easycure

Carola is one of my absolute favorite tracks by Slint ;-) have you heard it in any bootleg? It's amazing! But I would never confuse it with a track by Atomizer; the purpose seems completely different to me.

I enjoyed the review except for that sentence where you talk about the transition from post-hardcore to post-rock. What do they have to do with each other, and how do Slint relate to Big Black? There might be some echoes, but that's more due to Slint's own punk roots than any clear influence; their style and approach are completely different. Moreover, it’s actually Tweez that is the most intrinsically post-rock album (looking back at it, of course) by Slint. Certainly, Tweez has had the most influence on the foundation of post-rock as a genre, while Spiderland is too absolute and unique to fit into a single definition. This EP is beautiful too and has a strikingly unsettling cover.

"nella"=beautiful :-)

Beautiful but really in the review. I go crazy for Jarmusch, this Dead Man and Ghost Dog are masterpieces.

Think, come on, think: don't you realize that I did it with the precise intention of demonstrating the total nullity in terms of originality of the group in question? :-) Besides, it's not my fault if, as many of the most die-hard fans now admit, everything the DT plays sounds like something else. If you want, I can turn your statement back to you: "but don't you realize that you're listening to something that sounds the same as at least five different bands at the same time?" ...there, now perhaps my point of view is clearer to you :-D

oh, really... is it so beautifully distorted? because the last albums seemed a bit soft to me compared to the past... I'll take care of it right away.

Honestly, I would say that Stalker is a very manneristic film, but this is part of Tarkovsky's style, as you also mentioned. However, I would never say that Stalker is a pure and exclusive exercise in mannerism. The matter in Inland Empire is even more tangled, but it seems to me that aside from the greater entanglement (a purely formal issue), it doesn't add much to what has already been expressed in the past. It's not as if Lynch has exactly made linear films up until now, so it seems to me just a paroxysmal accentuation that, as such, has more of the flavor of provocation than anything else.

Moreover (it just came to my mind) Lynch's presumption is also metacinematographic. He now perceives the cinematic medium as a mere object to be violated for the exclusive use of his own imagination. For heaven's sake, this in itself is a good thing, if it didn’t result in the total and rather questionable near annulment of the narrative factor... sure, sure, the plot exists... but what sense does it make for there to be one if it requires (as you and indirectly Galakordi confirm) at least two viewings to grasp it? :-D Allow me a smile; this seems to me quite a “mental wank”... what is it, a trick by Lynch to make more money? As I've already mentioned in the review, there’s a difference between having multiple paths open to various possible interpretations (a wonderful psychological exemplification, hence external, of what the film internally represents) and the fact that to understand even just the development of a film, one needs multiple viewings. This seems like an almost inconceivable deformity: Lynch wonderfully exploits cinema but violently abuses it with equal presumption. Since cinema has an intrinsic narrative essence... I miss Chaplin, who, as Mereghetti says, "draws concepts from images," adhering, however, to a simplicity that reaches, I would say, absolute depth. At a certain point, he is right... damn... when he says that he likes cinema when it tells some tangible story. I agree only up to a certain point, but I can understand him. Don’t underestimate his 1 ;-)

X tabba. If this film had caused me disorientation, I would have only been happy. Perhaps you've forgotten that I like Lynch? ...But this film gave me very little beyond the undeniable beauty of certain scenes. Fundamentally, had I found myself in a modern art museum, I would have had similar feelings. However, while not reaching (and having no intention of doing so, given the enormous emotional impact) a clear interpretation, both Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway inspired me to a second viewing (and even more, but I haven't yet made it to the third ;-) this one only subtly irritated me with its brash megalomania. Especially since you talk about the blend between dream and film... Lynch always mixes dreams with something; his concepts, those are far too clear and underdeveloped as such... he has only intensified the formal excess... put another way: it is becoming mannered without essentially renewing itself.

X galakordi: 1) But for heaven's sake, how many times have you seen it? In any case, who said that it has to be seen more than once to evaluate it? But above all, even if that were the case, the need to see it more than once would be, for me, an indication, indeed the strongest indication, of dealing with a pretentious and specious film. Art for me (but I would say not only for me, indeed perhaps universally) is also about knowing how to communicate. 2) Exactly. You talk about language. If it truly were a matter of language, I would consider it completely pointless to analyze a film based on the use of digital. Because language in itself is nothing; it exists only when it has an object, when it serves an expression; otherwise, it is merely aesthetic apriorism, pure uselessness. Furthermore, the use of digital is not actually even a matter of language... since cinematic language is constituted by the shot, the take, the scene, the editing itself; the use of digital is rather a rhetorical device or a syntactic expedient of the language itself, that is, it is part of it. Therefore, even more, to define a film a masterpiece based on the type of camera used seems simply absurd to me. 3) You don't need to assure me of anything. :-) I don’t exactly watch one film a year, nor one a month, or even one a week, especially if they are independent. Yet, to me, this seems like a pretentious film.