cptgaio

But I just told you that I read it! (Actually, I read the discussion and I even wrote "I don't want to get into the topic and the controversy"). And I would be the one to overlook... Peace and goodwill then...

I actually read the discussion and indeed I wrote "I don't want to delve into the topic and the controversy" :-D it's just that your comparison struck me, and not being interested in exploring the topic further (on which I have a clear idea that I don't care to share here though) I wanted to point it out. Anyway, the fact that I may be presumptuous is quite debatable since I challenge you to find a historical error in what I've said (here and now) so far. Perhaps you can argue that I didn't fully grasp the comparison (and in fact I also say in my comment that there's the possibility: "but maybe I misunderstood") but not the information itself, so I don’t understand your controversy. Also, there’s a separate discussion to be had about the concept of "relativism" that you, and most of the defenders (alas), have lately, but due to time constraints, I’ll let that be. One last thing: I would leave out the "you Italians" discourse because nationality is more a mental construct than a geographical one: I know many "Germans" of Italian nationality and vice versa. I reiterate my respect. Bye.

The comparison is not suitable precisely because there is a difference between "reportage" (the photo) and "fiction" (the film). Then there is also a difference between Pulitzer and Palme d'Or and (above all) Oscar, but that's another story. This is the point. You are completely free to consider my clarification pure "onanism" (is that the term?) but I insist that, for the sake of precision, certain things need to be well defined. Take care.

P.S. I forgot to mention that the discussion of the different historical and geographical context is meant to clarify that Coppola was more interested in the psychological and human motive than in the political one, hence the choice of Vietnam (and not the Congo River), which was more understandable to contemporary audiences.

I don't want to get into the topic and the controversy, but I read the last sentence of comment 12 by K: "what to say about Apocalypse Now then, what to say about Coppola. If a photojournalist is a vulture, what is Coppola?" And without wanting to spark controversy with the interested party, I remind you that "Apocalypse Now," while essentially a protest act and also, and most importantly in my opinion, a "representation" (if not almost "fiction" in the objective sense of the term), while I believe that the photo being reviewed here is about "showing the real," therefore the comparison seems a bit forced to me (but maybe I understood it wrong). Not to mention that Coppola was inspired by a novel that spoke of another geographical and historical context, namely the wonderful "Heart of Darkness" by Conrad. Take care.

Mmm, I don't think the "Vanzina" argument holds (just as the Caravaggesque one didn't make any sense): different genre, different target, different "social" expectations and above all "political". Anyway, I believe we have a different idea of masterpiece: then regarding "looking" and "seeing," everyone thinks what they want, and I don't believe the difference is so "total" in the case of the two concerned. Bye
@Gustavo: if it happens, I might watch the documentary on Franco and Ciccio since I love that duo. Bye.
Ps. I'm going on vacation, so my presence on this page ends here. Take care.

To each his own ;-) As long as they stayed on TV, I found them tolerable. This movie and the one after (I don’t know if they made others) I really find on the edge of idiocy.

In a way, I feel relieved to know that I don't fit into the "poetics" of this rubbish. As for the "exalting directorial pieces," I remember a certain taste for the horrific for its own sake and a lot of boredom. I wouldn't frame it as "looking" versus "seeing" because then, if comparisons are made between Merisi and these two individuals, the discussion might never end. Take care.

I quote the first sentence of comment 5. Off (but not really) Topic "Men Who Hate Women" is a great book with a couple of exciting "moments," an interesting writing style, and (but I'm biased here) "mathematical-statistical-economic" references that made me ecstatic (is that the right word?) and I think it should be read nonetheless. The other two in the "trilogy" (in quotes because Larsson had ten "planned") are quite weak, but the first one, from my point of view, is worth it.

Ps: let it be clear that this film, for me, was and remains an idiocy. But taste varies.