odradek

El Guevo, I believe you understood the meaning of my boring intrusions: I don't doubt the influence of certain things, but if you know cinema, and I certainly don't doubt that either, damn it, you know that it’s almost impossible to mark so definitively the beginning and end of the journey of even a single "invention": for example, as far as I remember, everything was already there in Blue Velvet, in different forms, applied to other material. The novel, after all, is already a screenplay in itself... It's not a bad movie, of course. You must have seen other films that drew from here, and you might have missed others that it drew from. Definitely entertaining, but as far as its contribution to "History" is concerned, I fear this is not the Lynch film to choose, and since you mentioned them, I believe that "Le Iene" is absolutely more interesting than Pulp Fiction, in this sense, even though I liked both. You know I would leave History where it is, but if we want to choose one, I think we should ask him: maybe we could ask Isabella to interview him about it... Damn, where did I put that damned number...

Always for Giubbo: regarding the history of cinema. Lynch is always interesting, even when he misses the mark. I started with Eraserhead, in the cinema, and it was a great "vision." (All the films being discussed should be seen at least once in a theater...) Being placed in the infamous "cult" category does not benefit "La Mente che cancella" any more than any work, increasing interest in the object as a fetish. Then I watched them all, precisely because he is an author capable of making an impact on cinematic language and, for the reasons already stated, I find it interesting. Some aspects of Mulholland Drive are also worthy of attention for me, and I've seen the film more than once. I’m attached to Blue Velvet, but it’s not a critical preference; it’s really a matter of "heart," even though the lady from Mulholland...

Well, aside from the irony, it's precisely because I lack sufficient "culture" that I avoid spouting off and I don't like listening to it. However, I have a great interest; I've seen and rewatched thousands of films, read some texts that have helped me understand a few things, including the complexity of the subject. Just a simple little thing, just to make a point: isn't it insufficient to say "one of my favorite films" without bringing up the History of cinema every time? It would be good to at least know it all to do that, wouldn’t it? I, for example, am not capable of identifying the best toothpick in the History of toothpicks, since I don't have in mind some Central Asian models from the 13th century. Well, don't mind me; I'm boring even to myself. Have a nice day.

Hal is Cooder's most "literary" album musically... Enjoy the purchase. Thank you.

Here, "...one of the greatest masterpieces in the history of cinema" is one of the phrases I would like to see used with greater caution. For two reasons, at least: the first is obvious, especially if one has any genuine interest in the history of cinema; the second is that, on its own, it manages to "deconstruct" almost every context in which it is placed, even if it is part of a somewhat shareable text, like this one.
I had promised myself not to intervene in movie reviews anymore, but it is really difficult to resist, in the face of the approximation (in some cases unforgivable) regarding the subject, often complex and on different levels, or the tendency to express hasty absolute judgments, without even the attempt to adequately support them. The least digestible thing, then, are the attempts to "explain to us" the meaning of the film. Sometimes frankly painful (this is not the case here). Obviously, the freedom of choice, guaranteed by DeBaser, applies to both the "reviewers" and the readers, who ultimately have the option not to read. But they also have the option to express an opinion, sometimes with the possibility of being misunderstood. I hope this is not the case.

If someone else doesn't do it sooner or later, I'll write a few lines about Hallucination Engine. And there are indeed good things about Laswell, even if I don't find him too "likable."

What DID NOT Bill Laswell do?

No, I don't think there is any relationship. Of any kind. This is truly the most consistent product of Eno's work over the last 30 years. If you know him, in fact, it is precisely this homogeneity that leads to statements like Hal's ("You know what? It's 'just' a record of Brian Eno's songs"). And it leaves me a bit disappointed because, while hoping for a significant shift toward "singability" (Eno would be capable of magnificent things in that sense), this is exactly the record I was expecting. But, of course, even though it is so definitive, it is strictly a personal opinion. Have a good day.

I didn't bring up Duchamp, Eno did. The reason I revisited that matter, I believe, is expressed quite clearly in the non-review. Rather: Radiohead? Their early albums? What relevance? Based on what kind of space-time maneuver? I'm curious, can you elaborate?

Mc Sampyr, I’m pleasantly surprised by your choice, although I must agree with the very determined notes from Kosmogabri. When “…certain music moves your hands, and there’s nothing you can do about it… she writes, not you,” you still have the option to not send it right away and reread, so maybe you’ll write a little too…
Cheers & kisses