Eneathedevil

Oh my, oh my, how many nonsense. Take it easy. First of all, Straight, with all due respect, in every situation you ramble on with some parable. Starting with the encounter with the pregnant hitchhiker in crisis with the world and her family (is this directed by Muccino or what?), where all the talk about feelings and bundles is laid out (how predictable is that? Quite a bit. Yet it doesn’t mean that a true story has to be predictable. On the contrary, the truer a story is, the more random it is), ending in a flood of tears along with the buddy during war memories, passing through the cheerful barbecue where a forced exchange of dialogues occurs in which Straight makes another comment about old age (here comes the "TV-movie timing" issue, but we’ll get to that, don’t worry). Regarding the issue of good/evil, you almost make me feel sorry for you, because I don’t understand if you’re serious or if you’ve simply been fooled by the dimension you want to give to what you see. You talk to me about manichaeism in Elephant Man: let’s say it’s true, my response is "who cares." I hope I’ve made myself clear. If I haven’t, I’ll write at the bottom that I don’t think it could have been any different, given Merrick’s "true story." Then, the nuances are an unnecessary issue poorly handled by you. Let me tell you: watch it again. And specifically rewatch the scene where a stunned Treves asks his companion: "Am I a good man?" questioning his conduct regarding Merrick. But let’s get back to Straight. But really? Hey, Straight is more true gnè gnè. What is that? Would you like to suspend him between good and evil because he killed a man? Come on. He is a good man, period. In fact, let’s admit that he might not have been in life: in the film, he is. He dispenses good advice, he is wise, he is relentlessly searching for his brother, he takes in the "disabled" daughter... and you talk about nuances? And you also mention the fact that he killed a man? Thank you, he did it by mistake, so even in his reconstruction, our solidarity must go to him, especially seeing him heartbroken.

But I have to get a little stone off my chest, especially since I completely lost sight of this one. I mean, was there a more enthusiastic ovation than the one for Elephant Man? In my opinion, Elephant would eat this one alive, and I can’t understand how it could be otherwise. Let’s start from the premise that some fool has said this is better than the elephant man; it’s less tear-jerking. First of all, if we want to evaluate the easy tear business, this one is definitely much more tearful; it’s stuff that even kindergarten kids would understand: a journey as long as an odyssey where every single word from Straight refers to an emotional reality, whether it’s family, youth, old age, times gone by, brotherhood, war, and so on. Tears, or supposedly so, are sprinkled throughout, moreover anchored to a certain moralism that’s rather simplistic here and there. Elephant is much drier; Merrick speaks a lot less. But without wanting to refer to that parameter, I wonder how this film can appear like a gem, both for its inherent value and especially in comparison to Elephant Man. It has a tragically TV-movie setup: timing, images, and dialogues from a fiction, a whole other thing compared to Merrick, where the stature of the film, moreover in dreamy black and white, is clear and wonderfully fascinating. But then, how much rhetoric. Okay, it’s a true story (just like Elephant, of course), but damn, in a way this supposed justification of every banality of the film in light of the fact that it must simply be understood as a "straight story" from here and there gets on my nerves. I couldn’t care less about Lynch’s declaration of intent: I look at the result, and the result is simplistic fiction, albeit inspired by a beautiful real story. Except for Badalamenti (even here there’s something to complain about: do we really need that heart-wrenching Laurens Walking repeated 2000 times? Another sign of a simplistic messaging intent... and this time it has nothing to do with Straight's story), Farnsworth, and the dryness of the few words (finally no torrent like in Mulino Bianco's style!) between the Straight brothers in the final encounter. I can’t give it more than a passing grade. This is to respond to a certain fool who makes personal rankings of Lynch's works with criminal intent.

This is a moment I have been waiting for years, since that day when, around "Ovo", I met a man whom more than any other living being I should have adored as a mentor of sound and far-sighted principles. I don’t want to waste it with any presumptuousness, with sterile prosopopoeia that would strip the moment of its magic. Only my utmost appreciation, undifferentiated. For you.

We had said, Punisher, that you would cite your sources: that was the agreement. Until now, I have understood and forgiven you, but this time you have truly shown that you want to take us for fools. We said "citationism," and you promised you would cite the sources. You didn’t -----> You're taking us for fools. I don't know how to explain it to you further. You are alienating half the world that was still your friend. Are you going to run around saying that Debaser won't publish you? But you see: it’s not a matter of content now; it’s not a literary issue concerning your character; it’s a problem that goes beyond that: you're taking us for fools. Frankly, I even enjoy being taken for a fool, but not like this: not for me, but because I feel shame for you. I feel it because you don’t have any: personally, if I had been caught even once taking phrases, however reworked from who knows who, I would feel like crap. I would feel like crap especially seeing myself stuck with that disclaimer from morons. There you go, I would be embarrassed and feel stupid. But anyway, do as you please. I will no longer advocate for your cause, nor will I comment on you anymore. I remind you, by the way, that there is a whole world of other idiots to take for fools. Take care.

Grasshopper, commenting on a review of Puzzisher where a "minor" Davis album was harshly critiqued, said that our own was caught in one of the few good openings to strike; after all, the same thing happens here: Bang finds one of the few minor episodes of Fellini and dives in headfirst. Let's say he's partly right, and it’s too easy to demonstrate that in purely chronological terms, Fellini's vein is not that of "Le notti di Cabiria," "8 e 1/2," or "La dolce Vita"; nonetheless, there remains in this a consistently brilliant overarching vision, there's a solid performance from Benigni and Villaggio, and a certain "stature." I can't give you less than 4.

One of the best Allens, unexpectedly recent. The descent into hell is anthological. A crescendo of ideas, an example of masturbatory genius on par with Fellini in 8½. Phenomenal.

5 to Harrison

A must of the genre.

It is, in its own way, delightful. A brief but virtuosic gem. Never claimed it was meant to be funny, as some think (even with the necessary post-factum clarifications). Moreover, that someone should be banned from these places, but not for issues of climbing (after all, if it pleases them to consider 3 stars equivalent to 7/10, so be it), but for the corrupt and treacherous standards of evaluation. The point is: 6.5 for this? 6.5 for Elephant Man? This person is a scoundrel. Let's stop him.