The Filmclub: Thriller (Nov 14 -20 ) The French Connection (1971) DISCUSSION THREAD

[DieByTheSword]

Three Days of the Condor (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073802/) (1975)

[ZaKKoS]

Three Days of the Condor (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073802/) (1975)

I Agree.

[Matty2Phatty]

The French Connection, but only because it's only my 'must see' list.. i still have never seen it.

[Trojan123]

I guess I could vote for BULLITT [jk], but I say VERTIGO.


SB

[ArtisticVisions]

The French Connection

[Boone]

THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR (1975)

- I have my mother tearing the house down looking for it! :banghead:

[Margie]

I'm having some problems with renting any of these on short notice. My preference is Three Days of the Condor, but I'm not at all sure if I can get it within a week.

So to be safe, I'll vote for the film I have in my DVD-collection:

The French Connection

[Boone]

Someone has taped over TDOTC! Bastidos! :scream:

Urrghhh...I might be able to rent out French Connection... :banghead:

[ZaKKoS]

Come on guys! I've already took out of dust three days of the condor! vote for it, do it for my back! :bounce:

[Varinder]

I'm not sure which one to get, its between the French Connection or three days of the condor. I saw the trailer for the french connection, cant find one for the condor. But, i'm fine with either one of them, i'll go with the majority of one of those two films, The French Connection or Three Days of the Condor.

[Margie]

Come on guys! I've already took out of dust three days of the condor! vote for it, do it for my back! :bounce:

It's not that I don't want to see it (I do, I do, sounds like a terrific film), I simply can't get it anywhere, rent or buy. The largest DVD seller/importer in the Netherlands hasn't got it and if they don't have it, nobody has. Amazon has it, but that's useless, 'cause:

a. It takes 3 weeks or more to deliver to Europe
b. It's illegal to import regioncode 1 DVDs
c. And even if it wasn't, the import and shipping costs are INSANE.
d. I haven't got a creditcard

[ZaKKoS]

mmm...sorry to hear that :blush:
Since one of the rules clearly says "It has to be available on Home Video all over the world." I think i can take the ladder one more time and bring down "the french connection" :thumbsup:

[RobertoOrtiz]

Well the votes are in..


And it is The French Connection (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067116/) (1971)

Use this thread to discuss the film.

-R

[Boone]

I shall rent it this weekend, but am I correct that its the one with the "Mayonase rant"? Or was that the second one? :D

[DieByTheSword]

Can the 2nd best voted flick go to next 5 movies?

[RobertoOrtiz]

Can the 2nd best voted flick go to next 5 movies?
I dont see why not.

But only if the Thriller cathegory comes back.

-R

[Margie]

I've just finished watching The French Connection and wrote a review, which I will post after everyone has had the time to see it. There's something that's bothering me though. What aspects exactly are we reviewing/discussing? If the anwser is "everything", then I'm in serious trouble with the rules of this board. Many films - especially the very good ones - have a political or religious statement to make.

This is not so much a problem with The French Connection, but I can think of a couple of films that are clearly political and to deny it would be a grave insult to the director and scriptwriter. I'm thinking of Paul Verhoeven (Starship Troopers!), who, according to his own statements in a Dutch TV program, left Hollywood because of the "political climate" (and because he was ill). But there are a few more directors I can think of who posed very controversial questions 20-30 years ago that are still current today. Censorship and top class filmmaking never went together very well.

For instance: yesterday I watched Agnes of God (1984). The plot is flimsy and predictable, but the film leaves a religious question unanswered and with that (together with the fabulous acting) makes up for the mediocre plot. To deny it would be putting blinders on as to what exactly made this film work in spite of its obvious flaws.

[RobertoOrtiz]

Ok here is what I have in mind for the dicusssions.
There are two flavors you can go, both valid, and it applies to the concept of leatning:

Technical Aspects:
Cinematography, Camera Work, Editing & Music

Story Concepts:
Dialog, Story Structure, Storyline & Performances

The point of these threads is TO LEARN.
To see what these old films can teach us, so when we do make our own films
we can have a good foundation.

-R

I've just finished watching The French Connection and wrote a review, which I will post after everyone has had the time to see it. There's something that's bothering me though. What aspects exactly are we reviewing/discussing? If the anwser is "everything", then I'm in serious trouble with the rules of this board. Many films - especially the very good ones - have a political or religious statement to make.

