odradek

Eggrazie Festwca!

Well, Smarty, I don't know if you were joking or if it was an outing, but it doesn't scandalize me at all. We love things whose value is attributed by us, based on reasons that are often not "defendable" and mysterious, and we don't give a damn if it isn't decreed by the tablets of the law of some blowhard. Critical judgment is another matter, and they don't always coincide. I'm signing off; I need to do some home plumbing repairs, with the risk of flooding...

Why not, Know-it-all? It's exactly one of the hypotheses I had in mind, I also use DeB for this.. It's happened with some records, the "consistency" in tastes is rather depressing, don't you think?

But what knowledge, SuperS. It's just that I'm old, and every now and then something bubbles up from the sieve of my memory... You, on the other hand, seem to be thoroughly informed about everything you write. I hardly ever am; I rely on the sieve. Regards.

I only have "Sinistri". Then I lost track of them a bit. What year is this from?

@Supersoul: are you biking there? You'll arrive exhausted... :)) Where's the race?

Always interesting are the replies of Saputello. But what you call "characteristic" finds its reason for existence as I watch the films you mention, while in this case it seems the opposite. -@ alessioIRIDE: it’s not about "flaws" in the narrative or possible incongruences (which are of little significance, even if present) but about the whole structure of the film, which doesn't seem to hold up under the weight of the piled-up references it contains. But I'll do more: I'll rewatch it, since it’s been a while since I last saw it, and I’ll try to note more precisely what I have said so far, relying on what I remembered from that particular viewing in the cinema. And sooner or later, I’ll return to this page and try to give you some examples, or maybe I’ll find out that I've changed my mind and I’ll testify to that. After all, I don’t have to create rankings of the 100 best films of all time or compare my opinion with any film critic's: these are concerns of other users, it seems. :))

But what kind of talk is this? How could it have aged poorly? Go watch the films released that year and tell me how many and which ones have "aged" better. The fact that it was heavily influenced by censorship (shot with the handbrake on) and still turned out to be an excellent film clashes with evaluations made today that don't take this into account (like yours). EWS, on the other hand, started aging while it was being filmed; it aged right in the director's hands. And there was no censorship to hold it back, only the rhetorical maze he built for himself and got lost in.

I'm listening to it, with the only exception of the track "The Heidnik Manoeuvre," which I couldn't find (by the way: it's not that...) Beautiful, me gusta. Even more than other things by Foetus. Well done, Festwca.

Yes, it is true that it should be placed in an "early" phase of the career and that he would have liked to "redo it," but you need to consider the fact that precisely because of the limitations of the time and censorship, the film is played on an allusive register and features a formidable performance, which nonetheless conveys the trap of obsession that runs through the book. Meanwhile, in E.W.S., with virtually limitless possibilities, the excess of representation you mention devours the film, creating a rhetorical tangle that unravels only thanks to the viewer's goodwill. The trap in this case (as the timing and methods of its realization also testify) is Kubrick vs. Kubrick...