Pietro Minchiadura

Canned tuna TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC

Uhm, you don't entirely convince me. Just know that it wasn't just one comment, it wasn't just one moment: it was a whole series of posts from different moments and days where you supported that "average" judgment. It must have been a real period when you were denying that awareness. Now, don't be nostalgic, we’re not completely atrophied! It’s just that the vein of the "polemicists" has loosened. Courage, that's what it takes!

Yes, exactly. About the story of the width, all I can say is that you're a pig.

It's becoming somewhat of a challenge provoked by external factors: the more I read certain comments, the more I'm convinced that this film is worth it. I repeat: the comparison between the book and the film is ridiculous. Furthermore, the fact that the scene with the child is incomplete here and there seems quite negligible to me. But where is it written that the film must follow the book it's based on to the letter? Is it not plausibly a merit to reproduce the same brutality of the book’s imagery? I couldn't care less about the lack of completeness in the description; what matters to me is that it is a good description, and to me, it is. Then the comparisons with more realistically toxic films... meh. Bubi got it right: this film has power. I further correct his comment: it doesn't matter if the film is truthful, it doesn't matter if the film is inconsistent with the book, and above all, I add, the message about the problem of drugs doesn't matter either. It's a film about drugs, and the perspective isn't moralistic as many want to believe. For me, I repeat, this obsession with comparison is unwarranted. Zaione is 10,000 times more right when he says he goes crazy when "Born Slippy" plays, which isn't in the book. That's also part of the film, in all of its crude failure to uphold the goodness of the text. Who cares if they don't kick the child?

Oh, sorry, I had missed your latest pearls of wisdom. Oh oh. <<<Recognizability only attests to the fact that a certain artistic product has been appreciated by a wide audience>>>... but what nonsense are you talking? You really didn’t get it. I'm not talking about fame; I'm talking about citationism. I wasn't talking about "knowability," but "recognizability": you might be referring to the former. The Beatles are recognizable because they have their unmistakable stylistic signature, and so do Pere Ubu. Then the Beatles are extremely well-known, whereas nobody cares about Pere Ubu. But that pertains to the fame of the product, which has nothing to do with what I was saying. The example is Jacques Tati. He is memorable; he has remained in the memory of a circle of connoisseurs who drew inspiration from him: that's why he is recognizable. But he's not widely known, loved by the masses, and blah blah blah. By collective memory, I didn’t mean the memory of the multitude: I also refer to a narrow circle that appreciated the uniqueness of the stylistic signature of that work. You might say, "You expressed yourself poorly," yes, okay, but it wasn't so unintelligible in light of what I've said. Anyway, in any case, I didn’t mean to say that.

Very well, while comrade Pretazzo and comrade Metallaro are at each other's throats, I am focusing on something entirely different, and I want clear answers. Kosmogabri. Now you must tell me why you gave a 5 after everything that has happened, everything we've said to each other, everything we suffered just a year ago during the review of the same album here on debaser. You had given this album a 3. I mean, now we've gone all the way to the highest honors. I want convincing explanations, or this will be quite a blow to my heart.

RESPECT FOR CAMERATA PRETAZZO!

I’m being honest: it’s unlikely I’ll see him again, too boring (for me). While I don’t offer interpretations, I do repeat that I’ve nonetheless provided an interpretation indirectly, which is that Kubrick didn’t think of a precise explanation for everything he scattered throughout the film. For this reason, I don’t think it’s useful to get too worked up about it: in a sense, I profess agnosticism, which clashes quite a bit with metaphysics as such (who knows what this metaphysics really is, hehe) and I’ll defer the discussion to the next feast. Take care!

Hey, what a blast from the past. I’ll stick my neck out for Celentano the actor: the movies were cute, light, and fun. That just about meets the passing mark.

The discussion that arose about the comparison with the book is, in my opinion, futile and unwarranted, although a reference to the book should have been made in the review. I haven’t read the book, nor will I ever read it: as far as I'm concerned, the film is good, with three or four scenes (which Bubi also mentioned) of great imaginative stature. I find the comparison with "glialtrifilmsulladroga" even more ridiculous: I repeat, the result achieved by this film is still remarkable in absolute terms.