L13FC: The Long Careers of Actors

Today is my lucky day! You’ve decided to stop by and add to the discussion to this month’s film topic on my double-nickel birthday. Thank you!

Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, and Robert Duvall are lifetime friends who bunked together while honing their craft back in the late 1950s. It’s a fascinating trifecta. Read Flip the Movie Script 2016 article, “A Brief Time in History with Friends Hackman, Hoffman, and Duvall” found HERE.

Considered character actors, they catapulted to stardom when their breakout roles were part of an Oscar winner for Best Picture. (Dustin Hoffman in 1967 with The Graduate, Gene Hackman in 1971 with The French Connection, and Robert Duvall in 1972 with The Godfather) Hoffman and Hackman won Oscars for Best Actor, and Duvall was nominated for his supporting role. As generational friends and colleagues, they’ve grown old on the screen and we’ve watched them do it. Their longevity is remarkable. According to IMDb:

Gene Hackman, b. 1930:  100 credits, 2 Oscars, 30 other wins

Dustin Hoffman, b. 1937: 84 credits, 2 Oscars, 60 other wins

Robert Duvall, b. 1931: 143 credits, 1 Oscar, 55 other wins

Having read Allan Hunter‘s biography Gene Hackman, after his win for Popeye in The French Connection, there was a battle within Hackman. How to navigate a career? Should your choices be picky for art’s sake, daring to fall out of favor if your film bombs? Or should you accept any role because you are afraid your flame will burn out quickly if you don’t maximize Oscar success? For Hackman, he never thought “this ugly mug would be so lucky.” By the middle 1970s, he accepted whatever script was offered, and it deflated his high-quality acting persona. Then in the 1980s and 1990s, he seemed to be cast in the same role over and over. The bastard. The son-of-a-bitch. He became “the man” everyone wanted to stick it to.

Please welcome my co-host, Nancy, my mother who has watched these three actors their entire careers. I asked her, “Because Gene is ordinary looking and plays ugly characters does he become repellent to you? If Gene were gorgeous and played ugly characters would he be as repulsive? Or sexier?” 

Nancy’s observations:

Gene Hackman’s looks have nothing to do with it. To me, he comes across as arrogant, even in comedies.  I don’t see him really “acting”, only playing parts that are him.  I love Robert Duvall.  Every character is different, good or bad, such as The Great Santini, Tender Mercies, and as Lt. Col. Kilgore. I don’t have an opinion on Dustin Hoffman one way or another.  Most of his roles aren’t memorable to me. None of them radiate sex appeal. Not like Richard Harris.

Cindy’s observations: 

Gene Hackman said in Allan Hunter’s biography that he knew if he couldn’t get the girl in the film, he would never become a “movie star” like, well, Richard Harris. His talents were utilitarian to a script that needed a smug, corrupt leader. He was perfect and predictable like a favorite dish at a restaurant. If you didn’t get what you expected, you’d be disappointed.

With actors who have sustainable longevity in the business, there seems to be a young version and an older version of themselves. Actors who play diverse roles are my favorite. They are the artists. One wonders after playing 80 + films, like an old horse down a hoof-beaten path, it’s not acting anymore, it becomes, as Nancy suggested, just the man on the screen. The originality of the initial spark that captivated an audience at the start of a career has long since burnt out.

Since many people have a say in the outcome of the film, it would be hard to know which film to pick. What seems like an interesting, meaty role, could end up being an unbalanced disaster beyond the actor’s control. It is the brave artist on screen who bears the criticism of good chemistry gone sour. For career actors, who make 80+ films, I have to wonder if they feel that filmmaking is a hit or miss endeavor. Maybe if one can count four or five excellent roles in a fifty-year career, that’s a job well done at the end of a life?

Considering Hackman, Hoffman, and Duvall, why do you prefer the one you picked? Their best role?

73 thoughts on “L13FC: The Long Careers of Actors

Add yours

  1. I had to look up what number a ‘double-nickel’ refers to. So, you are still young, and I wish you a very happy birthday. I celebrated my own double-nickel by spending four days in Ghent. A memorable trip of canals, great food, and copious amounts of Genever Gin. I also got reduced rate entrance into the castle, because of my age!

