Purpulan

Never encountered a single flaw in the creative arc of Miyazaki-sensei... so talking about it "well" is the easiest thing in the world... but doing it "well," well, that's definitely much harder... kudos, Bartleboom!
P.S.: a review of "Porco Rosso"?!

Freud said it as he himself died of cancer (of the jaw, and he lived with it for the last 14 years of his life), a nice comparison considering that good old Sigmund passed away right in London (after spending a year there in exile) the day after the outbreak of World War II.

Ipse Dixit

Don't worry Night87, Chatnoir was referring to my "little game".

@ Leonid: the meaning of my period you mentioned is expressed very clearly by Supersoul in post #29 (I had refrained from explanations that had a "moralistic" character, deliberately remaining generic). And that's why I don't find it wrong to provide technical/objective indications (related to the same plot or the way to develop it audiovisually) in a review, while those who insist on defining the "ethical" and/or "content" aspect, in my opinion, detracts from the free interpretation of the observer (and I deliberately do not use the term passive: spectator), which is, in my judgment, what actually makes watching films interesting.

I simply used terms from the ABCs of screenwriting, such as the development of a subject (and thus of a narrative and literary act) to adapt to the more classic theories of staging (and the idea is derivative from Vladimir Propp's structural classifications). I was careful not to provide any interpretations (even just philological ones) of the work in question (I tried this in my review of "Funny Games," which lends itself better to such examinations, but I believe I did not clarify much about Haneke's approach to the cinematic material...). That's all.

mmm, only 2 antagonistic comments?! And here I was, trying to up the ante by including Elliott Smith and Nick Drake (whom I called a drag!). Telespallabob had threatened with much worse arrows and lynch mobs!!!...

Michael Haneke, huh?!... kudos for the choice... it's not easy to find a filmmaker more difficult to review... and I won't even attempt to explain the expressive weight in four words... I suggest, for those interested, to also watch "The Time of the Wolves" (with a deliberate reference to Bergman) and compare it with the film discussed here... the consistency of the main themes might lead one to think of a self-assertive and one-dimensional director... but that’s not the case... the "cupio dissolvi," as the sole and inescapable epitome of the heightened deprivation of meanings "other than self" in Western society, remains the inescapable axiom of all his filmography... and he is accustomed to addressing it with an almost reportorial clarity that does not shy away from penetrating the boundaries of cynicism (but it is equally true that he eschews any form of spectacularization of the cinematic act)... in short, we are talking about an author who does not pose direct questions to the viewer, and in the eventuality that these may arise spontaneously, he takes great care not to provide even the semblance of an answer.

Good the FORM but, in SUBSTANCE, there is only one minor content error...the BABYSHAMBLES.

So here I say it and here I confirm it: for me, Dylan only stirs up the sediments of the crass, the tenuous, and the blind (yes, Robert Allen Zimmerman, scion of Duluth, Minnesota), and while I'm at it, I’ll throw in that other wilted lament of Nick Drake (and I could keep going with "broken heart" Elliott Sm...)!!!