Archive for July, 2007

Pasolini, Ballard, Kafka, Welles, Sade, Ramm:Ell:Zee : file links

Man Ray; Ritratto immaginario di Sade 

file linkz da

zip files:

P P Pasolini – Mamma Roma ; Accattone (ita)

txt files: 

F Kafka – Il processo (ita) 

H G Welles – Dr. Moreau (eng)

D A F De Sade – Les 120 journees de Sodome (fra)

Ramm:Ell:Zee – Alpha's last bet 1st draft (eng) 

pdf files:

J G Ballard – Crash (ita) 



No Comments

cinema txt

testi contenuti:









altri testi da Streptos Music:



qui potete scaricare l’ articolo su William Burroughs: Those crazy “cut-ups” (dalla rivista Bright Light Film Journal)

qui potete vedere i films di William S. Burroughs Brion Gysin e Antony Balch

No Comments

Jean-Luc Godard – in image we trust

 Photo- J ean-Luc Godard

Jean-Luc Godard

In Images We Trust

Hal Hartley: I saw your self-portrait film (JLG/JLG) yesterday afternoon and I wanted to bring someone with me. As it turned out, I brought my friend Martin Donovan, who's an actor I've worked with quite often. He knows I have a high regard for your work, but he hasn't seen that much of it. His initial response was, well, he laughed almost continuously.

Jean-Luc Godard: (laughs)

Hal Hartley: And he came out feeling you were the funniest person he'd seen since Groucho Marx.

Jean-Luc Godard: I think it's a compliment

Hal Hartley: Well, I thought it was. Regardless of whatever else your films might be doing, to me it seems you have a sense of humor that people don't talk about enough. I was curious about the things that make you laugh.

Jean-Luc Godard: Why you can laugh at, I mean, just the fact that you are a human being. Living, it can be sad too. I like both slapstick and contradiction. Like philosophers. It makes me laugh when you bring two things together which have nothing to do with one another. In movies, comedy and tragedy are all the same. I'm a great admirer of Jerry Lewis for this very reason. Especially the very last one, Smorgasbord. And the other one he made just before, it was a flop here–called Hardly Working. I think laughter comes because things are hardly working.

Hal Hartley: I see (humor) in the smallest things: in the self portrait, you sitting down at the desk to write out your thoughts; or in Helas pour moi the girl dropping the bike; or in any number of things. That's what I go to the movies for I'm finding, that kind of activity.

Jean-Luc Godard: That came from the beginning. It was moving. Movies. It can't be done in theater of in a novel. It's action. Action can make you laugh. but just because you are glad. Even if there is no meaning.

Hal Hartley: Is that your home in JLG/JLG?

Jean-Luc Godard: That's my apartment, yes.

Hal Hartley: In your work since the mid-80's there seems to be a serene but rigorous contemplation of nature. Not only is it something different from your earlier work, but it has something I don't see in anyone else's work–this intensity. Was there a certain point at which you recognized this too? Do you think it has anything in particular to do with age?

Jean-Luc Godard: It's coming back to my homeland, both French and Swiss, because at Lake Geneva, one side is French and the other is Swiss. My maternal grandfather had a house on the French side and my father's parents were on the Swiss. We would cross the lake just sometimes to go to lunch. I have two countries, this lake and Paris. Going from one exile to the other one. There are two kinds of homeland: one that is given is like a negative, and one that you have to conquer is like the positive.

Hal Hartley: To me, the nature in your films seems to be the visible aspect of something quite spiritual. It has that kind of impact for me.

Jean-Luc Godard: If I may say so, it is just an image. It's like the body. And words and action in movies are the spirit or the mind. And these days the body is almost completely forgotten. In the beginning the body–nature–was more part of the action. It has no meaning today if you put Clint Eastwood in the mountains in Nevada. It has nothing to do with the story. It has just been decided by agents or lawyers. And before the war, and just after the war, it still had a meaning. Now it has disappeared. On TV you can't show landscapes. You just can't. Even a postcard is better. (Landscapes) are too close to painting. And TV has nothing to do with painting. It's just transmission. And you can't transmit a landscape, happily enough.

