Monday, June 08, 2009

Little Ashes (2008)***: Federico Garcia Lorca and Salvador Dali Were An Item

A romantic story about the young life and loves of artist Salvador Dali, filmmaker Luis Buñuel and writer Federico Garcia Lorca. In 1922, Madrid is wavering on the edge of change as traditional values are challenged by the dangerous new influences of Jazz, Freud and the avant-garde. Salvador Dali arrives at the university, 18 years old and determined to become a great artist. His bizarre blend of shyness and rampant exhibitionism attracts the attention of two of the university's social elite - Federico Garcia Lorca and Luis Buñuel. Salvador is absorbed into their decadent group and for a time Salvador, Luis and Federico become a formidable trio, the most ultra-modern group in Madrid. However as time passes, Salvador feels an increasingly strong pull towards the charismatic Federico - who is himself oblivious of the attentions he is getting from his beautiful writer friend, Margarita. Finally, in the face of his friends' preoccupations - and Federico's growing renown as a poet - Luis sets off for Paris in search of his own artistic success. Federico and Salvador spend the holiday in the sea-side town of Cadaques. Both the idyllic surroundings and the warmth of the Dali family sweep Federico off his feet. Salvador and he draw closer, sharing their deepest beliefs, inspirations and secrets, convinced that they have found a kind of friendship undreamt of by others. It is more that a meeting of the minds; it is a fusion of souls. And then one night, in the phosphorescent water, it becomes something else. --© Regent Releasing

The Faithless Wife By Federico Garcia Lorca

So I took her to the river
believing she was a maiden,
but she already had a husband.
It was on St. James night
and almost as if I was obliged to.
The lanterns went out
and the crickets lighted up.
In the farthest street corners
I touched her sleeping breasts
and they opened to me suddenly
like spikes of hyacinth.
The starch of her petticoat
sounded in my ears
like a piece of silk
rent by ten knives.
Without silver light on their foliage
the trees had grown larger
and a horizon of dogs
barked very far from the river.

Past the blackberries,
the reeds and the hawthorne
underneath her cluster of hair
I made a hollow in the earth
I took off my tie,
she too off her dress.
I, my belt with the revolver,
She, her four bodices.
Nor nard nor mother-o’-pearl
have skin so fine,
nor does glass with silver
shine with such brilliance.
Her thighs slipped away from me
like startled fish,
half full of fire,
half full of cold.
That night I ran
on the best of roads
mounted on a nacre mare
without bridle stirrups.

As a man, I won’t repeat
the things she said to me.
The light of understanding
has made me more discreet.
Smeared with sand and kisses
I took her away from the river.
The swords of the lilies
battled with the air.

I behaved like what I am,
like a proper gypsy.
I gave her a large sewing basket,
of straw-colored satin,
but I did not fall in love
for although she had a husband
she told me she was a maiden
when I took her to the river.

Autosomodization By Salvador Dali

I thought it was an interesting, although trite movie, considering the background is the early days of the Spanish Civil War. Robert Pattinson (Twilight) was excellent as Dali, despite what critics say. ***



tony said...

Thank You for the Lorca Poem.He's a wonderful writer who is much undervalued in the English Speaking World.
'sound like the film was only so~So which is a shame....I hadnt heard of it So I will now go a~hunting to find a copy!
By the way, have you ever heard of an English writer called Ralph Fox ?He was born in my hometown[Halifax,West Yorkshire}:a Communist;killed in the Spanish Civil War.Check Him out if you can get hold of any of his [out of print]novels& other writings.

Anonymous said...

The Left will never forgive Dali for refusing to embrace the collective stupidity known to the world as Communism.

And so they tear him down. I guess when your only tool is a hammer, you make the most with hammers...

C'est la vie.

american left history said...

Markin says- I always liked Lorca, especially "Blood Wedding" and his poetry. Of course, in Spain during the Civil War, at least part of the reason that the Falange wanted him dead was his homosexuality. They didn't really like free spirits, of any kind. People who went around chanting the slogan- "Long Live Death" are not OUR people.

As for Bunuel his "Age Of Gold" (translation) is incredible. When I get around to doing more movie reviews that will be one that I will review.

