easycure

how can that farce of an investigation, which the documentary focuses on for a good twenty minutes, be considered a "plus"? In fact, your summary is a bit distorted: it’s not at all clear that father and son were guilty, and certainly Jarecki doesn’t take a stance in that direction. It doesn’t really seem like a "plus" at all to me :-)

this documentary is incredible! One of the most beautiful documentary films ever made.. what your review lacks, in my opinion, is highlighting that the investigation and testimonies are actually murky, ambiguous, and leave more than one doubt. thus, what deeply disturbs about the film is the human squalor that seeps through the characters and situations INDEPENDENTLY (and here lies the key) of whether the two protagonists are genuinely guilty or not. A truly mind-boggling story. A must-see P.S. an inaccuracy, even if they had been guilty, the victims were about a class not hundreds.

Yes.. what a brain-damaged person :-D

In simple terms, reworking is a creative act, revivalè revival, that is, re-presenting something that has already been done at a later time.

:-D is the opposite of Fest. It's precisely because I don't call the reworking a revival that revival is a word that for me doesn't imply anything creative.

It’s certainly more challenging today, Fest. However, I still don’t understand how there can be an "intelligent revivalism." But I get what you mean. Let’s say then that there can be an intelligent way of looking at the past. But not a revivalism, at least for me.

The fact that looking for the interesting outside the boundaries of rock is obvious. But what I can't accept is that rock itself can't say something new. Because, in my opinion, it could. It's clear that if someone thinks of rock as the classic E chord progression used in 10,000 songs, then it's obvious that it doesn't take much for it to stop. But isn't the true essence of rock expressive freedom? A freedom of expression possible precisely because it is based on a form of expression that is simple, direct, and hypothetically without formal boundaries? What do My Bloody Valentine have in common with the Melvins? Or, say, Suicide with the Ramones? And yet both of these pairs are contemporaries or, in the second case, from the same environment and/or movement... and they all fall under rock. To me, it seems absurd that such an approach can't reinvent itself.

Yes, more or less we have come to the same conclusions; perhaps we don't understand each other on the terms :-) because if something is a revival, I interpret it by definition as being incapable of saying something personal... anyway, I think the essence of the matter, at least from my perspective, is what zorrykid said: that is, the today's impossibility of achieving true innovations while remaining communicative, universal. Ultimately, this is what weighs on me the most.

no no, don't worry, far from me to refer to Scaruffi, of whom you highlighted one of the most evident contradictions, that "terrible" 8 for Guns and Roses :-D ... I am actually making a much more basic argument than innovation, which is that of originality. I can't believe there can't be an effort towards originality, which is, even more fundamentally, an effort to build a unique personality, a sound, and a language; this is where we return to the discussion of "formalism" that I mentioned earlier. It seems to me that today, things that tend at least toward the "interesting" are reduced to bland hints of obliquity that never actually solidify into a style. Moreover, I insist on believing that for the same reason (namely, the fact that when it comes to art in any of its forms, an absence of creative effort could never be conceivable) in a span like that of 7 years of avant-gardes, there must necessarily be new developments, because they ultimately stem directly from "research," in general and at any level. You say that the avant-gardes are those that have brought rock to where it is now.. sure. But where is this rock continuing to move forward? Never has the cliché "rock is dead" seemed more accurate, because never has it actually been so static. I don't believe that there can be no avant-gardes, because ultimately, that would be like saying that there is no creativity. And I think that any type of approach, particularly rock, can still be shaped and reshaped infinitely, even at the cost of losing elements that seemed intrinsically indisputable.

I completely disagree for the same reason about the quantity of quality releases.. I see much more quantity, but certainly not related to quality. Instead, I see an overwhelming and superficial continuous formalism that seems to hinder any group that wants to create quality stuff, which means more and more shallow intellectualism and cheap elitism; the two adjectives that perhaps best represent the "independent" world that "matters" today... Hearing about "New folk intimista" as one of the new genres of the 2000s really makes me laugh.. just like the other ten thousand "new" something, all increasingly "intimate" and all reduced to bland, nonsensical curiosities that no one will remember in ten years because, as is just and obvious, they fundamentally count for nothing. Zero substance. Well, well, I fully confirm, and it's not psychedelic hard that will change my mind: it’s a shitty period.