    Interesting to hear your Mum’s thoughts. I had never once thought of Richard Harris as having sex appeal. Because of my interest in Oliver Cromwell, I would pick my favourite Harris role as that of ‘Cromwell’, from the 1970 epic about the English CIvil War. Cast against type, he carried it off with some style. Not a great film perhaps, but he was great in it, and held his own against a memorable performance from Alec Guinness too.

    I don’t often think about Dustin Hoffman, but when I do, I conclude that he is a lot better than he is often given credit for. His performance as Lenny Bruce in the biopic ‘Lenny’ (1974) was outstanding, and by far my favourite Hoffman role. I have discussed Hackman here before, and reiterate my choice of his portrayal of Harry Caul, in ‘The Conversation’ (1974). Of the three, I think Robert Duvall has had the more workmanlike career. Always solid in mainly supporting roles, he grabbed my attention in ‘The Outfit’ (1973) as Earl Macklin. One of my favourite American crime dramas ever. Duvall also managed to seemingly get better as he got older, stealing the film ‘Open Range’ (2003) from his younger co-stars.

    Best wishes, Pete. x

    1. Hi Pete! I like the sounds of your birthday in Ghent. Still, it’s sunny and 70 degrees here today, so I don’t dare wish for anything else.
      Regarding Richard Harris, yeah, I don’t get the attraction, but my mom loves his vibrant, lustful personality. You’d have a good time hanging out with Harris, I think. I think Dustin has had many more remarkable roles than the other two. I liked him in his early career –All the President’s Men, with Steve McQueen in Papillion. I thought he was marvelous in Rain Man (so was Tom 😉 and though I thought he was effective, I didn’t much like theTootsie movie. Kramer v. Kramer he was powerful.
      Robert Duvall is a better acter than Hackman. He morphs into interesting characters, more so than Hackman. While the other two can grate on my nerves, Robert Duvall has never disappointed me. Just the other night I watched him in a flawed but cute film called ‘A Night in Old Mexico.’ I couldn’t take my eyes off of him. His mannerisms gave the character an authenticity. I was impressed with his performance. Of the three actors, he still turns out artistic works. Yes, to Open Range. I liked him alongside Jeff Bridges, too, in ‘Crazy Heart’. I still haven’t seen ‘The Judge’ with Downy Jr. I think he was nominated for his role in that one.

  2. Wow, you sure love putting on the spot, don’t you?!! The 3 of them have their own styles, their own remarkable talent to actually become their characters. For Hackman, I imagine most people will say ‘The Unforgiven’, but I’m going for ‘A Bridge Too Far’ and “Bonnie & Clyde’. I feel if that’s how I picture him – those made the strongest impression on me.
    For Hoffman: “Rain Man’ and ‘Death of A Salesman’ show just how well the man stands out in a crowd!
    Last but not least – Duvall: I suppose when I picture him in my mind, ‘Apocalypse Now’ and ‘The Godfather’ immediately jump in my mind. (I think your picture of him here might have affected that choice.)

    1. Hi GP, they all are arguably equal abilities although I believe Hoffman and Duvall are superior. I think, too, that there’s an upside to being “ordinary looking”. Supporting roles are often better than starring ones.
      Duvall stole the film when he was in ‘Apocolypse Now’. I just think it’s one of the best characters in film ever.

          1. So true. Jaekel was asked one time in an interview if he regretted never being made a leading star – he said an emphatic NO. He said as a character actor, he had more roles than any leading man ever thought of having – it amounted to steady work.

  3. Don’t think it’s possible, at least for me, to pick a favourite out of these 3 actors, they each have merit, duff movies and great ones. I especially liked Hoffman in All the Presidents Men and Midnight Cowboy, Hackman in Mississippi Burning, and Duvall in Apocalypse Now.

    1. Hi Fraggle. Mine would be Hoffman in Papillion, Hackman in The Conversation, and Duvall in Apocalypse Now. When I was reading about Hackman, I wasn’t aware these three shared apartments, helping each other get jobs in the 60s, went to acting school together, and each exploded pretty close to each other. I think Duvall has had the best career overall.

  4. YOW !!! so many roles …. so many movies.
    Hoffman … geez. I hate to say it, but his take on Hook was sweet. A charmer.
    Hackman? Great badguy. Was great as Sheriff ‘Little Bill’ Daggett in Unforgiven. Nasty.
    Duvall? Another great Cowboy. Like Gus in Lonesome Dove. Born for it.
    Could list a dozen for each …
    Cindy … you can surely say these guys have had great careers and done a lot of fine work.