Hal Hartley: When I was making Trust , I was working with quite a small budget–

Jean-Luc Godard: What was your budget?

Hal Hartley: $700,000.

Jean-Luc Godard: Yes, it is a low budget. When I have a low budget I always try to make it a lesson in economy. I learned from Rossellini that you are rich even if you have a little money. If you have $300,000 to shoot a cigarette on a table, it's an enormous amount of money. Maybe that's why my movies are the way they are. But it's the only way I can make a living. Because my movies are not successful, they are not shown. So I make a living from the budget.

Hal Hartley: With Trust, as with every picture I have made, I asked myself, "How does a human body fit into this?" And I extended this exercise to the point where the question was: "How do I make a landscape shot that's still a picture of a human body?" I don't know if I succeeded, but it did focus my attention. Anyway, ( Trust ) is a movie I like on TV, and it has no landscapes.

Jean-Luc Godard: No, TV can't. Even with painting, even abstract paintings, you need the incoming of, light on the canvas. There are different kinds of painting, some with lights and some without, but still if you look at any painting here (in the light) and then over here (out of the light) it's an entirely different thing. The consciousness of this came to the Impressionists and I'm very interested in that. I've decided that what interests me most is that you can only capture the light at a certain time. But after that, five minutes after that, then it's a different thing. So if you don't have the right aperture, you've missed it. Of course, you can correct it in the lab. But not really. So it's a feeling of light. And this coming of the light has to do with the subject too. Because the light goes through, through the character and the action and what you describe. That's why I said yesterday to someone that the landscapes–the tree or the road–the ones I know of, finally they are the only characters I know really. The human characters I don't know. So there is both something I know and something I don't know. And I put them together.

Hal Hartley: I like to think I'm learning to commit myself more to that moment of choosing the f-stop. Making that choice at the moment.

Jean-Luc Godard: At the moment of the light. The position for me is the place now to put the camera. It's very easy. It's to be in front of light. I would never do a shot like that (makes framing gesture towards the back of the room, away from the windows) because the light is here. Because you go to where the light is coming from. Like in the Bible. The shepherds were going in the direction of the star. And then the characters are found in the shade with the light behind them. And you approach the shade. With electronics, this is disappearing a little. Because there is no light in electronincs. There is lightening. But lightening is not real light. So when the film stock disappears, the matter–because movies are matter–(disappears). The laws of this have been established by Newton, Einstein, and others: there is a correspondence between light and matter, and light is matter. And energy. So when I go in front of the light–go towards it–it is because it brings me energy. That's all.

Hal Hartley: What changes will occur if that matter, the film, goes away and we begin seeing electronically? Will it change the way we look?

Jean-Luc Godard: I won't be there. It will be new. I don't know. I like it when it's new, but the way it's going is not that kind of newness. It's bureaucracy. I mean, Hollywood was invented by hoodlums from central Europe. And today a Hollywood lawyer is not a hoodlum. He's a bureaucrat.

Hal Hartley: I take it you'd prefer him to be a hoodlum.

Jean-Luc Godard: Of course. No, I have a great admiration for those Hollywood hoodlums. Like Harry Cohn, head of Colombia when he was discovering Kim Novak. Or Howard Hughes.

Hal Hartley: Thalberg…

Jean-Luc Godard: Even Thalberg. Thalberg was a genious. As I said in my first Histoire(s) du Cinema , he was the only one that was able to think at 30 pictures a day.

Hal Hartley: This notion of changing technology interests me. I work on a computer now, and it's not been easy to adjust. I still prefer to have my hands on film when I'm editing.

Jean-Luc Godard: A computer for what?

Hal Hartley: For editing.

Jean-Luc Godard: Oh, yes, those kinds of things. I think it would be nice for me for the time being because at least you can do it at home, and you are sure that with almost no money you can do it in your kitchen. So it's a way of being secure. But it depends. The projector will soon disappear. The camera, not really. OK, it depends… it depends on change.

Hal Hartley: Back at the cutting room, we've come to think the most interesting thing about all this is the possibility of changing notions of distribution. The distribution of electronic information.

