Il_Paolo

Very well, now I should translate for you, focusing solely on Pabst's reviews. However, without elevating myself to the significant examples you provide, I will limit myself to highlighting some analogy between Hillmann's thought and that of another original thinker of the 20th century: Renè Girard. He structures, as you may know, his entire philosophy/anthropology on the concept of the scapegoat, emphasizing how in all traditions there is the sacrifice of the "designated victim." Thus, in Judaism and Christianity, and probably, in my opinion, in many Greek myths (is Prometheus not a victim of the gods when he brings us fire?) and Roman ones (is Remus not sacrificed?). Essentially, sacrifice turns out to be the founding act of every civilization, the blood of one as the cleansing of all. Of course, shifting the axis to Borges's perspective... one might say that the victim (the sacrificed) is Judas himself, so that the entire Western civilization would be founded on his "betrayal." Then I would like to consult a linguist to understand the affinities of the etyma "betrayal" and "tradition"... but we are probably taking off into the stars, perhaps on a Mistral of Bud Spencer (now owned by Poste Italiane and granted for use to the Vatican).

@Lavalin: I quote you in full. Given your (evident) passion for reading, I recommend - if you haven't already read them - Julio Cortazar ("All Fires the Fire") and, with some distinction, the great Durrenmatt ("The Pigeon", "The Judge and His Hangman", "Justice", "The Pledge"). Sorry for the pedantry! @Hetzer: since '82 there have been some reforms, come on: l. 241/1990, Bassanini l. 15/05... that the reforms may have floundered is another story. I love administrative law;

I apologize to the readers of this page for Poletti's words. They too are part of the debaserian hypertext: after all, in a world where anything is possible, given unlimited space and time, everything can be said or written, including the words of the previous post.

@Lavalin: you’re right to say it leaves one bewildered; I’ve been thinking about it for a few days and I’m convinced there’s a little kernel of truth in that story. And, after all, how can one reconcile the perfection of sacrifice with betrayal, if not by admitting that betrayal is a function of sacrifice, and thus, Judas in relation to Christ? @Roby: I was thinking about the two of them; I believe I will do it; then, as you know, it’s often a matter of inspiration, I have to wait for the Muse to visit me at the right moment, otherwise nothing. Thanks also to Senmayan: I must say that some posts (yours, but also Muito, the same Lavalin, Mien etc. etc.) lately have led me to change my narrative style, trying to include more suggestions compared to simple film descriptions. I'm not kidding too much when I say I write "for" you, but mainly "with" you. Semper Vestri, Il_Paolo

However, brilliant as always, Poletti.

@Lavalin, perhaps the best response is to separate Bud Spencer from Carlo Pedersoli: in all public or entertainment figures, there is this split. Bud is what we see – or believe we see – as the good hero of many enjoyable films, as well as the product of the creators and screenwriters of these works. Carlo, probably, a man with the normal idiosyncrasies of anyone, fallible like all of us in flesh and bone, up to those that for me and others may be political "drifts." By the way, I hope you enjoyed “Tre versioni di Giuda,” which if I remember correctly you were supposed to read over the weekend!

@Sick: maybe you're right. But I meant to say that a choice like that from Bud shouldn't really be too surprising. Even though I still find him likable.

@Muito: in the style of Borges... not only are you me, but I am you. We are the two hands that draw each other in Escher's art. That said, besides thanking you for calling me "sumptuous" (like a stopper from another time setting up a counterattack, emerging from the small area like a deer coming out of the forest), I truly appreciate the depth of your reflections. However, I always insist on the biography: for instance, I believe that Leopardi was a great poet because he was ugly and not esteemed by the fairer sex; otherwise, he might have been an excellent Romantic poet whom we could also mock today – like the handsome Foscolo. As for Bud Spencer: what did you expect from a child of the upper bourgeoisie (a shareholder of Mistral Air and – I believe – of Maa insurance)? Of course, when one is small and sees Banana in the cinema (as happened to me), these things are unknown: but Il_Paolo is here for that.

@Sick: be careful, Carlo Pedersoli, son of a rich family of Brescia origins, although born and lived in Naples during his early years (then in South America), might be quite different from the Bud you see in the movies. An upper-class man, more cultured than he seems, and, above all, the brother of one of the most powerful lawyers in Italy, Alessandro Pedersoli.

Muffin, don’t worry. I don’t want to be someone’s defender, but don’t offend Muito, who is among the most attentive reviewers and readers. Hi!