      1. Little Big Man was filmed around Calgary. I actually saw and Dustin and Arthur Penn coming our of a showing The Battle of Britain (a timely recollection) as I was going in.
        Open Range is one of my Favorites.
        Cheers! (3 in fact)

  5. Cindy, as you know I have a HUGE Gene Hackman fan, and “Scarecrow” is to me a masterclass in acting. However, he also can do comedy, like his cameo in “Young Frankenstein” shows, and he did action very well, see “The French Connection” and “Prime Cut” for example…I think I shared this before, but here are my ten favorite movies of his – https://johnrieber.com/2014/03/16/a-celebration-of-gene-hackman-an-amazing-actors-ten-greatest-roles/

  6. Of the three, I would rate them as follows: (1) Duvall, (2) Hoffman, and last (3) Hackman. I’ve never enjoyed the characters Hackman played. They always seemed to be someone who could be jovial but who had a streak of pure evil in their heart. After first seeing him in The Graduate, Hoffman appeared to mature with each succeeding role. Despite that, I always see in the background the middle class Jewish boy from Orange County who lives a fantasy. Duvall moves on in his career from the character he plays in Apocalypse Now. He “grows up”; he “matures” if you will. His characters begin to care about others, to demonstrate an empathy not seen in Hackman or Hoffman’s characters. I see this in the way Duvall portrays the characters he plays in The Assasination Tango and The Apostle. Hackman, Hoffman, and Duvall are all fine actors, but of them all, Duvall fascinates me.

    1. Hi Allen. You took the words right out of my mouth. An interesting aspect about focusing each winter on one actor is you come to a decision whether you like or admire them. With Hacknan, I realized I like others more. I think the real Hackman is when he played Royal Tennenbaum.

      1. I don’t know why you think the real Hackman is the character Royal Tennenbaum, but I like that thought. Royal Tennenbaum would is someone that I would like to spend some time with.

  7. Happy birthday Cindy. i find them to be 3 equally important actors who have contributed so much to the movies. Even in their supporting roles, they can make a shallow movie much better. But I remember Hackman most for Mississippi Burning, the Conversation, and Crimson Tide. Robert Duvall for The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, and The Apostle. And Dustin Hoffman for Rain Man, Outbreak, and Marathon Man.

      1. I guess its always better to focus on quality. in saying that, i don’t remember ever walking out of a theater and feeling dissatisfied by a movie that included those 3 actors. but then maybe, i wasn’t too analytical about movies back then. Now am curious. which movies of those 3 disappointed you most?

        1. Nice question!
          Gene Hackman — Lex Luthor. That’s when he sold out his artistry for a job for the money. And he already a lot at that point.
          Dustin Hoffman — I haven’t been disappointed with him.
          Robert Duvall. Never been disappointed.

  8. These are three of the best, and I have seen most of their movies. The only film not mentioned is “To Kill a Mockingbird”. Robert Duvall as Boo Radley was my first time watching him on the big screen. Brilliant.

  9. I still like Hackman more in secondary roles than leads. His Oscar came from a thrilling movies but not exactly a demanding role that deserved an Oscar. Hoffman certainly had the best scripts over the years and did right by them. But as far as acting, Duvall is the best pure actor of the three in my opinion.

  10. When a homely man becomes a movie star, he is commnly accepted as a great actor. I dont believe this is always true. These three men are certainly competent actors, and all have turned in superior work at one time or another during their long careers. But none are among my favorite actors. Not even close. Marcello Mastroianni, Jean Gabin, Marlon Brando, Toshiro Mifune, Dirk Bogarde, Charles Chaplin, John Wayne, Robert DeNiro, Henry Fonda, James Stewart, Gary Cooper, William Holden, \jeff Bridges, Kris Kristofferson, Johnny Depp, Al Pacino, Alain Delon, Robert Mitchum,,,all handsome men, all charismatic screen presences, ,amy of them outstanding actors, others are naturals, The uglies have a chip on theiir shoulders. They hide behind actors studio pretensions, Most seem impossible to direct. Some of the worst of these include Wiillem Defoe, Ed Harris, and Gary Sinise.