As for Dali, there is more to dislike about him that his "refusal" to embrace communism. A lot of his work is gimmicky and has not withstood the test of time. That, and not his political (or non-political) allegiances is what matters.

On Ralph Fox, he fought with a British unit of the International Brigade, if I am not mistaken. There is something of a who's who list of literary figures connected with the Republican Spain in the Civil War. For that they deserve all honor.

Anonymous said...

A lot of his work is gimmicky and has not withstood the test of time.

That's not what the art market says.

jams o donnell said...

I's nor heard of this film. I will ahve to look out for it.

As for Dali, I couldn't give a damn about his embracing or non emmbracing of Communism, I just don't care for his work.

Anonymous said...

But that's no reason to trash him as Ren does by posting a so-called auto-sodomization of Dali done in the "style" of Dali, but that wasn't even painted by him.

The commies hate him and will always work to denigrate and destroy him. It's "who they are."

It's like they due to black Republicans... they can never be "authentically black" nor can Dali be allowed to be considered an "authentic" surrealist.

Commies have serious penis envy.

Larry Gambone said...

It will be interesting to see Dali portrayed before his break with Surrealism, NOTE, FJ, Surrealism, not "Communism".

I have a bio of Dali but have not had time to read it yet.

Larry Gambone said...

The Surrealist Movement had joined the CP in the mid-1920's but soon left finding it too oppressive. Many became Trotskyists or Anarchists. When I was a member of ther British Surrealist Movement when living in London in 1979, surrealists were divided among Trotskyists, anarchists and a-political progressives. Conroy Maddox, who I had the pleasure of meeting and his friends were of the latter. The only political tendencies that a Surrealist cannot follow are Stalinism and reaction, for these are the tendencies that are the enemies of poetry and the imagination. Dali by opting for reaction, pushed himself out of the movement.

Larry Gambone said...

That last line must sound dogmatic, which I am not. Yes, there are reactionaries who are imaginative, think of Eliot, Celine or Dostoevsky, for example. But these writers are critical of bourgeois society and in their own way are rebels. Lets just say the narrow political line of Stalinism and its equivalent in bourgeois politics is the death of poetry

Frank Partisan said...

Tony: See Markin's comment.

FJ: In the movie Dali tells Lorca he was expelled from the Surrealists, for being anticommunist. The movie portrays him as self absorbed and decadent, while Lorca is executed by the fascists, for being for democracy. In the movie Lorca reads a democratic manifesto to workers.

Dali should be judged first as an artist, and second politically. Before he became pro-fascist, he called himself an anarchist. I think he was a nihilist, by how he acted in the movie. All old art is backward and reactionary. Turncoats are particularly hated. In Minnesota Norm Coleman is hated, for jumping parties.

Markin: Thank you for visiting, and adding your insightful notes. Your blog is one of the best cultural/political blogs.

Jams: I like Frieda Kahlo.

Larry G: Trotsky wrote book reviews. He often gave good reviews to conservative writers.

I never knew you were in the Surrealist Movement. Breton was a Trotskyist. Kahlo in later years became a Stalinist.

Anonymous said...

NOTE, FJ, Surrealism, not "Communism".

...and as Ren says, "expelled from the surrealists for being anti-communist".

I guess they believed that only communists could be "authentically" surreal.

Anonymous said...

I think he was a nihilist

Now THAT is the MOST ridiculous statement of the day. Had he been a nihilist, why would he have opposed the communists? He OBVIOUSLY believed in something. Just something not nearly as "surreal" as communism.

Noni said...

three big genius, path breaker in their respective field, specially creator:

Lorka: poetry
Bunual: film

have not seen the movie so no idea about the movie, but movie about these above three and their time definitely interesting....

jams o donnell said...

Agreed Kahlo was a superb artist regardless of her being a stalinist at the end

Larry Gambone said...

I love Kahlo too, Stalinism or not

SecondComingOfBast said...

Just more proof that politics is poison to any artistic movement. At the very least, its limiting. Why should a surrealist be obliged to be a communist. Makes zero sense.

Anonymous said...

Two words for you, PT. Socialist Realism, or in this case... socialist surrealism.

You use "Socialist Surrealism" as a tool to promote your point of view and further your political agenda... and at the same time use "Socialist Surrealism" as a hammer to ridicule your enemy and his values with.

