vellutogrigio

Yes! Never imagined having to share 75% of a post by Poletti! This reassures me.

Muitosaud, thank you as well for your esteem; I have read your reviews and some of your comments, and I gladly return the favor. Of course, I am speaking for myself and not for Lavalin or Il_Paolo. The discussions should be distinguished: perhaps in Risi, Monicelli, Germi, etc., there is a lack of the poetic touch of a Fellini, the clear and bitter reflection of a Pasolini, and the cold, icy yet exceptional technique of an Antonioni. Nevertheless, their films had peculiar characteristics that are not found in the works of the Masters: the accessibility for everyone, and not just for the "initiated." It was popular cinema, not devoid of meaning, that was suitable for wide mass distribution, and it told our reality well, even with a sociological touch. Even today, Antonioni is mocked with the quote from Red Desert: “Mi fanno male i capelli,” symbolizing the abstruse nature of those films. The discourse on Fellini is complex, but I don't like the man—the grand socialist with dwarfs and dancers in tow, the wife constantly cheated on yet always ready to mother him (a quintessential Italian, in short): Fellini was especially loved abroad because he gave an exotic and dreamlike idea of a country rich in myths like Italy (abroad they coined the term fellinesque), but when it comes down to his cinema, people remember the scenic inventions, and especially the “masks” like Sordi, Mastroianni, Sutherland, even Villaggio. Of Pasolini, I appreciate the writer, the intellectual, the clarity, while I find his cinema sometimes indigestible, too overloaded with allusions and meanings that could be better interpreted on the written page. Obviously, these discussions would take hours, so I will voluntarily stop here.

Thank you for the [over]estimation Lavalin (I'll try to repay you). I am, of course, sorry that the latest comments have been dedicated to "superstructural" polemics about me - and about my ideas, which are certainly debatable, but hopefully argued - rather than about the film you are reviewing. In this regard, I also have the suspicion that this film, in describing the reality of Southerners emigrating to the North, slightly falls into "caricature." There is some truth in what is being told, but in the 1970s, the socio-economic context in which Southerners moved in the North was perhaps more fluid and less categorizable into "types," as Monicelli does. This leads me to think that Monicelli - whom I, by the way, adore - has always shied away from an authorial logic - in the name of complexity and nuances - to focus on "characters." This makes his cinema accessible to everyone, while, however, limiting its content.

Rikardo, you know very well how I am the emissary of the communist mass international, located in the offices of the Brussels Commission, dedicated to discrediting Fellini and Antonioni as crypto-Berlusconi directors: aren’t Fellini’s beautiful women the archetype of Berlusconi’s beautiful women? In the '90s, Antonioni did an advertisement for Louis Vuitton with his wife Enrica, also symbolizing the archetype of the right. Perhaps Lavalin has understood all this and shared this critical perspective. But will she be able to justify her opinion on her own, especially after reading your comments on "Thank goodness Silvio is here"?

Thank you Lavalin, but perhaps your compliments are excessive. I still hope that inspiration came to you at least while reading the ones I like the most, which Poletti also appreciated: Amarcord and Blow Up ;)).

Well done, Lavalin, great debut in the style of Italian cinema.... but don't stop here. Poletti, in the post just above, forgets that Il_Paolo's thoughts on Fellini are shared by another here, a guest at Il_Paolo’s inn: two to one and the ball in the center. By the way, Poletti: as a Juventus fan, I'm with Roma for next Sunday.

Beyond the usual - charming - review by Il_Paolo, I ask you to calm the spirits a bit. I am not part of the historical core of the site - although I have written several reviews published since September 2006 - but I find the issue quite trivial: if the internet is a non-place, it is equally a non-time, so historicizing is ridiculous. What matters is that there are people with the ability, the flair, the technique, but also and above all the passion to write about music and cinema for others, without hierarchies or preferences (except those dictated by each individual's taste)... I enjoy reading Contemplazione next to Il_Paolo, Psycho next to Muito, along with everyone's comments; this is the added value of the Debaser hypertext.

The review is nice; it's well-known that I rarely disagree with you. Clara was really rock.

The review is nice; it's well-known that I rarely disagree with you. Clara was really rock.

My favorite Floyd album is Animals, which almost no one likes. This one is halfway across the river; the first song is beautiful, the suite is great, the other tracks are decent, except for Fearless, which no one mentions but is – in my opinion – one of the group's finest lyrics. Let's say that from this album onwards, Waters starts to take control of the group...