El Guevo

Odradek, I share everything you say, but I know the history of cinema and this film is indeed a masterpiece. It was a revolutionary film that has influenced all American independent filmmaking up to today; even Pulp Fiction and Tarantino are children of this work born from the minds of Lynch and Gifford.

You are right, good metalhead, the first feature film is Segni di Vita. I Nani and Fata Morgana are from the same year, although Fata Morgana was filmed before I Nani. Anyway, Fata Morgana was officially presented for the first time at the Cannes Film Festival in 1971, while at the same festival the year before I Nani had been presented, so you are correct regarding the dates. I was mistakenly referring to the first feature film because it was Herzog's first project, although the long gestation (three years or more) delayed its release date... it's a bit like Let It Be, the last Beatles album, even though in reality the last recordings are those of Abbey Road.

Good metallurgist, I don’t want to stir up controversy either, but for the sake of the record, it’s important to state what’s right. I own everything Herzog has done that has been released on DVD; these DVDs are packed with information. The release year of *Fata Morgana* is 1968, and the one about the dwarfs is from 1970. Perhaps in Italy, the one about the dwarfs was released first, but what matters is what he did before.

Yes bogus, the film directed by Herzog about the damages caused by the war in the Gulf is Apocalypse in the Desert.

No, good Mettallaro, the first feature film is Fata Morgana, I recommend you check out Herzog's filmography. Moreover, "Even Dwarfs Started Small" had been stigmatized by all critics, labeling it as a perverse and immoral film. Herzog himself justified his choice to make this film by stating that it was a sick film made by a sick person, a sickness (malaria, depression, rage, nervous breakdown) that Herzog in fact contracted during the production (three years of traveling) for Fata Morgana.

Psyco, can you explain what all that you said has to do with what we were talking about?

No, Zappa has always been sincere; you're mistaken. I know his entire body of work well—records, books, documentaries, films—and it's not as you say. If you carefully revisit certain things and listen to those records starting from the early ones, you realize that the influence of drugs is not present, something confirmed by the author himself, who, among other things, did not want drug users in his band and would immediately distance himself from those who were. Zappa has also explained several times the commercial failure of his music, precisely because he was not a drug addict. You're right to say that Zappa joked about these things, but if you know Zappa well, then you'll know that he was always joking, yet he was always serious, and in joking, he always told the truth.

It's true, but there are also exceptions like Frank Zappa and Jonathan Richman; we mustn't forget that.

Ok... but with you, we always end up talking about drugs.