odradek

Well, Macaco, your conclusions are a bit rash, and they don't seem to stem from what I meant in the previous post... the matter is really much more complex than what your statement simplifies it to. The old debate between form and content, meaning and signifier, on the "utility" of art (which inevitably brings along the multitude of even antithetical definitions of that last term) etc. It's better to stay on point, delve into the details of the subject, and analyze the concrete elements that characterize and define it. In a film, images—which are not "aesthetic frivolities" but rather the very body, or vehicle, of the "discourse"—contribute as much as the other elements to generate the supposed "nourishment"... "for the mind and spirit" that you say we need. I don’t know if that’s what I expect to find in a film. I know that some get to the core of my attention, manage to "tell me" something, despite the apparent "simplicity" of their visual apparatus, while others make their way into some corner of my confused mind precisely because of their "aesthetic" power. And to clarify the issue a bit more, I'll tell you that I believe I've always thought (or so it seems) that a film doesn't have to serve a purpose. Even though, it may happen that it turns out to be, in some way, a "nourishment." I’m not quite sure what I've said, but I have the impression that I largely agree. CiaU

And which other Peter Greenaway film would he have "scored" besides "The Belly Of An Architect"? (which, by the way, was initially supposed to be assigned to Glenn Branca; Mertens was chosen as a backup) I can't remember any...

Let's talk about what we know, about what we see. If not being able to watch the film in its original language or with subtitles (the option I generally prefer, when possible) renders any consideration of it meaningless, let the fortunate or enlightened take on that burden. It seems ridiculous to me. If the intent was to highlight the quality of the acting in relation to the things you mentioned, I understand and agree: however, I did not grasp the tone of your opening, as if you, AURICOLARE, had discovered, with extreme wonder and subsequent indignation, the warm water of dubbing and its damages. Having said that, it might be appropriate to accompany this with other elements, the first of which is the very way films are consumed: how many of those who speak about them have seen them in a cinema and how many, now, only inside the box of a TV or on the screen of a computer? This reduction of the image to servitude and the implicit violence towards it should not be additional reasons to ask themselves "…how can you talk about a film?" The fact remains that a film is not, obviously, just one thing or another, and that, taking into account the "mutilations" (which we may have already considered, don't you think?), there are further elements that, as far as I'm concerned, are decisive and more fundamental in constituting a film. This is what we talk about, dear Auricolare, and we do it as we can, from our highly debatable and precarious positions. Sometimes, as in my case, even verbose. Double greetings.

A humble contribution... - - -

Thanks for the tip, I'll listen to it now. You made the right choice to skip the ZOT in this case. If you’re not familiar yet, I recommend getting something by Simon Shaheen, whom you mentioned in the review. I have "The Music of Mohamed Abdel Wahab," published in '91 by Laswell's Axiom. Excellent.

Ah, so I wasn't mistaken: the phrase you mention is also present in the film, while "..the only great lesson that the United States can still teach with its head held high" is your own invention. Okay, I wasn't interested in delving into the usual disputes about the alleged or real American democracy. It's a very complex topic that usually turns into a showcase of biased clichés, on both sides. I just wanted to understand the meaning of your responses. Bye.

Sorry, what do you mean by "The quote is mine"? I believe references to fundamental rights and the constitution have appeared multiple times in Milk's speeches, about which I read some things many years ago. I thought you had taken the phrase from similar material. Instead, should I understand that you wrote it yourself?

Macaco, I think you misunderstood: Milk refers precisely to the fundamental values expressed in the American constitution, with the intent of bringing politics back to these, in stark contrast to the practices of American governments. This is regarding the quotation. The sentence that introduces it is certainly questionable, and I don't remember if that "...great lesson that the United States can still teach with its head held high" is present in the film or if it's the reviewer's work...

Here’s what you needed the foreground for... - Of course, I saved myself from this book, perhaps because I am one of those "ultra-forty-somethings lusting after intimidated twelve-year-olds" :)) - The reflections you make today, re-reading it, almost completely align with what I imagined about the book back then, which is why I kept my distance. Your writing, on the other hand, I always enjoy. CiaU

It didn't seem that impressive to me... a decent film, far from being a masterpiece, very well directed and featuring an excellent performance by Penn, but somehow lacking something, as if it were a sort of scripted documentary turned into a film. And it’s precisely the energy you mention that seemed almost absent to me, stifled by the need to showcase the "civil discourse," shaping the characters accordingly. If I had to give it a rating, I would say 3.5, mainly thanks to Penn.