Jean-Luc Godard: I read an article where they say you can choose a movie from (your) hotel room. You can choose a (D.W.) Griffith (film), and then after that you can have a pizza. But, you know, probably, there won't be any Griffith. You can see any movie you want to see! But no! There is no Griffith!

Hal Hartley: But think about filmmakers distributing their films themselves, directly from the computer.

Jean-Luc Godard: I won't like it. I don't believe it will be a huge screen. It's not done for that. And anyway, in Europe, the houses and the apartments are getting smaller. So there is no need to increase the screen because the apartment is becoming smaller.

Hal Hartley: But I'm intrigued. Perhaps I'm just optimistic.

Jean-Luc Godard: Projection will disappear. And the possibility that was given by motion pictures will be missed. The possibility of there being a real audience–a group of people who have nothing in common, but, at a certain time of the day or the week, are able to look with other unknown neighbors at something bigger than they are. To look at their problems in big. Not in small. Because if it's small, you can't… It was big, so it was evident. And in the beginning there was not even talking. There was no need for that. Because it was more evident if there was no talking. Only in sports does there remain this fervor, which can even become violent. There's this desire to see something big.

Hal Hartley: But collectively.

Jean-Luc Godard: Yes, collectively.

Hal Hartley: The excitement is in the crowd.

Jean-Luc Godard: Yes, but in the movies it is different. You can be with other people, which is ideal, or you can be alone. But to be alone with other people, and not to forget yourself within yourself. And when there's 100 people around you can't really forget yourself. Now, this will disappear, obviously.

Hal Hartley: That's sad.

Jean-Luc Godard: Yes, it's sad for us. But now at my age I understand how sad it must have been for some directors or actors at the time the talkies began. Because, really, a whole continent disappeared.

Hal Hartley: In part "2B" of Histoire(s) du Cinema you say to, I guess it's Serge Daney…

Jean-Luc Godard: Yes. It was about five years ago, before he was getting sick.

Hal Hartley: You tell him how you think the history of cinema is the greatest history that can be told because it can project.

Jean-Luc Godard: It's the only one. It's the only way to do history.

Hal Hartley: A bit further on in the same episode, there's a female voice reciting something to the effect that, the strange thing about the living dead of this world is that their reflections and their sensations come from before.

Jean-Luc Godard: Because there is a new world coming and this new world is very rude. This new world which is being born is cynical and amnesiac. And it has eliminated perspective. And its escape point…

Hal Hartley: The vanishing point?

Jean-Luc Godard: Yes, but, no. That's right–its escape point, its vision of a future. So we are in the twentieth or the twenty-first century, but all the thinking, if you speak to one of those people keen on technology–you see that all their thinking is two centuries old. In cinema, you can show this. Einstein was a contemporary of Stravinsky. But he was also a contemporary of Griffith and Feuillade. If we think today the way TV is ordering us to think, we think of Einstein as someone modern. Stravinsky is modern music, but it came at the time of Birth of a Nation, which is an old movie. All our thinking constitutes the new world, but all our thoughts are older and older.

Hal Hartley: Sometimes I think our aims are still old. All the discoveries seem to be discoveries of means. I think perhaps I'm conservative in that way. I wonder if there is anything to discover. I mean, things that are not superficial. We discover and invent new ways of finding out the same old things.

Jean-Luc Godard: There is no more discovery. Not since the beginning of this century. There are new gadgets. New important gadgets.

Hal Hartley: Towards the end of JLG/JLG you talk a little about the desire to become universal.

Jean-Luc Godard: It's a sentence I took from an old French philospher. If I'm speaking it means that in one way or another when I say, "I'm cold" it belongs to me: I'm cold. But just by saying this it becomes general.

Hal Hartley: It struck me that perhaps yourself as legend is a bit of a bore to you and maybe a hindrance to work.

