Babel

I would say it's the opposite (except that Star Wars has nothing to do with science fiction... if anything, it's a fantasy...)

IN ITS PURITY...SCIENCE FICTION IN ITS PURITY...(as ASIMOV said) THE GREATEST SCIENCE FICTION WRITER...and you come to tell me that I don't know anything about science fiction...

Isaac Asimov: "Star Trek is science fiction in its purest form in audio-visual format."

Asimov wouldn't think so...

No because I adore Star Trek and hate Star Wars...

Are you a trekker?

cool the effect of the lightsabers huh!!

Yes, yes, Purplefaith is just a simple science fiction movie, review it as if it were Star Wars and you'll do it well.

Ahhhhhhhhh grave, grave mistake of yours, dear alessioIRIDE!!! ;-))))) My professor of Philosophy of Law (that sick B. Romano, I assure you, one of the greatest and most esteemed contemporary philosophers) would take offense after your intervention (and he would launch into a 4 and a half hour lecture on Dionysus and Apollo... art and the symbol blah blah... gesticulating like one of those people directing military planes with flags...). Anyway, I’ll try to express my thoughts in a few lines: it is true that art needs a symbolic framework (or a symbolic instrument) to exist (the word for poetry, the score for music, the project for architecture... etc.) but fundamentally it is the way one moves within these languages that creates the Work of Art (whether it is the result of a genius or a geniality). The Genius uses this language in a Dionysian way (it dismantles it, reinvents it, goes against its rules, creates a new symbolism, invents within that language, denies it but at the same time accepts it...) while the genial man does it in an Apollonian way (thinks, uses symbols in a more comprehensible manner, employs already established symbols in new ways, reworks things from others (like Kubrick), does not create new languages...) let's be clear, it's not a bad thing, it's just a difference. The example that most often comes up to explain this (my professor does it, but before him, Argan does) is the one between Leonardo and Michelangelo. The former was a Genius (for all the things we’ve discussed), the latter is Genial (same). As for music, dear alessioIRIDE, don't worry: Music is the quintessential Dionysian art (Schopenhauer) because it comes to life and reinvents itself every time the interpreter of that score changes (who can reinterpret it according to their own emotions) and because the possibility of creating new music is practically infinite. This ambivalence (or trivalence, if we consider that the listener reinterprets and re-signifies those notes anew) makes music the highest expression of the Dionysian.

happypippo, it's not that the opening is discouraging... have you read my responses to Mr. Poletti? I only say that Kubrick is not a genius because his creativity is not a Dionysian and schizoid impulse, like that of an Allen. But it's a reasoned creativity (Apollinean, Nietzsche would say), constructed based on already established symbolic patterns... this does not diminish Kubrick, but it doesn't make him a Genius... it makes him, at most, "ingenious". (I could have said he uses "ingenuity," but it doesn't change much) bye!