This is not so much a problem with The French Connection, but I can think of a couple of films that are clearly political and to deny it would be a grave insult to the director and scriptwriter. I'm thinking of Paul Verhoeven (Starship Troopers!), who, according to his own statements in a Dutch TV program, left Hollywood because of the "political climate" (and because he was ill). But there are a few more directors I can think of who posed very controversial questions 20-30 years ago that are still current today. Censorship and top class filmmaking never went together very well.

For instance: yesterday I watched Agnes of God (1984). The plot is flimsy and predictable, but the film leaves a religious question unanswered and with that (together with the fabulous acting) makes up for the mediocre plot. To deny it would be putting blinders on as to what exactly made this film work in spite of its obvious flaws.

[Varinder]

I saw the movie on tuesday and i was hoping i wouldn't go first on this discussion lol, but no one's posted anything yet, so i'll just start.

The cinematography and camera work with the action sequences were really well done, it felt 'real'. Like the beginning chase/run sequence, the sniping part, the car chase and those 'stalking' chases. The sniping part in particular was my favorite scene.
Sometimes however, i felt that the editing was a little too long, like the car chase sequence, i felt like they could've cut that part a little shorter, even though it was entertaining. But there were just some lengthy scenes here and there i thought dragged on for too long. Overall the editing was done very well.
Music...was ok, wasn't great, but i'm not very familiar with the quality of music back in the 70's, besides Lawrence of Arabia which was awesome.

Dialogue was good, again it felt 'real' especially Gene Hackman's performance. Not too sure what to say about the dialogue.
Story structure and the storyline were pretty good, but they could've made this movie a lot better if there were more characters, instead of just one 'big-time' dealer from France.

(spoilers in this paragraph, DO NOT read this PARAGRAPH, if you haven't seen the movie)
I also remembered about another sequence at the end, when they finally find the drugs in the car. They simply just give it back to the french guy. It would've been a lot better if they gave them the car with the drugs missing. That would've added a lot of tension in the sequence in that room with all those drug dealers when they find it.

The only major performance i thought was really fantastic was gene hackman's, everyone else's was just mediocre.

Yah, that's all i got to say for now. Can't wait to hear everyone else's thoughts.

[Boone]

Okay...I snagged it this morning, but I shall view it tommorow night.

It'll be great to view the Mayonase rant again... :applause:

[Boone]

I went ahead and watched it early...:D

I'm going to be different in my opinion - this was a rather un-remarkable film.

First, we must consider that it is based on a true story - so some things were dictated to from the start.

The film is about 1hr30min, but its only in the last 30minutes that you get any decent action or plot developement. The first hour is saved only by Hackman & Schnider's character portrayals. Somehow, they did the best with a weak story. The setting and dialogue were fine - as was the structure of the script.

The biggest problem this film presents is the lack of a villian(s) actually worth chasing after - I honestly didn't care if Doyle & Russo caught them or not. Apart from a Sniper - you haven't got much to boo or hiss at.

One of the things that really frustrated me with this film was the constant changing of direction the "feeling" was going. For example, you get the image one minute that its filmed in a gritty fly-on-the-wall style, but then it suddenly feels like a cheesy old cop movie - "YOU'RE SURROUNDED! COME OUT WITH YER HANDS UP!"... :rolleyes:

This film cries out for a sequel to address the lack of significance in the story. You never get the feeling that the case they are working on is worth anything - but the twist at the end does indeed imply a follow-up...

Oh, and this wasn't the one with the Mayonase rant! :D

[ArtisticVisions]

Well, I check every video store in my town and they all don't have The French Connection (my own reaction was "WTF?" :eek: ); I don't have a Netflick or online-based video service account either, so I won't be able to review a film this week. :sad:

Better luck next week.

[Boone]

Re: ArtisticVisions.

Thats alright - just copy'n'paste my review! :D

[ArtisticVisions]

Maybe I'll just copy/paste and tweak it a little, eh? :wip:
I'm going to be different in my opinion - this was a rather un-remarkable film.
My review: "I'm going to be different in my opinion - this was a rather remarkable film." :D

[Boone]

Re: Artisticvisions.

