cptgaio

In fact, there is no definition; it depends on the historical moment and the companies you keep. The question is: alternative to what? Let me give you an example: in this historical moment, is it more alternative to defend the Beatles or to trash them? I don’t know, I just know that it’s fake-alternative to do it by bringing up clichés (like political ideology) that, in times like these, where everyone is quite savvy (except for me, who claims my naivety..), are irrelevant. Our generation has read too many books, seen too many films, and listened to too much music to fall for certain traps. Those who do are either provocateurs (more or less intelligent; Sanjuro is very much so, for example..) or hopelessly corroded by certain criticism (but this usually happens when you’re younger). It would be interesting to know the real age of Poletti, although I think that more than “real,” good Marco plays a well-defined role (to quote a phrase that has become a bit of a cliché, “We’re all fake versions of ourselves”). So don't get too angry with him, and just take him as he is, that is, a more or less willing agitator of controversies. Bye!

So I wholeheartedly thank you again, and I return the esteem. Bye!

@Mike: Am I wrong or are you a bit biased? ;-)

@Kurt and Surfer: I don't know what or who you're referring to, and I might be oversensitive, but so far at least as far as I'm concerned, I've kept the discussion within civil limits, it seems to me.

I thank Ghemison and return the expression of esteem (if his comment was ironic, I still thank him because Ghemison is a person of fine culture and probably has his reasons), even if our tastes often diverge. That said, I’m interested in the response from good Sanjuro: you see, I don’t mean that one has to appreciate Pitt’s role because he mocks a category to which he himself belongs, but because he is actually good and, despite what anyone may say, believable. Honestly, he wasn’t even the first role in which our Brad took on unconventional roles (I don’t know if you remember "Kalifornia," for example, or the small part he has in "True Romance"), so I see no reason to be scandalized. Mastroianni used to say that he didn’t understand all those colleagues who spoke of difficulties in identifying with a role since the work of a good actor is precisely to pretend without too much difficulty even completely opposite personalities. Pitt, of whom I think none of us knows the true personality, here, in my opinion, gives a testament to his acting in this sense, that is, he transforms without too much embellishment into a very particular personality, and that makes me appreciate him. That's all; my criteria are purely artistic, that's all.

:-DDDDD

Well, with all due proportions compared to the genius of Tarkovsky, Soderbergh's isn't bad either.

@$face$ maybe I'm wrong, but you repeated the same comment twice ;-) :-DDDD

@Occulto, my dear, I understand your arguments, but don't you think it is also a sign of skill and courage to embrace roles that are diametrically opposed to what the industry and the public usually ask of you? I believe, perhaps naively, that Pitt was aware of this and therefore accepted the role, performing it well; I don't think this is your case, but I wouldn't want to undermine an actor's performances just because of their past. You must agree with me that the risk is very much present.

True, I quote my friend Io Ho Il Pene.