Larry Gambone said...

PT, you have to separate Dali's claim from the real reasons the Surrealist Movement expelled him. Quote, "Dalí's... fascination for Hitler, struck a false note in the context of the Surrealist ethic and his relations with the rest of the group became increasingly strained after 1934. The break finally came when the painter declared his support for Franco in 1939" (This is from

The Surrealist Movement left the CP in 1931 or 32. So his expulsion could not have anything to do with support for "communism". Aragon was also expelled for become a Stalinist about the same time.

Larry Gambone said...

FJ, there were always at least 3 tendencies within Surrealism at any time. So don't give us any balderdash about "socialist surrealism"

Larry Gambone said...

"Just more proof that politics is poison to any artistic movement."

Don't you realize that Surrealism is dead opposed to overtly political art, art as propaganda? This was why Breton broke with Aragon when the latter wrote the poem, Front Rouge - which was a piece of political propaganda for the CP. The unleashing of the imagination, the oneiric, desire and the marvelous are in themselves revolutionary acts and do not need, indeed should not, take the form of overt political propaganda.

Anonymous said...

So his expulsion could not have anything to do with support for "communism". Aragon was also expelled for become a Stalinist about the same time.

Revisionist. It had everything to do with the falling out between the Trotskyites and the Stalinists.

Aragon was expelled from the surrealists for not being a Trotskyite like Andre Breton. Breton was expelled at the same time from the French Communist Party for being a Trotskyite. Aragon remained a member of the French Communist Party until his death, but was also very much an Anti-Stalinist and anti-totalitarian in his later years.

Anonymous said...

FJ, there were always at least 3 tendencies within Surrealism at any time. So don't give us any balderdash about "socialist surrealism"

Yes there were the "fake" surrealists like Breton of the "Automatic Writing" school and then there were the more classically educated surrealists like Dali who wouldn't get caught dead wasting paint on incoherent "Mexican Gothic" canvases like those of Frida Kahlo.

Anonymous said...

...and let's face it, PT, a classical liberal and/or conservative couldn't possibly survive for very long in an organization run by commies, be they Trotsky OR Stalin fanatics.

Larry Gambone said...

You don't know shit about Surrealism, FJ.

Anonymous said...

At least I can tell how it differs from Shineola, bonehead.

Anonymous said...

Dali was an artist. Breton was of the divine inspiration/ "Ion" School of "artless" artists...

Plato, "Ion"

ION: I cannot deny what you say, Socrates. Nevertheless I am conscious in my own self, and the world agrees with me in thinking that I do speak better and have more to say about Homer than any other man. But I do not speak equally well about others—tell me the reason of this.

SOCRATES: I perceive, Ion; and I will proceed to explain to you what I imagine to be the reason of this. The gift which you possess of speaking excellently about Homer is not an art, but, as I was just saying, an inspiration; there is a divinity moving you, like that contained in the stone which Euripides calls a magnet, but which is commonly known as the stone of Heraclea. This stone not only attracts iron rings, but also imparts to them a similar power of attracting other rings; and sometimes you may see a number of pieces of iron and rings suspended from one another so as to form quite a long chain: and all of them derive their power of suspension from the original stone. In like manner the Muse first of all inspires men herself; and from these inspired persons a chain of other persons is suspended, who take the inspiration. For all good poets, epic as well as lyric, compose their beautiful poems not by art, but because they are inspired and possessed. And as the Corybantian revellers when they dance are not in their right mind, so the lyric poets are not in their right mind when they are composing their beautiful strains: but when falling under the power of music and metre they are inspired and possessed; like Bacchic maidens who draw milk and honey from the rivers when they are under the influence of Dionysus but not when they are in their right mind. And the soul of the lyric poet does the same, as they themselves say; for they tell us that they bring songs from honeyed fountains, culling them out of the gardens and dells of the Muses; they, like the bees, winging their way from flower to flower. And this is true. For the poet is a light and winged and holy thing, and there is no invention in him until he has been inspired and is out of his senses, and the mind is no longer in him: when he has not attained to this state, he is powerless and is unable to utter his oracles. Many are the noble words in which poets speak concerning the actions of men; but like yourself when speaking about Homer, they do not speak of them by any rules of art: they are simply inspired to utter that to which the Muse impels them, and that only; and when inspired, one of them will make dithyrambs, another hymns of praise, another choral strains, another epic or iambic verses—and he who is good at one is not good at any other kind of verse: for not by art does the poet sing, but by power divine. Had he learned by rules of art, he would have known how to speak not of one theme only, but of all; and therefore God takes away the minds of poets, and uses them as his ministers, as he also uses diviners and holy prophets, in order that we who hear them may know them to be speaking not of themselves who utter these priceless words in a state of unconsciousness, but that God himself is the speaker, and that through them he is conversing with us. And Tynnichus the Chalcidian affords a striking instance of what I am saying: he wrote nothing that any one would care to remember but the famous paean which is in every one's mouth, one of the finest poems ever written, simply an invention of the Muses, as he himself says. For in this way the God would seem to indicate to us and not allow us to doubt that these beautiful poems are not human, or the work of man, but divine and the work of God; and that the poets are only the interpreters of the Gods by whom they are severally possessed. Was not this the lesson which the God intended to teach when by the mouth of the worst of poets he sang the best of songs? Am I not right, Ion?

