fusillo

Oh, your conclusion now that you've downsized it a bit, I like it more. ;) Your invitation to analyze Ricky's character, however, makes me think of another flaw in your reasoning. You see Ricky and Lester as two distinct models. They certainly are at the beginning: Lester is frustrated, Ricky appears to have unwavering confidence. Then the two meet, and Mr. Burnham begins to see Ricky as his personal hero (he actually says so, if I remember correctly). From that moment on, Lester will become more and more like Ricky, and the final monologue in which Lester revisits his past ends precisely with the "Dancing Bag," which is the crux of Ricky's "life philosophy," and with his own words. But I repeat, in all of this, I can't see any sociological issue. I can only give you some trivial answers about what I remember from the story and nothing else, I'm sorry. Good night.

Oh well, I completely agree on the comparison, but it seemed to me that Lester's situation in your speech held some weight, given that you arrive at your conclusions based on that "If." Of course, everyone is free to think as they please, but rather than on Mendes' statements (which I don’t recall, but I certainly take as true), I believe that to formulate a judgment on the film one should rely on what the story offers, and it doesn’t seem to me that "American Beauty" aims to resolve any social or sociological issues. To me, it appeared as a beautiful painting, with excellent narrative ideas, and great characters, and that was enough for me. Also, I wouldn’t want to be pedantic, but it’s true that in the review you say "Is that all?" but it’s also true that you conclude by saying "... But the problems are quite different, and the answers must be quite different." My "you have to tell this or that" was a loose translation of your phrase. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. Bye.

Dear Donjunio, I didn't like your review at all... I don’t like the equation "Left-wing director" = "Engaged director." I also don't like the statement: "Do you want to be engaged?" (something that remains to be proven) "Then you have to tell this or that..." Not to mention that you don’t reveal what you think Sam Mendes should have told us. Then, in Lester's "Regeneration," the "nymph" is the triggering cause but not the only element. In the scene you recount, Lester has already understood "what really matters." In some earlier scenes, he even tries to reconnect with Carolyn and to make her understand it too, but without success. Your "ifs" don’t seem to make much sense to me... Finally, I don’t agree with your analysis of the screenplay, which, as someone else has already pointed out, has its strong points. Oh, and while I'm at it: I don't agree with your judgment on Mendes's subsequent films. "Jarhead" seemed to me to be a great film.

Occult, no film is 100% original; narrative techniques can be reused at will; the formulas are varied: citation, homage, parody, etc. But if the two films, as you yourself claim, follow completely different paths, well, "The Cannibal Corpse" and "The Blair Witch Project" are two different films, and that is enough. "The Blair Witch Project," among other things, inaugurates a formula (a witch that is present but unseen...) that no one else will be able to copy without risking true plagiarism. Regarding the errors like editing and batteries (by the way, one of the characters says, if I remember correctly, that they had a bunch of batteries and could have kept filming for days and days), well, there are quite a few, but despite everything, the film engaged me like few others... And usually, I'm very attentive to these "details"...

Well done Poletti, your surrender does you honor!!!

Well, I haven't seen "Cannibal Corpse" but I know a thing or two about it. While everything is shown there, in "The Blair Witch Project" you see nothing, and that's where its beauty lies. When I watched it, the whole room was scared out of their wits. I was exhausted. Two hours of pure suspense. Brilliant. And the fact that those guys made such a film with very few resources, promoting themselves on the internet and creating a phenomenon, only adds to their merits...

Voice out of the choir: I have "The mask and the mirror" and, with all due respect, it’s a bore. Even these samples (which certainly can't convey what the album is like, etc...) don’t seem that great to me... Anyway, as they say, de gustibus...

"Rocco e le Storie Tese 2"? Did they make a sequel?

Interesting, interesting, veeeery interesting... The sample is beautiful...

Dear Spaccazzucche, I said that Allevi is overrated and that doesn't need any justification. For someone referred to as "The Mozart of 2000," that is the least one can say. But since you demand reasoned judgments, I’ll give it a shot. First, though, a word about your arguments: claiming that what comes out of Allevi's piano or record is "pure sound" means nothing. Anything can be pure sound, and it doesn’t take a Giovanni Allevi to produce it or be "slapped" by it. Let’s set aside the nice little phrases for a moment, shall we? You like Allevi, and that’s certainly acceptable. On the other hand, you’re in good company. If you say that in Italy nobody paid him any attention, you show that you don’t know that good Giovannino was a keyboardist for Jovanotti. He also went to Sanremo with Di Battista's band. And he did quite well there, far from Blue Note... All of his naive attitudes mean nothing to me. Allow me, I’m interested in the music. And Allevi's music is flat, constructed like a pop tune, with structures repeating themselves without variations and without imagination. The themes he plays have a light, too light tone. They are inconsistent melodies. Good only for waiting rooms or wellness centers. Jazz and classical music, the supposed influences of Allevi, are historically complex music made of sharp rhythms and harmonies that have little or nothing to do with what you hear on “No Concept” and “Joy.” Therefore, Giovanni’s and his admirers’ constant references to cultured authors make me chuckle a bit and also portray him as a rather unlikable character. Not to mention the definition "The Mozart of 2000," which is truly indefensible. It's like if I, having written a postcard, pretended to be Hemingway. Let’s call things by their name. Allevi is a mediocre pianist. Listen to Stefano Bollani, Keith Jarrett, or Uri Caine, and you'll hear what a real musician does. Bye.