    1. Hi Bill. I wouldn’t say Hackman, Hoffman or Duvall are my all time favorites, but you picked up on what I was hoping for in the post which was the ugly question and quality vs. Quantity as a strategy. I liked the other 3 you mention regarding inability to direct. That is, I agree with you. Of your favorite list I am surprised to see John Wayne and Kristen K. Never pegged you for a JW fan.

      1. wayne was the favored acor of americas finest director. he must have smething going for hi,. and he can do just about everything, although he fumbles a bit in live scenes unless they are with maureen io hara. i hought he was miscast in the searchers, which is my keast favorite of fords movies. as fr kris kristofferson, hie is one of the few people i envy i would love to have lifed his life, he represents everything i wanted to be. biridges is also something of an alter ego for me., representig an idealozed version of
        the typical american boy of the 79s.

          1. someday if i have he time id like to do a study and write a book on the american Boy of 1970s cinema. i believe these actors and characters represent something crucial to America, something that has never been duplicated in any other place or time.

  11. Cindy, Happy belated birthday! 🎈 🎁 🎂
    I am not sure I really like any of them more, except their special moments where they show great spirit or heart.
    I admire and love Robert DeNiro and Harrison Ford. I tend to be one who appreciates humor and deprecating behavior. The other three sometimes show these qualities, which is when I like their roles. I enjoyed your thoughts and your great commenters, too.

  12. Hi, Cindy:

    Never thought much of Dustin Hoffman from the first time I saw him trying to sell America 1960s VW Beetles.
    While Hackman and Duvall have the “everyman” niche sewn up with Hackman’s varied roles from ‘Scarecrow’ to ‘The French Connection’ to ‘The Hunting Party’ and ‘Bite The Bullet!”

    And Duvall honing his craft in television and on stage when not in front of the camera for ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’, ‘Captain Newman, MD’, Several episodes of ‘Combat!’, ‘Twilight Zine’ and ‘The Outer Limits’. And defining roles in ”The Godfather’, ‘Badge 373’, ‘The Outfit’, ‘The Great Santini’, ‘The Conversation’, ‘The Apostle’, ‘Lonesome Dove’, ‘Open Range’ and ‘Broken Trail’.

      1. Both Hackman and Duvall have made their fortunes and are enjoying their retirements. Though, Mr. Duvall seems to make himself more accessible to projects,

        Where Mr. Hackman has to be approached subtly and talked into a project. As Clint Eastwood did when assembling his cast for ‘Unforgiven’. Some extra effort is required, but the final film is that much better due to it,

        Oh…. Happy Belated Birthday!

      2. I would argue Hackman remained in demand with high profile projects throughout. However he did some truly awful movies during that period that weren’t big hits. I think Narrow Margins hurts which means you only get offered mid-budget films like Good Company or Class Act. His talents always rescued him, Eastwood gets him for Unforgiven, Mike Nichols for The Birdcage, Sydney Pollack for The Firm. It’s also true that as you getting cast as the mentor. It still makes me sad to see him in garbage like Welcome to Mooseport and Behind Enemy Lines but even at that time he did Runway Jury and Tenenbaums plus a cameo in The Mexican.

  13. What a great trio. Talent-wise there’s nothing between them but I think Hackman and Hoffman edge ahead on lead roles and the sheer number of stand out films. Hoffman is a personal favourite so I’m destined to pick him… my favourite film/role…? Tootsie, Midnight Cowboy, Rain Man, Papillon…

    1. Welcome back, Dan. Of the three, Hoffman leads by the nose. Such interesting characters throughout the years. My favorite is Papillon.
      Do you think as a strategy it is better to adopt “Quality v. Quantity” or if you found yourself a star, you would take most any role?

