Galakordi Urtis Krat

@cptgaio & friends: guys, take a moment and reflect. you're debating something absolutely silly. we need to realize that "the debate" itself is set on the wrong foundations. on matters of taste, which will always be different (the infamous competent and professional critics have been mentioned multiple times... eheh... when the apocalypse approaches, they always show up... could it be a Sign?) I was saying, on matters that will always be irreconcilable no matter what happens. In other words, there will always be those like me who defend Von Trier because he is an innovator and mocks (but also plays with) the viewer with purpose and mastery (the particular atmosphere that pervades this film is INTENDED. in my DVD, the director and cinematographer comment scene by scene and explain the technique they used to edit "the tides of fate," a technique they called "emotional editing," meaning: each shot was "cut" in editing only when the emotional climax reached its peak, and the transition to the next shot occurred even beyond narrative timing needs, which is why the film has an almost electromagnetic flow... and NOBODY has talked about it). On top of that, I was saying that it has become impossible to initiate a serious discussion, even though all the elements to do so are ultimately present. The mechanism seems to have jammed, and either everyone agrees, or the usual chaos erupts. Personally, I try to discern things, to remain impartial and voice my opinion, but it surprises me that often among 30 commenters, there are only 5 who "understand" or even just "know" for a moment what the hell is being talked about. So I tell you, let’s try to bridge this general gap because otherwise, continuing is pointless. Among staunch brave defenders... users trying to explain to Poletti that even if he had been born in 1935, he would have despised the same films he praises today just because they are "too modern," and that (yes) he would have said the same things about Orson Welles that he says today about Von Trier... and users who sometimes get bogged down by his pronouncements (like I sometimes do myself, and I even lost a fan!! ;-P) and sink the conversation into swearing and sneers... I mean, if we keep going like this, we’re just creating garbage.

... already

It has a lot of charm, but as a film, it is quite incomplete and should have been better designed. For me, one of its highest peaks is Monsieur Verdoux, which, as happypippo has already mentioned, contains a much more effective and profound humanitarian message.

yes cataclysm. and he is right.

know that I had an orgasm

'wow, how thirsty 'ggnuranti

Enough, I give up. When have I ever treated the classics badly? When have I ever thrown shit in De Sica's face? Besides, the term "a piece of history" has no negative connotation; what I’ve been saying for three comments is that the classics are a starting point, but then IN ART things evolve, they MUST evolve, for Christ's sake. Then Justin Timberlake will listen to your little blonde. Even among the moderns, there's rubbish, but if you look closely, the rubbish is mostly found among those authors who lack the courage to experiment and challenge themselves by inventing new languages and opening up new expressive possibilities.

But who the hell cares if they are moving or not, excuse me, I'm talking about the combination of technique and its use and effect. In Von Trier, there is not only skill but also a great awareness of the medium of cinema. To give a literary example (which you might consider blasphemous), one could say that it doesn't stray too far from what Shakespeare was in his time. Entertainment, skill, meaning, emotions, intelligence, craft. Umberto D. was certainly excellent in '52, but now it's a piece of history. And like an old and glorious carpet, it shouldn't be beaten around but left where it is, where it belongs. In the closet. Or in the attic. Von Trier makes cinema today. That is, he is alive, and we are alive too. And that’s what I’m trying to say. Enough with the behind-the-scenes analysis, it's a pain in the ass.

one of the most beautiful reviews I've ever read on debaser. I bow down.

I saw it too, and I certainly won't say it's a good film. Everyone, including Von Trier himself, has their lows as well as their highs. What I'm saying is that a director like him, who has literally invented (more than one) a style and has always approached his work with an eye toward innovation and exploring the potential of the medium of cinema (Dogma '95 can be considered the first true programmatic manifesto on digital cinema... I mean) should not be taken lightly as if he were just any craftsman.