sorciopeloso

j&r has really understood everything

that is the most beautiful scene of the whole movie _

Inside here there’s too much, with excellent pieces mixed with others that, as they are, make Sandinista a missed masterpiece.

"it's crap not because I say so, but because it simply is" that's not arguing, eh! That said, it seems to me that here he confuses two completely separate things: art (which, sure, may not be of the highest quality) and ethics (which, among other things, is not a universal concept that is the same for everyone). As I’ve also written before, if one simply says "I don’t like it" (even though here, as in any other case, votes of confidence are not exactly synonymous with maturity), there’s nothing to dispute: it’s all the subsequent discussions, read here and in other reviews, that are not shareable (for instance: can art only deal with positive, elevated, 'correct', 'ethically acceptable' themes? And what about all horror, noir, grotesque productions, and so on: are they all garbage to be condemned regardless? Again, no one has addressed the issue of Salò). One last note since this might not be clear: I’m not justifying my supposed personal tastes; I listen to other things (elsewhere I jokingly mentioned that if it were up to me, I would abolish generic gore bands, and here I’ve repeated a couple of times that I don’t like Asesino), I simply find the presumption of certain comments based on nothing annoying and, above all, I find the conclusions they want to reach questionable.

uh uh :D

Okay, now it's clearer (unfortunately, I can't check it, my copy of the ciddì is far far away :( )

@ Larock: I knew we would end up there; it's the same nonsense that people said "school shootings in America are Marilyn Manson's fault!!!" or "Slayer are Nazis!!!". The debauched kid certainly doesn’t need to hear the 'deviant, extremely bad messages of metal bands that damn-it-isn't-understood-that-the-s inger-doesn't-take-it-seriously' to do stupid things. I hope you don't believe that crime is due to music, or comics, etc.: otherwise, we’re falling into ridiculousness. You responded to my quote about Kiss, and no, I don't agree with what you're saying: language (besides, language isn't just words; everything that surrounds us is language) is a marvelous tool precisely for its versatility, with the existence of irony, sarcasm, metaphors, and so on: when you read a satirical text, do you often get that the author means the exact opposite of what they are saying? Of course, there are those who don't get it, but that’s the fault of the individual’s stupidity (the debauched kid), not someone else’s. It's the exact same thing here. I would have been curious to read an answer to Pasolini’s example; it fits well, I think, with what I just wrote. Upon closer inspection, the only thing I can agree on—and it seems that this isn't in question—is the matter of personal taste ("blue striped cow sucks"), because, as we know, de gustibus...as long as personal tastes aren’t confused with absolute truth.

But the only ones who take it seriously are those who are scandalized by these texts, not me; that's precisely the point. For some time now, on Debaser, there have been "scandalized" messages about childish things, and I was curious to know the reasoning behind them (but I'm starting to fear there isn't any). I’m not trying to remain objective, but that doesn't prevent me from using my head: on the subject of "art and expression" (even in the case of nonsense like this, whether we like it or not, it's still art; maybe not particularly 'high,' but that's not the point), I have a specific opinion, and I obviously build my argument on that. Others don't seem to do the same. Look: it should be thought-provoking—or laughable if we don’t want to take ourselves too seriously—that some people get scandalized just by hearsay (as larock openly admitted: as if I knew the lyrics of the aforementioned song beforehand... I searched for it; with Google, it takes a maximum of 10 seconds). Then, of course, you wanted to interpret my intervention as an apology for Asesino; you know I don't care, I don't even like them. I was trying to make a general discourse, but obviously, it was mostly ignored (not that I'm particularly surprised; asserting one’s correctness is easier than proving it).

Here’s that chunk of "The icing on the hate." We can agree (except for the part about the instruments and the production, which I didn't quite understand).

@ Larock: from your intervention, it seems you can't separate reality from the artistic dimension: if a group, in an obviously parodying song (and here we're talking about groups and genres that are explicitly parodying), throws out some 'satanic' nonsense, do you really think they believe in the Devil? I see you gave Kiss a solid 5: do you think when Gene Simmons vomits "blood," it's for real, does he believe it, or is it just spectacle? We're talking about the same thing here, all effects-laden nonsense. A higher example: did Pasolini glorify violence, rapes, and tortures? Interpreting him the way you interpret "extreme groups" (lol), through his Salò, one could easily argue that he was nothing more than a sick criminal beast. [Final closing note. Since "trattare" in Italian is not yet synonymous with "promote," it doesn't seem to me that Asesino glorifies pedophilia in any way; rather, their "Padre pedofilo" should be read as an attack on the real plague of pedophile priests, not as praise.]