You really think so? Please do explain... :D

[Margie]

Guys, I think this basically IS going to be a problem all along. It's not always possible to get a video/DVD on short notice. I had the same reaction (wtf?) when I couldn't get Three Days of the Condor and guess what? Found it last nite!

Perhaps it helps if we explain how things work in our respective countries and most of all, continue any thread about a film for more than a week. Another reason why I think this is a good idea is because I can't possibly dissect a film in one week from my point of view. Now add to that all what you guys bring in.... (which I would want to look at again to see your point).

So here's how it works best for me:
I've got a subscription to moviemile (Dutch only). It's kindda like video on demand, but not quite. What I do is make a list of films I want to see and they send me the first that's available. Sometimes it isn't and I'll have to wait.
The alternative is to buy the DVD or rent it at the local videoshop. That's extra money I'd rather not spend, unless it's a film that's on my wish list. (Complete Hitchcock atm).

So, what do you think? Extend the thread and meanwhile vote for other flicks? (gives people a choice which film they want to analyze).

For the record: I can talk for ages about The French Connection. There's a lot more to this film than meets the eye. Preliminary review to follow shortly (just the BEGINNING!)

[Margie]

I saw this film when it first came out (yep..I'm that old) and I remember the talk was much about the spectacular chase and sniper scenes.
So I review this film in retrospect, because I know what came after.

Many younger people have said it reminds them of an episode of a USA cop TV series, like Hillstreet Blues, In the Heat of the Night, The Streets of San Fransisco or Starsky & Hurch. Well, they are right! I really can't remember any cop series of the same mood BEFORE The French Connection. This is, from the historical point of view, the main impact of The French Connection.

But not only in TV series. I'm no expert on international film, but I do know that quite a few Dutch films have directly borrowed from The French Connection.

*Spoiler-warning*

The scene in the beginning of The FC, were the guy gets shot in the face, was also used as a device to grab the audience attention in Paul Verhoevens' "Turks Fruit"

The chase in "Amsterdamned" was also inspired by The French Connection, according to the director.

What worked for me as a viewer?

Gene Hackman in his role of Popeye. I both symphatize with this character and at the same time I think he's a flippin' rotten bastard. The reason why I think I can suymphatize with his character at all is because of the (slow) first part of the film. It shows the hardships of an ordinairy guy, who just happens to have a job as a cop. And it's dreary (pizza scene).
If the film would have gone into action (nearly killing a woman with pram and shooting some people who are innocent), Popeye would have been an utterly despicable person for me. Because of the character build-up, I still do not condone (and despise) his actions, but at least I can understand them.

The music/soundtrack. I'm particularly sensitive to music and sound in films. In the best case, they represent another, independant character (Amadeus!) The score by Don Ellis was well choosen imo. Irritating and dissonant, reflecting the mood of the film and the main character.

The overall sense of realism, including the slightly grainy film and cold light.

The cinematography. While unsettling, I think the traincrash is particularly well shot.

That's it for now. Hope to hear more reviews and opinions.

[Rani]

*SPOILERS AHEAD*


Unfortunately I have to agree with Boone.

"The French Connection" is a thriller with no thrill.

"The French Connection" is not a masterpiece, and I even dare to say that it's even worse more then most medicore films are there.

The movie lacks basic elements in character development, plot and pace.

As far as character development goes there isn't realy much to say since there was almost none.
Hackmen's character had the most depth in the film but it was still very grey and didn't manage to capture my interest. The rest of the characters were even worse and I can hardly describe any of them in more then one sentance (that's inclduing both the other cops and the dealers) since they are all completely depth-less.
This lack of character development caused me to become apathic to the characters and the events concerning them.

I'm ashamed to say that I found the drug expert who checked how pure the heroin is, to be the most interesting character in the movie.


The plot of the movie, while not bad, is very standart and simple (although that can be ok if the movie is made right, but more on that issue later). The plot is pretty straight forward and has no twists or turning points, I can summarize the major plot events like this:

1) Cops decide to stalk/follow the dealers randomly (because they think something is up with them).
2) Cops stalk/follow the dealers some more.
3) Dealers become aware of the cops stalking them and decide to send the sniper to kill Gene Hackmen.
4) Gene Hackmen kills the sniper after a 20 minute chase.
5) Cops stalk/follow the dealers some more and get the car with the drugs (again, quite by accident by their point of view).
6) Cops find drugs in the car.
7) Cops sets a trap for the dealers.

