Il_Paolo

Very well, there is a typo, the correct title is "Enciclopedia Pa_olistica".

And to close the circle, in this film Carati and Guida prominently showcase their (not-so-great-looking) feet.

I quote from the "Paolistic Encyclopedia" [Madrid, 1939]: "In all foundational myths, the serpent is a bearer of knowledge (and indeed is also a symbol of healers), thus that entity which breaks the bond between man and nature and positions itself across Deus (sive Natura) and Man = dia ballein>diabolon>the one who indeed places himself across. When Eve picks the fruit of knowledge - better: has Adam pick it as we marvelously see in Superfantozzi - it thrusts humanity into the world, and makes it aware of its mortality, as well as its individuality (shaming it of its modesty, but, curiously, not of its feet: and indeed the fig leaf is invented before shoes). In any case, the devil makes pots but not flip-flops, which are still worn today by women who are unafraid to show off their feet. The most dangerous, probably."

Lewis, what do you think, where do you think I got my passion for Fred?? ;) I love that movie and it was actually Fred who did the soundtrack! Lavalin and Muito... what can I say, it was common knowledge. SV, Il_Paolo

Always great and fertile Muito. Tarantino is openly a foot fetishist, although I don't understand why he likes Thurman's feet, which – showcased in Kill Bill – are nothing short of horrendous. Another well-known foot fetishist is Catherine Deneuve, one of the few who loves to showcase her extremities. And also Carla Bruni in Sarkozy.

@Lewis, you are touching on my "mission" closely and you deserve a clarification. So, regarding Bongusto, I stand by my judgment; he was great for the reasons I hinted at in the review. The lyrics of "Balliamo," presented like this, seem ridiculous, but when listened to in Fred's smoking room tone, immersed in the environment where this music played and was produced, it takes on – in my humble opinion – an almost petulant, poignant tone, reminiscent of a Cassavetes film. As for Fitzgerald, it's obvious that the reference might seem stretched to you, as it is still the result of an "analogy," a "lofty flight," and a "feeling"... which, for instance, Lavalin and I have experienced. Regardless of the subjectivity of thoughts, I find it charming to wink at those who enjoy reading in these reviews, perhaps suggesting references, crossovers, mental journeys (like yours, which I liked). Maybe someone who has never read the book, but who knows Bongusto by inertia, might feel tempted to go buy it or to learn more about Fitzgerald, etc. I see nothing wrong with all of this; the important thing is to find the key and the enjoyment in overcoming some barriers and having fun together. In the end, they are just words. ST, Il_Paolo

Very well, the red phone rang in my personal study (direct line to you and a few others) and my butler Alfred called me to say you're looking for me: so, "Cuori neri" is a book by Luca Telese (already in Rifondazione Comunista) that reconstructs the stories of the "fascist" victims of the years of lead (e.g. Mantakas, Ramelli, Gianquinto, the Acca Larentia massacre, etc.). It is a beautiful and engaging book, which I recommend you read, as, in my opinion, it does not fall into the trap of revisionism or posthumous glorification but describes an era vividly, without compromises. So, in the underbelly of Roman/Lazio neofascism in the late '70s, the advertiser Sergio Caputo also moved, who seems to have been associated with that environment and the author of some posters, although he tends to downplay these past connections. Until the next bat-episode. ST, Il_Paolo

@Ajeje, I’m responding because, after all, it’s what you expect, and it doesn’t seem fair to disappoint you. I won’t get into the details of your controversies, but their logic escapes me: first, I would be mimicking the great Amadeus (who I preferred in his rockabilly version from the late '80s to early '90s, with that pompadour), suggesting a popular background; then I would be flaunting my intellectualism by quoting books in abundance (you know well that quoting books doesn’t mean having read them); next, I would engage in strange forms of virtual eroticism with my supposed fakes, who, however, are clearly not me (if only because your targets are ladies, and I am, after all, a boy). So, I’ve given you a bit of a chance to <<show off>>, something that you attribute to me: but if I show off, and you show off by saying that I show off, the conclusion that we both must reach is that you are my fake, or I am yours, your choice. @Lukin: I saw your profile and discovered that you like the camogli from the autogrills. I like it too: could it be that you...

Sorry Bowman, it’s just that the styles are similar, and once I called you a genius (about Kocis), and you replied “Rivoli” or vice versa, I can’t remember. That’s where the misunderstanding came from. Regarding the madness of the emperor, I remember Tito was called "delizia del genere umano" or something like that, and he was remembered by the Romans as the good emperor (by the way, he destroyed Jerusalem, but history is written by the victors): thus, my Latin and Greek professor used to comment, half-seriously and half-jokingly, that he had earned that definition because he governed for a short time (I believe 79-81 AD), since if he had lived longer, who knows how many craziness he would have done. Maybe Caligula also had the "misfortune" of ruling too long and getting seduced by power; after all, being a Roman emperor must have been quite a tough job. ST, Il_Paolo

Beautiful phrase, Lavalin, the meaning is very deep (which fits well with the film in question, where the beauty of the actresses is overexposed, triggering the hatred of men). In this regard, I observe something that, by analogy, recalls Sciascia: have you ever noticed that, in the general exposure of female bodies seen almost everywhere, the only part of the body that is never exposed is the foot (except for a few exceptions)? It is skillfully concealed in all the risqué photos; even in some scandalous movies, you see everything and more, but the women wear shoes that are strictly covered, the same goes for television. This is obvious, and I wonder why (I know that some psychologists have woven various considerations about the phallic appeal of the female foot). The only one who, I believe intentionally, has broken this taboo is Tarantino in "Death Proof." I don't know... there must be some reason for it. For Lavalin: post 7 = rhetorical question.