Eneathedevil

Indeed, from the photo it looks a bit fancy.
As for the rest, you know well that this music isn’t in my ephemeral list, but you’re always good - except for those usual wild paragraphs - so you might just manage to convince me to give it a listen.

I'm in a period - lasting about twenty years - in which I'm reevaluating this album, in the sense that I've always thought it was nice but not on par with its contemporary sibling; however, if in my listens from the 2000s I had given Sono solo canzonette an 8.5/10 (I might be exaggerating) and this one a 7/10, and in the 2000s I had given the first an 8/10 and this a 7.5/10, who knows, maybe in a few years they will even out or even Uffà Uffà will surpass the Canzonette. Maybe we'll catch up in a couple of years and I'll let you know.

Just like that, Micah always reminds me of the illustrious column "Voices of Singers Completely Dissociated from Their Bodies," of which honorary members include Demis Roussos, Mark Hollis, Francesco di Giacomo, the singer of Future Islands, and David Thomas (by the way!).
And yes, the law of conservation of sadness is an inescapable foundation: whether it's exchanged outwardly, repressed, or metabolized, it always remains conserved in an isolated system.

I can't stand it, Wim. And I'm afraid that the film will manage to ruin the genuine and authentic image of the small village of Gangi.

With this new setting of the review preview in CasaPagina based on the first paragraph, I thought the writing was all encapsulated in that "I am a monster," which would have truly been a masterpiece of synthesis and precision. But no: there was so much more. And it's always good and right to acknowledge the fact that, all things considered, I’ve never really been a fan of David Thomas, nor have I ever found in him those much-talked-about vocal talents, due to a certain natural reluctance towards his timbre. But to the torment of someone like me who struggles to pinpoint the origins of personal idiosyncrasies, here is the word from @[lector] that provides the longed-for answer: "Thomas sits among the Holy Trinity of the Liberatory Scream, to the right of Captain Beefheart and to the left of Tom Waits." It is here that the truth unfolds, as it is no coincidence that this triumvirate accompanies Ubu Roi with two artists I’ve never loved and would struggle to listen to any record of.

However, the subtext (or text?) that refers to Patafisica (certainly, they were not the first musicians to resort to it, but four crazy ones from Canterbury) remains the most interesting aspect. And who knows what an experience it would be to see that two-meter-tall man move feverishly on stage in the grip of his hypnagogic convulsions.

It's an interesting reflection, as it actually adds an additional dimension to the literary subject being reviewed, probably creating the first case - but I could be wrong - of a review on an audiobook, which is in fact a different object from the printed book. It's true: in these cases, the reader's voice becomes a discriminating factor that impacts positively or negatively on the final judgment. I'm not an audiobook listener, but just to provide an anachronistic yet equally fitting example, how much added value could Montale have given with his demeanor and his rich, husky voice to the reading of one of his poems? Okay, different planes, but the theme is the same. So from my point of view, it really makes sense to talk about a new genre to be reviewed and yes, the judgment cannot help but be influenced by the auditory aspect, because frankly, speaking for myself, I would struggle to separate the text from the voice, to the point that a tone not aligned with my tastes could make the text seem tedious, just as a pleasing one might make it appear better than it actually is.
Kudos to the reviewer, though. A bit didactic, but definitely has room for improvement.

It is a Zibaldone, there is no doubt about it.

I liked your revival of this, Stan, but I got a bit of asthma reading the two central paragraphs (maybe they needed some pauses?). Anyway, yes, the theme is what you said: the film is too short. It could have become an iconic film given the premises and the fantastic collective performance of the magnificent four, but it really seems that Polanski doesn't know how to extricate himself from a mechanism that could potentially last forever and which needs some trick to find a way out. What a shame. However, Winslet and Waltz seem made to live together forcibly, with all the misunderstandings and poorly tolerated grievances of a mature couple that is always perilously on the verge of exploding. And that's enough for me.

WHO DOESN'T KNOW ONE AND I MEAN ONE SINGLE SONG BY THESE HERE, PUT BËL ON THIS COMMENT, THANK YOU.

Good job, Riba, you are one of the few here to resurrect these works from the "anta" era that clearly don't find favor with the internet intelligentsia today. I haven't seen this one, but I have a (semi)problem with Hawks: having watched his famous comedies like "Susanna!", "The Magnificent Hoax," and "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" (which I mention for the record), I find that his humor was certainly overwhelming in some gags, but far from being sharp and sarcastic as it was, for example, in Wilder’s films, who remains my favorite. Clearly, my assessment may be flawed due to limited knowledge in both cases (in Wilder’s case, I think I’ve only seen a total of six films). However, they are certainly films that can always be enjoyed (despite Cooper's stiffness in certain romantic comedies). Bye, you handsome devil.