't need to stop him.

Despite all my complaints, I did really love watching this episode. It's just so carelessly wrapped up, as if they didn't think about the implications of the otherwise very well told story. I'll be interested to rewatch it and see if my complaints bother me more or less on second viewing. I really want to love this episode because there were so many fantastic elements, but it just makes all the inconsistencies and loose threads and muddled logic particularly frustrating because they were only another draft or two away from being solved.

Misc small things

No theme tune! I feel robbed! Maybe it was meant to be part of the vibe that we're not in the usual timeline, but come on. It could easily have been slotted in when she left the TARDIS the first time or before she got to the pub!

Other episodes I thought of: Extremis with warning other versions of yourself; The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood with waving at future versions of yourself that disappear when things change; Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS with weird timelines and future selves and things being undone; Last Christmas with the companion becoming elderly; Turn Left for the vibes of "there's something on your back"; Under the Lake/Before the Flood with a silent message, since it looked like the woman was trying to sign things to Ruby; and The Sound of Drums/Last of the Timelords with the triple whammy of the companion having to 1) set off on their own to 2) take down a prime minister and 3) have time reverse.

It's also got a good old bootsrap paradox in it, which doesn't bother me in the way of the above complaints, but for the sake of completionism: How was Ruby warned about the future when that future hasn't happened? Would have loved Twelve to briefly pop his head in and explain it for us.

It's interesting that the snow stopped throughout this version of her life. It also seemed to snow while she was on her way to the pub.

Kate's comment about how "this timeline might be suspended along your event" was interesting and I wonder if it connects with the snow stopping.

For the first time I actually recognised Susan Twist when she appeared, but I'm not sure I would have done without Ruby realising she recognised her. I liked that! It felt very Boom Town and recognising Bad Wolf coming up again.

There was a little cameo from Mrs Flood.

[extasiswings]

Nitpicky pet peeve for published books, I find it extremely grating when a character isn’t doing something they otherwise would and it’s obvious the only reason is the author has decided “X can’t happen yet for the plot”. Because it’s totally fine and reasonable if X can’t happen yet for the plot, but then…come up with a legitimate reason for the character not doing X? Don’t be lazy about it!

(This complaint brought to you by the fact that the protagonist of the book I was listening to was confronted by what he thought was the dead body of the love of his life and went into a blind rage and tried to murder the antagonist who was responsible for her death and he…stopped himself for Reasons that seem to boil down to “she wouldn’t want me to kill someone” except that a) he regularly kills people who have done far less than the antagonist, b) she knows this and is fine with it, c) she would definitely support him avenging her with murder (to be clear she is not actually dead but neither he nor the antagonist know that), and d) this motherfucker (the antagonist) definitely deserves to get murdered. Like…it would have been extremely easy to write it as “he was stopped by the guards in the room” or “the antagonist managed to escape” so the fact that the reason the antagonist is still alive is because the protagonist had a bizarre crisis of conscience resulting in a complete and total personality change is just???????? Please be so fucking serious rn)

[arthurmorganist]

unpopular opinion i guess but i don’t understand what the fuck they’re doing to aemond’s character this season

[crimeronan]

there's a place in my neighborhood where a lot of kiddos hang out because there are a couple cheap restaurants & convenience stores open late without any bars/age-restricted venues nearby. it's extremely well-lit and by several busy roads and one of the safest places i've gone when walking at night & the kids have always been extremely chill towards me. so i was completely flummoxed today by a review of a business there that says it's in a """sketchy area""". until justice pointed out that it's definitely BECAUSE the kiddos are there that this random asshat thought the area was sketchy.

.......if you are genuinely afraid of a bunch of sixteen-year-olds minding their own business in an incredibly well-lit parking lot. then like. i truly do not know how to help you.

Git Gud....????

[coquelicoq]

WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT ABOUT VERSION CONTROL omg i am losing my mindddddd why do editors have so much trouble with this concept??? if you send someone comments on a document and ask them to revise even though you know more comments on that version are coming, they're going to submit a revision and then you're going to give them comments on THE OLD VERSION THAT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE WHAT ABOUT THIS MAKES SENSE PEOPLE. i spent half an hour explaining this to someone yesterday and i thought she got it and then today she did something EVEN MORE NONSENSICAL than what she was planning to do originally! o glorb stay my hand i am about to do something unwise!!!