Vi segnalo per intero l'editoriale della rivista Duellanti diretta da Gianni Canova , famoso critico cinematografico, autore di una serie di testi di approfondimento su Lynch Cronenberg and of which they are jealous owner!
Apparently, the same Canova has the 'Eye Digger (and there's also the biggest of mine), digging very deep in the film industry which has always been one of the leading Italian .
" Sometimes even friends are wrong. In mid-July, in an interview published in La Stampa, Steve Della Casa commented enthusiastically the decision to devote Marco Müller retrospective of Venice to the Italian comedy film, hailed as an objective "clearance" of cinepanettoni and their vital comedy "fascennina" only criticism that "thoughtful" would not be able to understand and appreciate.
Time: I confess that I begin to really not be able to more in this country, flaunted contempt for everything that has to do with the thought . Speaking of critics, in particular, the thoughtfulness (ie the ability to reflect, connect, analyze, interpret ...) should be a constitutive quality. What do we want? A critical playful? Lust? Joyful? Troublemakers? Maybe. But to be, and at the same time continue to be "critical", the criticism itself should never renounce the exercise of thought. Even the risk of appearing boring to Müller and all'establishment that he wanted to drive to Venice.
Moreover, if and when it ceases to be thoughtful, critical errors in the risk of hitting it falls Steve Della Casa in his article. For example: in ancient Rome were fescennini the event of a vulgar comedy but plebeian, authentically working-class, which has little to do with our tradition of comic cinema. Which is instead largely an expression of a petty-bourgeois comedy with an objective substratum racist, sexist, patriarchal and conformist. It will not be chic to say and write, but I say it and write it the same. And I add that I find very questionable decision to dedicate a retrospective the exhibition of the Venice Film Festival is not the rediscovery of cinema research, experimental and disturbing, what the market has always been hostile and marginalized, but a film that-at least in Italy-coincides with the market and monopolize and he does his and that does not need a retrospective paid with public money to be known. But so be it. Would be truly transgressive, Müller should put it in competition, a cinepanettoni. Or a film by Tinto Brass. But it never will. Him would not do. What it does to pass the idea that there is no other film this and the other film is boring and communist. Indeed: thoughtful, vade retro. "
Sometimes an apology of thoughtful criticism is helpful to understand that this is the strata to which we must address seriously and to make critical criterion. At the movies are not the reviews, there are scores or scale of merit, need two eyes and a shovel to dig.
0 comments:
Post a Comment