Anonymous said...

ION: Yes, indeed, Socrates, I feel that you are; for your words touch my soul, and I am persuaded that good poets by a divine inspiration interpret the things of the Gods to us.

Breton and the "automatic writers" were divinely inspired. They did not compose, like Dali did, from "art".

Anonymous said...

Meaningless Crap from Andre Breton:

Always for the first time
Hardly do I know you by sight
You return at some hour of the night to a house at an angle to my window
A wholly imaginary house
It is there that from one second to the next
In the inviolate darkness
I anticipate once more the fascinating rift occurring
The one and only rift
In the facade and in my heart
The closer I come to you
In reality
The more the key sings at the door of the unknown room
Where you appear alone before me
At first you coalesce entirely with the brightness
The elusive angle of a curtain
It's a field of jasmine I gazed upon at dawn on a road in the vicinity of Grasse
With the diagonal slant of its girls picking
Behind them the dark falling wing of the plants stripped bare
Before them a T-square of dazzling light
The curtain invisibly raised
In a frenzy all the flowers swarm back in
It is you at grips with that too long hour never dim enough until sleep
You as though you could be
The same except that I shall perhaps never meet you
You pretend not to know I am watching you
Marvelously I am no longer sure you know
You idleness brings tears to my eyes
A swarm of interpretations surrounds each of your gestures
It's a honeydew hunt
There are rocking chairs on a deck there are branches that may well scratch you in the forest
There are in a shop window in the rue Notre-Dame-de-Lorette
Two lovely crossed legs caught in long stockings
Flaring out in the center of a great white clover
There is a silken ladder rolled out over the ivy
There is
By my leaning over the precipice
Of your presence and your absence in hopeless fusion
My finding the secret
Of loving you
Always for the first time

Anonymous said...

A T-Square of dazzling light... how surreal. *yawn*!

Larry Gambone said...

Like I said, you don't know shit about surrealism. Your latest blatherings only prove it in spades.

SecondComingOfBast said...

I don't know anything about it either, except that when I see it, I generally like it, both in art and film. For an artist to restrict the work of other artists, "ban" them from a movement, so to speak, just proves that artists are not so evolved above the rest of us mere mortals as they like us to think they are.

In fact, it just proves they might be just as pretentious and elitist as most of us have thought all alone.

SecondComingOfBast said...

All along, I meant.

Larry Gambone said...

Pagan, people of what ever interest have a right to form groups. As voluntary organizations they also have a right to expel someone when they do not live up to the terms of membership. The Surrealist Movement was consciously and overtly revolutionary. They were actually quite broad minded about what constituted being revolutionary, but when Dali opted for fascism - the ultimate anti-revolutionary and authoritarian doctrine, they had enough of him. It has nothing to do with attempting to ban him - they certainly had no power to do so, nor was it pretentious and elitist to expect someone to live up to the rules of the game.

Frank Partisan said...

Pagan: It wasn't a matter of being expelled for abstact political views, it had to do with the fact, he refused to denounce Hitler and Franco. While German planes were used to bomb Spanish villages, and Jews being sent to concentration camps, Dali claimed neutrality.