  14. Holy crap! Where to begin? Well my love for Gene is undying so with respect to your mother we will have to agree to disagree but I see her point. Unforgiven, Absolute Power, The Firm, No Way Out, Superman, The Runway Jury. These are high profile villain roles over three decades. A kid who grew up on his Lex Luthor I got to say he played smarmy well so your Mum has a point. Its worth nothing too that Popeye Doyle ain’t no choirboy either that and that’s his big break. Yes even in comedies like The Bird Cage, HeartBreakers and The Royal Tenenbaums he’s playing an asshole. BUT! Allow me if you will the tough love of the Hoosiers coach, the gentle courage of saying “I am afraid of murder.” in The Conversation. How about the righteous anger of his action heroes in Night Moves, Enemy of the State, A Bridge Too Far, The Package. Isn’t his character in Missisippi Burning somebody to root for? One of his all time greats. Even in his standard asshole roles of say The Chamber, Crimson Tide and Get Shorty weren’t there interesting variations of regret and actually maybe being in the right or just an idiot? Don’t get me wrong he played asshole enough to even do poor imitations of himself? The Quick and the Dead and Unforgiven? Absolute Power and No Way Out? Runway Jury and The Firm? Superman 1 & 2 and Superman 4? Sorry what was the question? 🙂

    1. Well goodness, you’ve listed his filmography, for the most part. Scarecrow and The Conversation are his best two roles. The others you could pile up and label them “son-of-a-bitch”. Whatever regret I saw was minimal. But, I do think he served a purpose for the script and he played that part so effortlessly. I wouldn’t say it was great acting, however. The roles that were different were interesting to watch. I liked him a lot in ‘Young Frankenstein’ and The Royal Tennebaums (which in the bio I read he hated making that film) he played himself.
      I’m grateful for the enthusiastic love for G.H. He served his purpose in the industry and made a lot of $.
      Which of these buddies is the better actor?
      I would say Hoffman and Duvall are better actors than Hackman.

      1. Happy Birthday Cindy! So great to dive into this. Regret I’d say is in The Chamber, not a particularly good film so skip that. I think he’s nice heroes in in say Bat 21 and Hoosiers so tell me what you think when you get to those. I will have to see Scarecrow. Want to see Night Moves too. What was he like in I Never Sang For My Father? Would also like to see Young Frankenstein. Yes it is true he did not enjoy making The Royal Tenenbaums, his last great film and more is the pity. Imagine if he had narrated Moonrise Kingdom or The Grand Budapest Hotel? 😦 As for Hoffman and Duvall I guess see comments below. Thanks so much to you and your wonderful Mum for a fantastic LF13 Birthday Girl and I hope you’re feeling well.

        1. I agree with Hoosiers. I think that’s a “different” film than the usual corrupt leader with power. I enjoy Hoosiers a lot. Right up there with Rudy. 🙂
          You seem to have seen every Hackman film, so please do yourself a favor and see his best role! He and Al Pacino are amazing together. His character does a lot of shifting and changing which really showcase his talent.

        2. Thank you so much for taking the time to add to the discussion. I always value your thought-provoking responses. I have some mysterious ailment that has me down-and-out, unfortunately. Hopefully tests tomorrow will finally decide what’s wrong with my insides. I can’t do much but force my way through school and then come home and collapse.
          No posts, no writing. All temporary.
          ♥ to you!

          1. I am grateful to get to be a part of your blogging community and honoured you are in mine. I hope the tests give good news. Until then I understand your priorities and await your return. Take care mate.

  15. So a couple of other things. Nancy you’re right about Richard Harris. My Dad saw A Man Called Bear? I think and I must see it too. What did you think of that film Nancy? What are your favourite Richard Harris films? I enjoyed Wrestling Ernest Hemingway co-starring coincidentally Robert Duvall.

    1. I’ll have to speak for her, she’s long gone back to Illinois and won’t get on the site to comment. 😉 We watched ‘A Man Called Horse’ (Don’t think there’s a man called Bear)

      Anyway, it was quite intriguing and interesting for its time. A true story about an English gentleman who is kidnapped by a tribe of Indians and ends up becoming their leader. He goes back to England and eventually comes back to the trip preferring it to the white world. (Return of A Man Called Horse,1976) A similar plot to Dances with Wolves but a more realistic portrayal of the tribe and their customs and their treatment of him (he’s a dog and treated as such–but his rise to become chief is then extraordinary)
      Other Richard Harris films I have heard Nancy mention is Camelot, Hawaii, but her fav of all is ‘The Lion in Winter’ with Katherine Hepburn.

