Il_Paolo

Thank you Muito, I am honored by the dedication to the review, which I read with great pleasure and attention. Am I mistaken in saying that Tazartes operates on a parallel dimension to that of Stratos with the diplofonies and Milleuna? And with an asceticism worthy of the best Diamanda Galas? And that all three are essentially refugees and defectors navigating between multiple cultures? Beautiful, in any case, is the image of language as a loss of original innocence, or better, as a formalization/rationalization of thought that, from this perspective, ends up losing its original will to power, being projected into the world and having to at least conform to the rules of logic. Thank you again, in any case. Sincerely Yours, Il_Paolo

@Ajeje: for once you've hit the nail on the head with the clown. My reference text for the past year has been "Opinions of a Clown" by H. Boll, which I admit has inspired certain remarks from Il_Paolo. It's truly a great book, profound and ironic, although it offers little in the way of hope: I recommend it, perhaps it will soothe your spirit. @Lavalin (and Muito): in a circular way, we are victims of our own readings. As it is said in a famous story by a well-known blind writer, referring to the reviewers and commentators on Debaser: "They were in Debaser; Debaser was expanded through them, but Debaser did not know them."

Ajeje, I would only be happy to "be" Lavalin, Dr. Adder, and the others. It's not so, but it's better, as they give me the opportunity to share a bit of frivolity and lightness on these little pages, with that politeness and style that many, clouded by who knows what, do not show. As for fake, your nickname comes from a film dear to Poletti, I don't think it's a coincidence. Lightheartedly Yours, Il_Paolo

I almost forgot, of course, Ajeje (post 147): by "patetici" you mean full of pathos, I suppose. And therefore, I can only agree with you. Pathetically Yours, Il_Paolo

Thank you Lavalin, thank you Dr. Adder (and, implicitly, thank you Supersoul and at least Muito) for your heartfelt presence and your wonderful words! After all, Il_Paolo exists thanks to you, because not his first - but his subsequent reviews are in part inspired by your comments and reflections: the text is born from the will of the reader. And it is splendid - almost a confirmation of the irony and oddities of life, and, therefore, of the very idea of "game" in the noble sense of the term - that this originates as a gloss on a film by Vanzina. In which - by the way - characters like Poletti and Contemplazione would fit perfectly, playing the roles of Elias and Tisini in the masculine, or the antagonist of the moment in Il_Paolo-Jerry Calà.

Hello guys, when my mission on Debaser gained momentum, I never would have believed I could provoke the sharp ire and fierce jests of some users on the site. A few reflections on this. The “Contemplation case” – so taken aback by Il_Paolo's reviews that he declared himself the author of them in the form of a fake – recalls, in certain aspects, the narrative found in Koestler's “Darkness at Noon,” where someone falsely confesses to a political crime never committed, in order to sacrifice themselves for the greater Cause of the party: and here Contempla seems to accuse himself of having reviewed “minor” art, in order to bury the supposed fake (and thus the true author) in the name of a superior and hypostatized Muse. Nils Luneberg might have said the opposite: that Contemplation, when he decided to become a fake, did so in the most abject manner: he was Il_Paolo. But even Luneberg’s observation, reported on these pages, seems unconvincing: Contemplation lacks the perfection of the Supreme Being postulated by Luneberg, and Il_Paolo lacks the abjection of the fake that the Swedish theologian referred to. That Contemplation might now be lost in the labyrinth of hypertext, validating Il_Paolo's mission and becoming his sacrificial victim could be admissible, but this presupposes intentional malice in Il_Paolo's reviews, detached from the nature of the reviewer and his underlying playfulness, as well as a latent madness that ill-behoves the jazz lover Contemplation. That Contemplation could write what you have read seems, in any case, impossible: and, assuming every word embodies the complexity of the Universe, the Universe of Il_Paolo does not coincide with that of Contemplation. Analytically Yours, Il_Paolo

Don’t worry guys, I’m the real Il_Paolo, the one from Contemplazione is just a simple BOUTADE made to shuffle the cards; I hope no one fell for it. The irrefutable proof of this is very simple: I never take myself seriously, the Count, right from his page, does (but I don’t hold it against him). Moreover, the real Il_Paolo is a few years older than the Count, as some have gathered by skimming through my reviews: for instance, he saw this movie AT THE CINEMA when he was already of the age to want it, and partly to understand it. Among other things, Il_Paolo is teetotal and would never spend an evening with a lady drinking wine and listening to music: he would take his car and offer her directly a camogli at a rest area, or at one of the Cento Stazioni. Beware of imitations. Yours truly, Il_Paolo

Adder, you’re right. It’s better to change it. So that people don’t think that Zaireeka is my fake, or I am his. Or that we are both your fakes. And you of Muffin. Together with Ajeje, Contemplazione, and Muitosaudosismo, it’s the fake of...

Well, Muffin, it's been weeks that you and I have been going back and forth on the same old themes. I respect your point of view, but I want to say that even from garbage, with serious and careful recycling, it is possible to draw something good. This something is obviously NOT more garbage; let me explain: if the inspirations that the Vanzina brothers give me, or that they give to someone else, can be useful for writing something curious, sensitive, or even just funny, why not (while still maintaining the freedom to write about other things, or not to read or comment on these little pages)? Perhaps the fact that many people write about these themes (no one has defined this film as a masterpiece, by the way) is because even a popular film touches the sensitivity of many, or prompts many to share their thoughts on the topic or related subjects. I read that some—above (Contemplation, Ajeje)—throw the discussion and my "mission" into the realm of cultural or critical relativism, à la McLuhan, ignoring the fact that I am not interested in relativizing. In my page, there was Derrida—which I have now removed because I consider that symbol exhausted—precisely as a reference to hermeneutics (= what meaning can we attribute to a text) and not as a reference to art or series A or B cinema.

Hey Rì, don’t provoke me with the National Ivona, you’re forcing me to build a fence quicker than I’d like.