gbrunoro

This is a film about man, not about war. The journey along the river is a metaphor for the journey in search of oneself. The war here is just an excuse. A monumental film, a middle school essay review.

Max Pezzali represents the '90s in the same way that the Battisti/Mogol duo represented the '70s. No one has been able to sing for a generation that still can't be easily categorized so precisely. But it's clear that this will only be evident to everyone after a few years, as often happens with geniuses of his caliber. All the superficiality with which he is criticized by many contemporary figures with their noses in the air (who, by the way, clog the Debaser community) only confirms my thesis. Everything else is just bar talk.

Max Pezzali represents the '90s in the same way that the Battisti/Mogol duo represented the '70s. No one has been able to sing for a generation that still can't be easily categorized so precisely. But it's clear that this will only be evident to everyone after a few years, as often happens with geniuses of his caliber. All the superficiality with which he is criticized by many contemporary figures with their noses in the air (who, by the way, clog the Debaser community) only confirms my thesis. Everything else is just bar talk.

Okay, message received! Anyway, I can assure you of one thing, I am anything but serious, both in life and at work. In fact, I completely share the whole discussion about irony (and especially self-irony). Bye!

Look, there’s a misunderstanding: I’m talking about multiple reading plans, of course, but that doesn’t justify “all” reading plans. Then, a point of view can be shareable or not, that’s clear, but there are judgments that I can understand even if I don’t share them, and judgments that I consider to be wrong. That’s why I said I appreciate your review without sharing it, and I tried to explain why. The arrogance I was referring to didn’t so much relate to the answer itself, but to the comment in which you ironically overlooked one of my comments, that’s all. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve been arrogant towards you; otherwise, I would have dismissed you with a scornful comment without bothering to explain my ideas. That’s all.

Thompson did not shoot himself at all because Bush was re-elected; officially, he shot himself because he had an incurable brain tumor. I say officially because it is not even clear that he actually shot himself, to be honest. I regret to notice a bit of arrogance in Supersoul's words: I don't understand why you first write what I consider a superficial review, and then respond with arrogance to those who point it out. Here we are dealing with two fundamentally different interpretations, that's all, and there's no need to try at all costs to seem like the top student. When I say that Thompson's figure is much more complex than it may seem, I don't mean it's because he's American; complexity exists just as much in Abbiategrasso, Brusegana, or Kiev, it depends on people and not on places. And here you reveal your limitation by taking for granted things that are not at all given. When you talk about truths that no longer exist, you are mistaken, because the assumption is that the truth as commonly understood has never existed; this is the fundamental misunderstanding that leads to many interpretative distortions regarding this text. Being "true" is absolutely not a value for Thompson, who is no more or less true than the monsters he encounters. It is from the assumption that the truth has never existed that the American dream dies to be reborn: it dies in the particularism of the 1960s (which Thompson rightly judges, I believe, a failure from an ideological point of view) to be reborn in a more universal sense, which finally takes into account man and all his macroscopic errors and distortions. The American dream is intrinsic to man; it is a concept that goes beyond geography and defines man as such, which is why it can never die. What has died is the American dream that sought to find positivity at all costs, that wanted man to be "good and happy," which was almost a comical version of the already ridiculous myth of the noble savage.

Leaving aside the delirium of anti-communism, I believe that the figure of Duke (and by extension that of hst, although in this case I think it’s a mistake to too closely overlap the author with the character) is much more complex than it may seem, just as the reflection on the American dream is much more complex, which, I repeat, is not seen in an absolutely negative light as supersoul seems to suggest. The layers of interpretation are multiple (and this is one of the great merits of the book). I would like to understand what you mean by "the only one to be true."

I appreciate your review; the rating is low because I disagree with your interpretation of Thompson's book. For the sake of convenience, I'm copying and pasting the judgment I've already expressed on Anobii: "A fundamental text for understanding what the United States were and what they have become and, consequently, much of the rest of the world. The stylistic inventions are abundant: Thompson hits hard, in the gut, with a series of reflections so lucid and cynical that they leave the reader breathless. The American dream, the great American dream, gradually transforms into a nightmare: but it doesn't matter, what counts is to keep dreaming."
Essentially, I don't believe that for Thompson the American dream ends in Las Vegas; on the contrary, Las Vegas is the American dream. The death of the American dream is analyzed (and declared) in the passage where Bob Dylan is mentioned (I can't be more specific right now). I believe this book is, after all, the phoenix of the American dream: it is here that it dies to be reborn definitively and become immortal, despite itself.
My impression is that your overall judgment stems from a misjudgment of Thompson’s very figure, who, to use your words, is not at all the only one to be true (neither in the book nor in life). It also depends on what sense you give to the word true in this context. Thompson has always remained American from head to toe, a convinced militarist, a supporter of all (or almost all) wars fought by the United States in the last 50 years, a true mélange of genius and contradictions; that's why your reading seems flawed by a superficial anti-Americanism (sorry for the pun) that has always been alien to Thompson.

Almost essential album. Too long a review, full of emptiness and self-satisfaction.

@Poletti
Unbelievable, I checked the Morandini to see what it says about Nudo e Crudo and what do I find? The same bullshit you wrote about Benigni and vulgarity… I mean, I get copying, but reaching these levels, come on... ah, by the way, even Morandini didn’t seem to understand much about this masterpiece, but at least he expressed a personal opinion (although I doubt he actually watched it).