cptgaio

Damn, the vote even for the manga...

It will be done! P.S.: No, it wasn't bad: definitely more fascinating than the current one.

The manga is one of the most beautiful of all time.

I go at least once a season (in the early "0s" for 4 years, when I still had "human" work shifts, I managed to keep an average of 3. By literally pulling strings, I managed to attend three "away games": one in Liverpool (the blue side, though...) and two in London (Fulham and Chelsea, but the latter weren't in the Abramovich era yet). Usually, I plan it so that I can have something coinciding (concerts in general: mostly the Maiden, but once I even managed to see Amos too, and this year I'm seriously thinking about the Editors, not DeB's though :-D) so that I can fit more into one trip (blessed be RyanAir) with just two or three nights in a hotel. My sweet other half has never had anything to say about it so far ;-)

I think the only thing that "Coraline and the Magic Door" and the reviewed material have in common is the director (by the way, it’s true that Burton, in "Nightmare Before Christmas," supervised but only at a level that allowed the story not to stray too far from its subject; in reality, he also didn’t write the screenplay: Burton brought the original idea and the money, and therefore also the right to put his name in the title). For the rest, apart from the technique of "Step One," they belong to different universes, especially narrative ones. From my point of view, I find Gaiman's universe infinitely superior to Burton's, so my preference goes to Coraline (I would also like to point out that, even artistically, Burton is not that much earlier than Neil Gaiman). But it’s obvious that historically (at least for now), Burton's creature is more important (this seems to be the concept that Panapp wanted to convey). Then there would also be a discussion about the risk of confusing pop and Pop, but that could take too long, so I’ll stop here.

The Scaruffi site is useful because it offers an encyclopedic perspective (and was one of the first to do so regarding rock and "popular" music), and you can find some interesting tips. Now, the fact that there are (and many) historical and conceptual errors is undeniable, but I believe it's inevitable when things become so vast. From my point of view, I find that he starts from some flawed principles of observation, but that's just my perspective, and indeed, this is how his site should be read: as his simple viewpoint and not as the Bible (as many seem to do). Certain phrases I've read here and there in interviews and even on Scaruffi.com give me the impression he doesn't care much for contradiction, but I could be wrong, and it's a typical flaw of professional critics (and many amateurs too), so in the end, not such a terrible thing. One thing he must be recognized for is that he knows how to "sell himself" (in the sense of making himself known to the right audience) very well (and he has been quite adept at anticipating trends online), and some of his concepts are expressed in an engaging manner. I might be being harsh, but he gives me the impression of being superficially engaging—something that catches your attention right away, but as soon as you start assessing its actual substance, you often find yourself facing little phrases thrown out more for sensationalism than for genuine concepts: a bit like what happens, on a smaller scale, in the DeDefinizioni DeBaseriane. Then again, everything contributes, and there are (pro critics and amateurs) far more pretentious than Piero Scaruffi (who still seems to be a person of vast culture, so vast that a mischievous person might even wonder where he finds the time... but that's another story). I adore the album; however, I didn't like the review at all.

For Carlo: West Ham-Napoli on August 8th at Upton Park. Hi!

But by the age of six, there's still time to wait for their children's album! ;-)

To be honest, I don't find it so "nonsense": certainly allegorical and abstract, but I definitely find the nonsense elsewhere (though it depends on the definitions one uses). As for the lack of ideas, I completely disagree: "The Science of Sleep" is a film (controversial, for sure) of formation and, as such, it must deal with certain clichés, but it's Gondry's very personal vision (who is born to divide and provoke contrasting opinions) that ultimately comes through. If I have to find a flaw, it's in the screenplay, which at times feels a tad artificial (the absence of Kaufman is felt), but the rest seems far from trivial to me. As usual, it's all a matter of taste.

Indeed, I had overlooked that, in an Altroverso, another version of myself had already written it... It’s very difficult to be organized when, in this dimension, one is both singular and plural, like yours truly; just imagine when my parallel selves get involved as well! :-D