Parts 2, 3 and 4 can be almost completely cut out of the movie without affecting the course of the plot at all (and it would reduce the lentgh of the movie greatly) and the two major events that drive the story (1 and 5) are pretty random and doesn't occur from within the story (i.e. as a consequence of the heroes' actions).

If only the major events of the story (the begining, a bit from the stalks in the first 60 minutes and the final 15 minutes) was kept this could have been a pretty decent short movie though.


The pace of the movie is it's real breaking point. The movie is mostly made of long stalking/chasing scenes that take many long-minutes (the sniper part alone is 20 minutes) and also barely affect the course of the story (the sniper scene being the most obvious example).
If the stalking scenes' lentgh was cut down the movie could use the saved time to work on character development or making the plot more complicated.
The long repeated stalk scenes make the viewer lose interest and become bored and also kills every tension the movie might had.


One good thing I can say about this movie is that it realy sets you in the "mood", but unfortunately that's not much when the viewer doesn't care about the characters.


Basically what I'm saying is that the movie needs to have shorter stalk scenes and more character developement instead (though the story could use some work too to be less "random").



I understand that other people will disagree with me and I would realy like to hear some other peoples' thoughts.

[Varinder]

Well, i think people should review and criticize the film around the time it came out. I think 'Thrillers' (and other genre's) change over the years. Im guessing back in the 70's movies like 'The French Connection' were how thrillers were made and the audiences thought of them as 'thrillers'. I can't think of any thrillers that came out recently (head ain't workin right), but there a lot more different from back in the day, in the 70's.

But again, i do agree with what a lot of you guys are saying about the plot, the characters and what not. It's not THAT great, but if you look at the fact how so many things were 'wrong' with it, it still however turned out to be a really good and entertaining film. I think we should discuss 'why' that fact is, why is the movie still pretty good even when there's so many things wrong with it.

I'm ashamed to say that I found the drug expert who checked how pure the heroin is, to be the most interesting character in the movie.

Haha, i totally agree with you there, i love that scene too, the way it was shot and edited.

The entire movie is very 'simple' there's nothing there that's full of detail and development. You never really 'feel' for the characters and what there going through, besides Gene Hackman's character. Like i said in my first post, if there were most characters in this movie that are well developed, this movie would've been a lot better. And also shorter sequences, too many went on for too long and it bored the scene out. It had the story, it had good dialogue, just not enough characters and needed more unique 'chase/thriller' sequences.

Like every sequence in the film, the sniping part, the part when Hackman tried following the dealer in the train, the car chase, the foot chases, they were all great and enjoyable. But the fact still remains, they were all too long which destroyed those sequences into being really good exciting sequences.

It was also interesting to read Margie's view on the film, since you watched it when it came out. So you knew the 'effect' it had on everyone when it came out.

Always interested in hearing more view's on the film.

[Boone]

Re: Varinder.

C'mon, Pal - there have been better thrillers before this! :wip: Bad day at Black Rock, Brighton Rock - Christ, Hitchcock made his bread & butter on Thrillers!

Saying that, though - I not familar with any "gritty" thrillers that happened before FC... :shrug:

[ZaKKoS]

I agree that a little more time is required. I saw TFC on sunday and since then I had no time to write a review.

[RobertoOrtiz]

The thread will be open unti you guys get tired of it.


So feel free to write your comments at your leasure.
-R

[Varinder]

@ boone - I haven't seen any other thrillers before FC, so i was only assuming that all thrillers were like FC. I'd like to watch some of hitchcock's films though, have any recommendations?

[Margie]

@Varinder & Boone

I think there is no clear cut definition of "thriller". If you want to be purist, than the FC may not fit into that category (it's also an action flick) and a lot of films can't really be listed under one single category.

The FC is not and never was meant to be a suspense thriller, like Hitchcock. If you judge it by that standard, than indeed the plot is pretty pathetic.

@Varinder: Hitchcock is "must see", imo. He truely is the master of suspense and lives up to his self-proclaimed goal of "scaring the living daylights out of people". He does so by building up suspense to the breaking point.

