Eneathedevil

Ah, ugly consumerist! The chapters are sipped like a Cannonau from '97! What do you think? Remember, I will indeed get to the present day, and when I get there (at least I need to write another 10 chapters, so I expect to finish by 2010) the present day will be the ancient days! The next episode is still set in Germany!

...a bit heavy the review, yes, and also a bit blowuppian (that is, I believe)...!

"Zeit" is a monstrous ball! It deserves the 5 stars just for the colossal opening of Atem!

...I agree!

I swear: I laughed when I read "real feelings"... I thought of a certain Filippo Nardi, what a hoot. Then the thing associated with your goat-like sensitivity makes me crack up. Eh, what can you do? "Allow me not to give 5": do as you please. I contest your value scales, not the proportions: those are now established... if you want to be the new Morando Morandini, I can't stop you. But we want reasonable criticism, not nonsense. Listen to how I lifted you up on this film: timing like a TV movie, predictable dialectic, systematic abuse of the soundtrack. Not your four little turds: it's poetic, it's true, real emotions. PROOOOOOOT. I’m much better at critiquing, you know. I can say nonsense, but damn it, how I say it. What a charming man I am. This regardless of tastes. Good night.

It was a joke, I was being succinct, right? Then the fact that it’s for the masses wasn’t something I stated; it made its way into the conversation between one post and another. Let’s say it’s not for the masses, but it targets a fairly "average" audience for the 10,000 reasons I’ve already mentioned: sentimentalism, easy dialogues, the cheerful wisdom of Uncle Tom, kids are the jewels of your heart, road-movie soundtrack, etc. The point was: my cousin would appreciate it, while he’d run away at the sight of Merrick. For the umpteenth time, you hard-headed fool: watch it again. The film is about Merrick, but it’s also about Treves. It’s no coincidence that Hopkins is involved; he makes an extra-filmic reflection. And he’s an Hamlet-like character. Also, you must love cinema, come on. You will like it, but you want to act refined and educated like a gay critic with nicotine-stained teeth, capable of showering kisses and hugs only on the unbearable lightness of nothingness. How many have you already done, in the realms of Kubrick, Allen… you won’t have an easy time with me. I will ruin you, and I will speak with higher-ups. They will take action and revoke your voting rights.

Well, I told you to stop. At least you've indirectly acknowledged my immense reasons on the matter of "slowness": you said we agreed... alright, I'll take that as given, even if it's a blatant defeat for you. About the matter of shades, you're the usual: you ramble on about Merrick, which we could actually discuss at length, while you conveniently ignore my note on Treves from a previous post, a note that you certainly didn’t appreciate when you saw it, allow me my presumption (how modest I am! I have the self-awareness to point out my rare cases of presumption!). So, I repeat: go check it out for yourself. As a TV movie it seems pretty much aimed at the masses; damn, it’s even a Walt Disney production. It's a film my 7-year-old cousin would watch. Elephant Man probably not; he'd run away traumatized. “Snob-movie”? What nonsense are you writing (another quote from an old guru from around here, n.d.r.), come on now. On the other hand, relating to snobbery, I'm not talking about the authors, but the pretentious air of niche people who often cite these authors: I criticized you and your crowd of cellulose connoisseurs, not the cellulose itself. Damn, today you're too slow. In a way, Caz backs you up, in honor of the old Sardinian crew, but in the end logically gives me more reason. Well, at least one more dissenting voice.

Ahahah, disastrous Ajeje. Basically, you’ve answered yourself. <<<It’s not the story that matters, but how it is presented in the film>>>. Exactly, you realized it; that’s what I clearly said when I stated <<<...In fact, let’s admit that it may not have been in life: in the film it is>>>: in the film, Straight is portrayed as a good guy, maybe I should have written it in capital letters, silly. Indeed, notice how you make the usual own goal: you talk about the non-total goodness referring to the fight. AHAHAHAHAHAHAH... Are you serious? I feel like I'm talking to a poor drunk clinging to a lamppost (learned quote) against whom there’s no need for dialectics. I mean, that’s exactly what you’re talking about. Well, buddy, IN THE FILM, since we’re talking about that, this episode, which could cast Alvin in a bad light, is poorly hinted at. Straight talks about alcohol in a vague manner, it absolutely doesn’t explain the reasons for the fight. It was the only element that could lead us to rethink the judgment, but it’s not even explained well. I mean, incredible own goal, perfectly stacked after the other magnificent own goal about the lookout's murder. About the TV-movie issue, I don’t know, I’m beginning to think you’re clouded. Is it love? Spring? I clearly said that slowness is often a characteristic of TV-movies. I never said that if a film is slow, then it’s a TV-movie. When did I ever say that? Let me give you an example so you understand. I say: it’s often a characteristic of spaghetti to cook within ten minutes. Well, it doesn't mean that if I know I need to hurry up with the pasta within 10 minutes because I have to empty the tank, I can only use spaghetti. There are also bucatini! Then I also talked about images, dialogues, ensembles in short. But if you’re scandalized by this whole issue of the link between slowness and TV-movies, forget it: remove it. It has a TV-movie setup, which was what I wanted to say. About the Ballad of the Assholes and company, I couldn’t care less about looking like a buffoon for not seeing Herzog or who knows who. I don’t care at all. Not that you want me to look that way (even though it’s undeniable that the quotes are learned), but since it often gives off an air of niche preciousness, I don’t give a damn. And I take pride in it. See if you need to make any more own goals. Stop while you’re ahead.

But do you know what really pisses me off? That you managed to pull off a torrone for Merrick. I mean, they're similar movies in a way, portraying true stories, both embedded in the conscience. But that one is Manichean, this one is poetic. I mean, you with the sensitivity of a goat, let yourself be fooled by this stuff... unbelievable.

To conclude, what can I say? It's TV-Movie. Is it slow? And isn’t that often an attitude seen in cheap TV movies? I'm left speechless when you say things like that. "Timing" like in a TV movie, I gave you an example: inserting a line out of context during a moment of the journey just to elicit a few sighs of shared sentiment. Then there's the improbable scene of Farnsworth's illness at the beginning of the film, the surreal and stretched reactions. And what about the passing cyclists? With those absurd and synchronized head movements back and forth from Straight while observing the comings and goings? It feels like watching Walter Nudo despair over a patient’s medical record. I know I'm exaggerating, but it's to make a point: your typical TV-movie emphasis. As for the dialogues, let’s not even go there, I’ve already mentioned it. But then there’s the sad middle-aged couple kissing while she is at the stove. It doesn’t get more TV-Movie than that.