fusillo

Hey there, new commentators... @Thirdeye: Well, in westerns the pianist is usually unarmed and gets shot. This is obviously another merit of George. :-) @Paloz: Well, there are some similarities; by the way, the orchestra is the same as in "The Yellow Shark" and "Greggary Peccary and other persuasions." Anyway, if you liked Antheil and enjoy Zappa's orchestral work, try checking out my review of "Studies" by Conlon Nancarrow; I included quite a few samples, and you might like them... Oh, and if you happen to read the review and come across any "Fù" or "StAinway," be gentle with them... :-). Hi everyone.

Beautiful, clear, organized review. I don't know Anthony, but to define an album as a classic, it takes all the ingredients you've listed (or others, as long as they are well blended...) + time (two years seem a bit few). Anyway, who cares, I appreciated it and one of these days I will listen to this album... Bye. :-)

Thank you debasers for your attention... @Paloz: don't call me James Tont, from tonight on I am fùsillo. :-) @azzo: Antony whaaaaat?:-) Now I'm going to take a look... @Iside: No, of course not... Hi everyone!

Well Poletti, imagine that when Chaplin was at school, his "directorial genius" teacher kept telling him: "STUDY, YOU BLOCKHEAD, STUDY...", but Chaplin did nothing... He was smart but didn't apply himself...

Here, so after defending Keaton, I now defend Chaplin. An enviable balance. :-)

Well Poletti, then Keaton also made: "The Hunted House," "The Balloonatic," "The Playhouse," "The Blacksmith," "The Goat," "Convict 13," "Cops," "The High Sign," "One Week," "Daydreams," "The Three Ages," "Sherlock Jr.," "Seven Chances," "Our Hospitality," "The Navigator," "Battling Butler," "Steamboat Bill Jr." and so on... But I don't think the question is how many titles of Keaton and Chaplin one knows. And I don't think the issue is which Formula One driver those two should be compared to. It is true that Keaton was more "cinematic" than Chaplin, who had a more "theatrical" approach... By the way, in "One Week," Buster ends a scene with a hand covering the lens. I don't think Chaplin would have ever done something like that. Keaton worked with the illusions of cinema. Chaplin didn't, or if he did, it was to a decidedly lesser extent. In the first ten minutes of the beautiful "Playhouse," the sole protagonist is Buster Keaton. There is a whole orchestra made up of Buster playing double bass, violin, drums, etc... Every single musician interacts with the others in the same shot... Things like that, I don't think ever crossed Chaplin's mind. But after all, Keaton would never have made a film like "The Great Dictator." Keaton just wanted to make people laugh. Chaplin wanted to be the protagonist of his time. He succeeded, and he also paid the consequences... These differences do not make one a better actor-director than the other. And neither does the inflation, which is an issue that I frankly find completely pointless...

On the different endings of the film and the book, Kubrick, in an interview found in the appendix of the Einaudi edition, says that when he first read Burgess's novel, there were two versions circulating: one with a moralizing ending and the other without... He read the second one and then, when he was already working on the screenplay, he read the first. That uplifting ending gave him the impression of a later addition that had little to do with the satirical tone of the story and that was probably written at the request of the publisher to give the reader a bit of hope... And I thought the same thing when I read the book, perhaps because I knew the film by heart... Also in that interview, Kubrick very modestly downplays his own work by praising Burgess's invention of the character Alex, his world, his slang, etc... On the other hand, in the appendix of the text, there is also a comment from Burgess recounting his impressions of the film, referred to as "A Clockwork Orange by Stanley Kubrick": the greatest compliment he could give to the director... So, to summarize: beautiful novel and beautiful film...

Look, I get that Buster likes you... And anyway, I've finished breaking your balls, I swear! :-)

P.S. Look, if you want, go ahead and tell me that Chaplin was superior to Rosco "Fatty" Arbuckle, Harold Lloyd, and Harry Langdon... But don’t touch Buster. :-)

Ah, still with this nonsense? :-) You say that Buster was a slave to his face... Claiming something like that would be like saying that Louise Brooks was a slave to her hairstyle... Nonsense! Buster was extraordinary as a director, an editor, a screenwriter (even though he never wrote a proper screenplay in his life...) and, it goes without saying, as an actor. But, as I mentioned earlier, since 1928 those at MGM imposed ridiculous roles on him in subpar films... That was his downfall! Then, he never evolved? And so what? Buster had a single-minded goal: to make people laugh. He did it well as a young man, and he did it well even as an old man. On YouTube, I found some candid camera footage shot in the sixties, in which Buster is simply fantastic... So again, what’s the point of comparing him to Chaplin? None, I would say...