Jams: Agree. I like Wagner, who some say is reactionary.

Larry G: See this.

FJ: I don't care if you don't like Breton.

The Surrealists were upset with Dali, for being neutral about Hitler and Franco.

A group has the right to determine its membership. You have the right to ban people from posting. The Surrealists saw how dire fascism is, and couldn't tolerate having a pro fascist in the group.

In the movie, Dali destroyed old sculptures. That is nihilism in my book.

Dali wasn't a classical liberal or conservative. He was fascist. Lorca was a democrat, or classical liberal. He supported the elected government.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Dali was neutral about Hitler and the Spanish Civil War.

Funny how his so-called "neutrality" doesn't come out in his work.

Penis envy. THAT's what Commies like Breton had. SERIOUS penis envy.

...and I think that about PROVES just who doesn't know shit from shinola.

Larry Gambone said...

Breton became an anarchist after WW2 and wrote for Le Libertaire, weekly paper of the French Anarchist Federation (As did Albert Camus, by the way)

Frank Partisan said...

FJ: Why is Hitler an enigma to you? That was the picture that got angry the Surrealists. Calling Hitler an enigma, is lame criticism.

The Spanish Civil War picture hardly compares with Picasso's work on the subject.

Larry G: Breton made a manifesto anti socialist realism, with Trotsky.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and calling Lenin an enigma would be even "lamer" criticism. LOL!

Yes, a picture of Spain literally tearing itself apart over a few beans couldn't possibly compare to Picasso's work... but then who's the one to say what art is "worth" painting, and what art "isn't"? The communists or the artists?

Anonymous said...

Dali "resolves" the enigma of Hitler's rise to power in his painting. He paints Hitler's "soul" JUST as he paints Lenin's "soul" in the painting, The Enigma of William Tell.

You all remember who William Tell was. don't you?

SecondComingOfBast said...

Damn, Gambone and Ren actually convinced me of something. Okay, since you put it that way, I wouldn't let people in a group I started that believed in certain things I'm opposed to, or vice versa. I guess that's natural. I just thought it was a strange, limiting way to run an artistic group, seeing as how you're taking the chance of ejecting somebody with great talent that could contribute greatly to the group, but I guess as a group they might have been conducting themselves with an eye to attracting certain patrons.

On the really down side, you may have ruined surrealist art for me.

Anonymous said...

Well obviously the Surrealists weren't really an "artistic" group at all then, were they PT? Perhaps the art world should stop labelling them as such. They were just another in a whole bunch of Commie front organizations, like the ACLU, PETA, Greenpeace, NOW, the AFL/CIO, SEIU, the DNC, etc., etc., etc...

Put a Commie in charge of ANY group and from that point on, it's just a "front" in incompetencies resentful war on competency.

Breton & co. didn't give a crap about advancing "surrealist" art. All it cared about was using surrealism to advance communism.

Anonymous said...

Okay, since you put it that way, I wouldn't let people in a group I started that believed in certain things I'm opposed to, or vice versa. I guess that's natural.

Kinda explains the gulag, doesn't it. Dissent? That's something only idiot democracies tolerate.

It's either Marx's way or the oven.

Larry Gambone said...

Pagan, they weren't an "artistic group", but a movement of cultural revolutionaries that grew out of the earlier Dadaist Movement. Their goal, like the Dadaists, was to challenge bourgeois society at all levels. The difference with the Dadaists being that they were more organized, almost like a scientific research group. The Surrealist Movement included sculptors, poets, novelists, playwrights, performance artists (before the term was invented) and scholars of the esoteric as well as painters. Bourgeois commentators have tended to reduce the movement to a school of painting. Such a group - devoted to cultural revolution had every right to expel someone - no matter how talented - if they became cultural counter-revolutionaries.

Larry Gambone said...

"Kinda explains the gulag, doesn't it. Dissent? That's something only idiot democracies tolerate."

FJ we are talking about VOLUNTARY GROUPS, private associations if you will. To force these associations to accept membership from those who are contrary to the goals of the group is an infringement of their democratic rights. Example- do you want an arsonist as a member of the Fire Department? A child molester teaching at a kindergarten? A Nazi in Anti-Racist Action? An anti-Semite as a member of the Temple? Of course not. And facist-symps have no place in a Surrealist Group.