  16. I think we were very blessed with a lot of the performances of all 3 Bobby, Dusty and Gene. I loved the old Vanity Fair article talking about their time as struggling actors in 1960s New York. I believe and hesitate to say this because I’m not sure its really accurate but I would say maybe Dustin became at one point the biggest star and therefore has a persona attached no matter how varied his roles. Duvall still big but not as big is maybe more accepted as playing different types. But honestly who knows? I certainly think Duvall is going the strongest these days but Hackman my favourite has sadly lone since retired from acting. Obviously Gene is my favourite but allow me to just say I look forward to one day seeing Tender Mercies and Lonesome Dove. For now it’s Tom Hagen in The Godfather. Why of why didn’t they work out something to get him back for No. 3? As for Hoffman, can you really beat the bath scene in Rain Man?

    1. All true, Lloyd. Duvall seems to have had a longer career with better roles–I love him in Apocolypse Now, more than as Tom Hagen (he was great in it), and I loved him in Tender Mercies and he was born for Lonesome Dove. You sure can tell he’s in his most relaxed state when playing in a Western. The man is a true cowboy.
      Hoffman though has more star power, I’d say. Rainman–who else could have done it so well? Papillion, Midnight Cowboy, All the President’s Men, Marathon Man, Kramer v. Kramer, Tootsie, and of course, The Graduate. All very different characters.

  17. Finally, yes they all had tremendous careers and for all the crap they did they did more good ones, some even great. Easily five great ones for me or each of them. Yet yes, I don’t know if its so much that they get worse as the fresh impact of when we first noticed them can’t be replicated. I think you’re right there are two Al Pacinos for example. There’s something streamlined in the Gene Hackman of even say Hoosiers that can’t compete with Hackman from Scarecrow. But that’s okay Hoosiers is still a good film and its still a good performance. I saw behind the scenes of Hoffman and Hackman preparing their scene in Runaway Jury, they’re still two big drama kids working at it, trying new stuff. But yeah you’re right its not quite the same as when you first start out. Certainly I would like to see De Niro do more prestige stuff. Yet they did endure and that should be celebrated.

  18. I wonder if today’s great actors, say, Phoenix, Gyllenhaal, Fassbender, DiCaprio, Hardy, and Bale if they will have a long career that mirrors the talents and accolades of Hackman, Hoffman, and Duvall.

    1. That is a fascinating question. I used to think Leonardo DiCaprio was a talented actor who got waylaid into being a teen heartthrob. I was relieved to see him mature into a bonafide movie star helped enormously by his partnership with Martin Scorcese. Now he is at a new crossroad where he ages into being the father, mentor and old grizzled veterans. I wish him and believe he has the talent much like everyone else you’ve listed. Fassbender a personal favourite has had a run of bad choices of late and Phoenix might yet burn out. Interestingly my thoughts go back to what I said of Hackman earlier, even if some of them make bad films and their stocks plummet I think their talent will see them hired by some director that will hand them a role that will re-establish them. Fassbender has collaborated strongly with McQueen, Bale with David O’Russell, Hardy with Nolan, Phoenix with Anderson. If I was going to place bets on one it would be Gylenhaal who has continued to do tremendous work in all kinds of films both good and bad but always admirable himself.

      1. Yes, Lloyd I agree with you about Gylenhaal. I have a lot of faith in Fassbender. He’s just so darned good on the screen. I wonder what DeCaprio is up to? I hear he’s involved in a television series, a Western of some sort.
        Did you see Bale in Hostiles? He did a fine job. I missed him in meaty roles where he could stretch his talents and show us what he’s made of on the screen.
        In fact, I’ve always been convinced the necessity of strong scriptwriting. I bet the actors yearn for something to cross their desk that’s intriguing, complex and has excellent dialogue or the ability to convey emotion without words…

        1. I will have to check out Bale in Hostiles. It’s almost as if DiCaprio finally got his Oscar and went now I can stay on the yacht with the models a little bit longer but he’ll be back. I have faith in Fassbender too 🙂 I remember Hunger at BIFF 2007. You’re so right about good scripts.

  19. From the three, I have to go with Gene Hackman. What a command of a screen that man had! Just him entering a scene is an event! Such adjectives as likeable or unlikable, sweet or arrogant do not matter somehow anymore. He has one’s full attention. I like The French Connection and The Conversation with him. I will also always remember him as that villain in The Runaway Jury – what a performance. The way he says there coolly and cynically. “Gentlemen, trials are too important to be left up to juries.” That man had a lot of style.

I ♥ comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: