Purpulan

Well, the bonus live tracks on Leviathan weren't that great, but you can't argue with them; they kick ass while grinning (and they're a bunch of idiots with functioning brains).

Years ago, I remember the tale of "Emo-Core" was more or less this: the term was applied to hardcore-derived bands (even quite seminal ones) like Rites of Spring and Nation of Ulysses, which had an angry and hard sound, yes, but proposed sudden melodic openings and an almost epic progression, often in the choruses; this found a rather random application (so much so that even the early Deftones were labeled "Emo-Core")... hence the mockery from later bands, such as Texas is The Reason or Promise Ring, which claimed a punk direction but, in effect, presented no heaviness or roughness in sound, and therefore were called by the original supporters of the label: "Emo-..." and that's it! Well, the Blink are not even "Emo-..." and that's it!

I was referring to that despicable adaptation that Liliana Cavani could have spared herself/us. There’s nothing to say about Wenders’ reinterpretation; the plot, or rather the underlying framework, hasn’t been distorted, he has magnificently transformed it into images, recontextualizing those elements that are useful for a discourse that is properly "filmic" within his own "poetics." It's understandable that those who love Highsmith's work too much might frown upon it, but it's the usual issue of the signifier (rather than the signified) in literature versus that in the audiovisual realm.

You too, Supersoul, I knew that "Ripley's Game" would come up sooner or later on this topic, but did it really have to be you to bring it up?!

Alright, let's leave it alone, they've even Dereferenced it....(the nonsense here never lacks)...

@ Sanjuro: if you miss it, go watch "Shaun of the Dead" by Edgar Wright (Italian title "L'alba dei morti Dementi").

@ Fusillo: known AND WANTED. After all, even my tastes are pro Keaton. But the Chaplin/Keaton quarrel really gets on my nerves (and its "emptiness" in persisting is the only nice theme developed in "The Dreamers," by the way).

I quote Supersoul and raise the stakes; Arcand, more than 15 years later, tries to give depth to a work that is unnecessarily "verbose" by introducing a comparison with the "inevitable," but he just can't pull it off and ends up bogged down in yet another exercise of polished but superficial rhetoric. Much better any reflection from the worst Bergman (let's name one, "Autumn Sonata").

Oh, the long-standing debate of Chaplin vs. Keaton, which I personally find pointless. Two great and very different authors that should be appreciated in an anthology. Keaton couldn't and didn't want to overcome the "trauma" of sound, period. Chaplin has a varied filmography and made films until the end of his days (over 80 films), and he even paid tribute to the supposed "rival" with a few cameos. The two followed somewhat (but you're forcing me here) parallel paths for less than 10 years, out of the more than 50 years of Charles Spencer's filmmaking career. Period. As for the "Steadicam" issue, it all relates to a mere question of patents and licenses, as well as names that have become commonplace, but to give an example, even in the 1920s (sssht, enough with the Chaplin/Keaton talk!) Murnau, with the help of some UFA technicians, patented (among other things) a system of harnesses with differential balancing that automatically adjusted the movements of the shoulder-mounted camera to those of its operator.

Don't worry Muffin, the Italian version lasting 120 minutes was the first theatrical release (but not approved by Kubrick), the one we all know and which is available on DVD is the definitive and original version.