vellutogrigio

Interesting review, I have never listened to the album in its entirety but I remember the times when Italy was going crazy for Zucchero's "music" and the "vulgarities" of his lyrics. We can talk as much as we want, but in the '80s, this quirky character was truly "transgressive"... a testament to the drowsiness of our country. As for Sugar, the decline he faced in the '90s seems comparable in music history - si parva licet - only to that of Jimmy Page following the breakup of the Zep, but at least he had the excuse of being without a band and, above all, without a drummer...

@spleen: I have no doubt that Kubrick admired Antonioni, but I believe it was more on a technical level, which certainly cannot be criticized. My comparison - in the previous and hopefully concluded "controversy" - concerned the so-called "content" of their respective films.

To approach reading Cortázar, what do you recommend? I started my journey into South American literature with Borges and now I'm diving into Vargas Llosa (Who Killed Palomino Molero?, for now - we'll see later).

In any case, congratulations on your observations... much sharper than those who - above - defend the film in a sterile manner just because it would be considered "high" cinema (cf. Poletti).

I did it on purpose, I also find giUoco unbearable.

...provided that, when the flood of interpretations overwhelms the content of a work, explaining its multiple meanings, the risk is that the work does not exist in itself, but only as an object of critique, resulting dangerously "empty";

@ajeje: your points of view are well articulated, and I certainly don't want to seek a confrontation. However, doesn't it seem like a logical paradox to say that reality is unknowable? If it were truly unknowable, we couldn't say anything about it, let alone that reality is.... unknowable. We should refrain from any judgment. For this reason: 1) either Antonioni, in stating that reality is unknowable, says something logically incorrect, making his cinema intellectually weak, mere aesthetic reflection; 2) or Antonioni perceives the truth, but then he should refrain from filming, respecting a call for silence that, if you will, has its roots in Wittgenstein. In my opinion, tertium non datur, unless one acknowledges that Antonioni's cinema is a mere exercise in style, a mere cinematic trick, which explains how the representation of reality deceives not only David Hemmings (who does not describe what is photographed), but the viewer as well (who does not decipher the film, being diverted by a flood of images), in a sort of mirror game.

@happy: the incredible thing is that these "polemicists" did not add anything about the film above that had not already been (synthetically) mentioned by "Prof. Velluto". However, it was entertaining;

@happy: for the next review, I've chosen a film that should stir up less controversy, just wait and see;

You've said it all. Be careful, they see us as proletarians, angry, ignorant. How many professors Velvet vs Mr. Gray...