The Hitchcock "classics" (allthough opinions on this will differ):
-Psycho
-Rear window
-Vertigo (you'll get it even if you don't have it now).

[Varinder]

You make a good point and i agree with you Margie, "there is no clear cut definition of thriller." That can also be said about all other genre's. All filmmakers are different and look at each genre in a unique way. From what you said, Hitchcock likes to "build up the suspense to the breaking point" and William Friedkin seems to like more 'action' thrillers (according only by watching FC). I don't really like to judge films by there genre, i just watch them and see if it was well made, if it was entertaining and what not. Or i'd think more like a 'generalist' if its intended to be an action flick that's what i'll expect, if it's intended to be a scary movie, that's what i'll expect in general. I never look at the film as a whole in that one category/genre. Personally, i like films that combine many genre's into one film, makes for a really interesting movie.

And as for hitchcock, i've always wanted to watch Psycho, but never got the chance. I'm going to try and get that movie soon and watch it.

[DieByTheSword]

FC Only in VHS in my area... damn!

[Boone]

Since watching this film, has anyone started wearing Cardigans? :D

[Margie]

Summary of William Friedkin's audio commentary.

For those who haven't got the special collectors edition (lots of goodies and worth the money), I'll try to summarize Friedkin's commentary during the film. I think learning from award winning directors and their cameramen and editors is one of the best ways to learn about filmmaking.

*****WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS, detailed scene descriptions and dialog*****

Scene 1 - A death in Marseille

General introduction:
The FC is based on a true story of a major drug bust in the 1960's.
In reality almost the entire narcotics brigade of NY was involved, but Friedkin
picked only Doyle and Russo as typical representatives of the main theme
of the film.

Scene description:
We see an undercover French detective (eating pizza, recurring food-item in this film!)
spotting Chanier (sp?) and later getting shot by Nicoli, Chaniers hitman. Note the Lincoln.

Scene 2 - A bust in Brooklyn

Scene description:
Introducing Doyle and Russo as undercover NY cops. Santa's bell is a signal
- crook spotted -. The rough bust is daily work for the narcotics squad and also
introduces the main theme of the film; the thin line between cop and criminal.
It's also in the trailer: Doyle is bad news, but he's a good cop for this type of work.
The weird interogation tactics was also used by the real Popeye to unsettle the crook.

Editing:
Friedkin was inspired by two French films and worked for many years as
a director of documentaries.
The films were Goddard's "Breathless" and Gabres' (sp?) "Z", both examples
of "documentary realism".
No built sets were used in the FC, everything was filmed on location.
Editing is elliptical* and follows no conventional style.

* elliptical editing:
Shot transitions that omit parts of an event, often making use of jump cuts,
causing an ellipses in plot and story duration. The chaotic effect is a good device
for portraying Popeye's obsessive state of mind.

- More to follow -

[chrisWhite]

Finally got a chance to watch it and I agree with a lot of the comments already posted. My sister watched as well and was utterly board throughout the movie, but I enjoyed it to a certain extent.

What it lacked:
The pace seamed way off, it really felt like you were there to walk a mile in another man's shoes so-to-speak, I think this fits with the slow speed and the lack of character development. However, it didn't really do this very effectively because you never reach very deep into the characters themselves beyond their environment. Certainly you can sympathize with the the long nights, the chilly boring times (Pizza scene) and such, but you have no real idea who the characters are underneath their exterior. The comments on the bad guys not really being that bad hit it on the head, I never really gave a rip whether or not they were caught, with the exception of the sniper, which IMHO where by far the best scenes in the movie.

What I liked:
I really liked the film quality, not brilliantly used by the likes of Spielberg, yet it had a certain warmth to it and fit the film very well. A lot of the editing was good, a bit long and pondering but I think it worked well in most situations. The shot from inside the restaurant that zooms out the window to show Hackman across the street poring his drink out and the shots of the train wreck stood out to me as notable good. The lighting was often really nice, especially the use of contrasting spectrum of warm and cool light coming from different angles.

My verdict, not an amazing movie, but a decent watch and a nice piece of film history.