Ducky's here said...

You're right Farmer. He was a monarchist and forgiveness has been slow.

And in the film world he was nothing without Bunuel.

Ducky's here said...

Two words for you, PT. Socialist Realism, or in this case... socialist surrealism.


Yes, the style advocated by Ayn Rand. However, Farmer, if you go back to events after the revolution and before Stalin you will find one of the most inventive artistic eras of the 20th century.

Then came that madman Stalin ...

Anonymous said...

FJ we are talking about VOLUNTARY GROUPS

Kinda like the KKK was a "voluntary group?"

A voluntary group that aims at overthrowing governments around the world and unilaterally dictating orders to the billions they seek to conquer...

...and if you don't go along, they just send you to the 're-education camp' or the ovens. THAT is how they deal with dissent.

SecondComingOfBast said...

FJ, I just kind of see the point, because I can identify with it. For example, If I were to start a pagan group, or a coven, I would want like-minded pagans who believed in the things I believed in. I wouldn't want a bunch of ultra-liberal tree-huggers agitating against Gorebal Warming, radical feminazis and radical leftist gay activists, etc.

I would want to keep the coven free from those types of influences. Hell, there's enough of those types, if that's what I wanted I'd just go join one.

It was just a little daunting trying to apply that principle to the art world though.

And I still think it could be beneficial to an artistic group to allow dissenting views, whereas in other types of groups it could and more often than not would be at least a disruptive influence that would undermine what the goals of the group.

In a surrealist artistic group, I would imagine that flow of energy would actually inspire all the artists to greater heights by providing a catalyst for opposing creative expressions, if that makes any sense.

I guess its hard for me to imagine a group of artists and their artwork-no matter how good it is-inspiring great numbers of people to communism, or to be against it, or to give it any thought whatsoever as far as that goes.

Anonymous said...

The DADA MOVEMENT was a non-movement. Usurped by the commies, they became dedicated to promoting the worst and most totalitarian -ISM the world has ever known. commun-ISM.

Anonymous said...

The Dada-ists started as a group of people who HATED -ISMs because of the death and destruction of WWI. But like any "good" thing, it grew into its' opposite.

ps - and notice in the article linked to above that CONSTRUCTIVISM was the art movement most influenced by the Dada-ists. It should come as no surprise that it was in the USSR that Constructivism, and later Social Realism had their origins.

The CIA funded the Jackson Pollacks of the world to KILL this kind of politically motivated art.

Anonymous said...

The CIA, through Piet Mondrian and Abstract Expressionism, helped lead this lemming-like march of artists back into the Sea of Nihilism from which it had originated (Dada).

Anonymous said...

Rothko, anyone?

Anonymous said...

There is "generation" from opposites, PT. That's why the capitalist system works so well. We're not locked into promoting and unquestionably following the daily pronouncements of the Obamatrons in the daily press briefing.

Anonymous said...

Kinda makes you wonder just how America became the world's dominant culture, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

Two words for you, PT. Socialist Realism, or in this case... socialist surrealism.
You use "Socialist Surrealism" as a tool to promote your point of view and further your political agenda... and at the same time use "Socialist Surrealism" as a hammer to ridicule your enemy and his values with.好秘书 我爱皮肤 中国公文网

Anonymous said...

via this movie "Little Ashes" I have gained an interest in both Dali and Lorca. From the bit of research I have done, I believe that Dali simply refused to be identified as anything but Dali-nian. He had a vision of himself and the world that he felt he couldn't fit in anywhere. Once he found himself being placed in a mold or had boundaries attached he adapted and changed to detach himself from it and prevent conforming to anyones expectations artistically, socially, and especially politically.

dinoibo said...

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading
Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat

Kamagra Jelly said...

Well, if it comes from Dali, I will possibly like it. Maybe FAderico García Lorca is not my favorite writer, but still, I really enjoyed the poem.

Kamagra said...

You are a competent writer man…great way to put down your thoughts on a serious subject like this. For the first time I could understand what the topic meant. All thanks to you mate!!!