[Margie]

What it lacked:
The pace seamed way off, it really felt like you were there to walk a mile in another man's shoes so-to-speak, I think this fits with the slow speed and the lack of character development. However, it didn't really do this very effectively because you never reach very deep into the characters themselves beyond their environment. Certainly you can sympathize with the the long nights, the chilly boring times (Pizza scene) and such, but you have no real idea who the characters are underneath their exterior. The comments on the bad guys not really being that bad hit it on the head, I never really gave a rip whether or not they were caught, with the exception of the sniper, which IMHO where by far the best scenes in the movie.


I can see why you think this is a flaw in the film. But it was exactly that which made the film stand out from the usual Hollywood films at that time.

By Friedkin's own words, the film is an "induced documentary". He didn't want to tell the story of the drug bust, but show what life was like for those cops. In fact, he never finished the book and spent most of his time hanging around with Eddy Egan and Sonny Grosso, the original Popeye and Cloudy.
The point he tried to make is that there really is not much difference between a cop and a criminal and the obsessiveness of Eddy Egan. The film shows that character trait several times, but particularly in the final scene. Eddy Egan in real life WAS a nasty charcter and not many people liked him or cared for him. If Hackman gave you the feeling you couldn't care less about him, than he has done an outstanding job.

Not trying to change your mind, just giving some background information. It's not a film you can fully absorb in one viewing.

[chrisWhite]

That makes sense then, I think they nailed it then, though I still think a little more character depth would have added that much more to it.

[Boone]

Re: Margie.

"If Hackman gave you the feeling you couldn't care less about him, than he has done an outstanding job"

I think you may have got that wrong - its the badguys and what they are up to that nobody cares about! :wip: This film is supposed to be a thriller, but a good thriller needs to involve the audience in an actual plot!

When I heard about this film, I thought "what is the French Connection in this movie?". But the only part where we find out that its something to give a damn about is in the very last minute of the film! :surprised

Hackman put in 100% for the role of Doyle, but his antics alone cannot carry a movie for a whole hour. The badguys were...pathetic! :rolleyes:

I had to admit though, that the ending does leave you "OMG - What happens next? Dammit, I must know!". Maybe the whole film was leading us into a sense of false security, and right at the end - BAM! - we leave the film with great concern. Maybe thats the punchline or point. :arteest:

As Frank( Naked Gun ) would say: "Police work is like having sex - just when you think you're getting somewhere; nothing happens!" :beer:

[Margie]

Re: Margie.

Hackman put in 100% for the role of Doyle, but his antics alone cannot carry a movie for a whole hour. The badguys were...pathetic! :rolleyes:

Yes, there's not much character depth in the "bad guys".

Three reasons, I think:

First: Friedkin did not want to portray the "French Connection" case in itself, which is hiddeously complicated and ambiguous and would leave you with more questions than the film does.

Second: there is VERY little known about Jean Jehan, the original character Alain Charnier is based on. What is known is that he wasn't a suave type like Charnier, but he was "streetwise" (more so than Doyle/Egan) which is (imo) brilliantly portrayed in the foot chase and subway cat and mouse antics. In reality he was a rough Corsican.

Third: The FC is more grounded in reality than your average film, hence the grittyness.
To be consistant, the "bad guy" character would also have to be realistic. The other thing that is known about Charnier/Jean Jehan is that he worked for the French resistance, helping the British and allied troops to fight Hitler. That makes him a good guy, right?

Then there's Nicoli, the hitman. I remember from the first time I saw this film a lot of people in the theatre cheered when he was shot. Mind you, shot in the back while he was unarmed. Doyle did not see that Nicoli shot the French detecitive in cold blood, or the officer on the subway, or him pointing a gun at the driver. All he knew was that Nicoli was the sniper who tried to kill him. But look what Doyle does to get even. Nearly hits a woman with a pram (staged), endangering his own life and that of his fellow Newyorkers (white cars rams into Doyle's car, NOT staged..really happened). How bad must Nicoli be to top that?
Another complication. The real "Nicoli" was a trigger happy, ruthless killer....with a weak spot. Friedkin filmed a scene showing that, but later decided to delete it. Why do you think he did that?

Sal Boca + ladyfriend: not one of the real crooks I think, just a guy trying to get by with some shady dealing.

Devereaux: said he didn't know anything about drug deals (also the real French actor).

The real "French Connection" is certainly interesting and rife with unanswered questions.
Will there ever be an answer in real life? I doubt it.
IMO, that's what Friedkin tried to say with the shot at the end of the film.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.