Jean-Luc Godard: Yes sometimes the way it is used. The way we are obliged to (be one). But now I am still able to make work. It is part of my making a living out of it, so it's a bit OK. That's my way. I think I'm innocently representing a certain belief in motion pictures, and, well OK. Even with a small video we will always be able to do a small movie with friends and to show it to someone. You won't get the Oscar for it. But, after all, why are you writing and why are you filming? So it will be possible. And I've always said that to make movies, to make images and sound, is possible by one way or another. And it has not to be ruled by the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Pharaohs from Hollywood or wherever. I have tried very hard to make even a small budget picture here. It always fails. Over a dozen times. And now I know why. It was only because I wanted to be in control of the money. To spend it the way I wanted. It was like my father when I asked him for money. He would say, "Tell me what you want to do and I will buy it." And I said, "No, I want the money."

Hal Hartley: Is your solitude very important to you?

Jean-Luc Godard: Yes, it's too much though. It's part of my character, but now it's too much. Especially in Switzerland, but in Paris too. Because I don't like Paris or being in big cities. But then when you are out in the land, OK, you have the land but you are alone with it. And sometimes it is too much.

Hal Hartley: That quality of nature in films which I brought up before, especially since Hail Mary, Nouvelle Vague and Helas Pour Moi–

Jean-Luc Godard: Now it's over. It comes in periods of ten or twelve years. Because now, the place where we are living in Switzerland, we call it a studio. This place near the lake is Studio One, this other place is Studio Two. We have been everywhere–

Hal Hartley: I like that about the films. The recurrence of certain places, images, even sounds. And, as an audience, you develop a sort of relationship to these things, these elements of the work. Like in Helas pour moi you use that excellent big piano chord and it shows up again in JLG/JLG. I like that continuity. Do you ever watch your films with audiences?

Jean-Luc Godard: (shrugs "no")

Hal Hartley: You watch films alone all the time?

Jean-Luc Godard: Well, since we are far from the town, and (even) in the town of Switzerland, it's mainly American pictures. In Paris maybe it's a little more democratic. You can see a little American or Egyptian movie if you want. Or old movies. Something that I like in movies, and I dislike too, is that they can't be projected well. But movies will continue one way or another. Maybe on video. Even on video games. You have to look at it, if you have children, or if you are linked to children, because it's new for them. This has not disappeared; the look of a child who is discovering the world, whatever it is. But the way we have done pictures has to be disappeared.

Hal Hartley: Eventually? Or immediately?

Jean-Luc Godard: It doesn't matter. But we never thought that it would disappear. The silent film, it was cut at the age of thirty.

Hal Hartley: I think that's it. (The interview is scheduled to end at 10 AM.) It's five to ten.

Jean-Luc Godard: It's OK, if you want more…

Hal Hartley: Well, sure, if we don't have to go?

Jean-Luc Godard: Or, I don't know. If you would like to have dinner with… do you know Tom Luddy?

Hal Hartley: Tom Luddy? No.

Jean-Luc Godard: No? You don't? I'm having dinner with him. If you want to join us, he will be pleased. I will be pleased too. If you want to talk more informally. Because you are a director. You are coming to me. I know that I am old, because even if I think I'm younger than everyone–but that's true–my way of hoping and continuing is that I am always in a younger position than the other one. We are equal at your first film. And now I have a feeling, I don't know you of course–but what I am saying is, if you have made three or four films, my feeling is, he is older than me because I am still making my first movie. That helps me. It is nothing insulting, you understand.

Hal Hartley: Not at all.

Jean-Luc Godard: To see you come here, when I saw your name, it reminds me when I was in Venice in competition with a movie called A Married Woman and Antonioni was coming in with Red Desert. And I knew I would be beaten 6-0 6-0 6-0. He told me I am older than him still. But I will get younger.

Hal Hartley: My new film is called Amateur , actually. And it's a title used in that regard. An urge, you know, to see new. Yes, younger.

Jean-Luc Godard: Is this the one that was not taken in Cannes this year?

Hal Hartley: It was in the Director's Fortnight.

Jean-Luc Godard: Is it the one refused by Gilles Jacob?

Hal Hartley: I guess.

Jean-Luc Godard: Anne-Marie Mieville is one too.

Hal Hartley: Oh?

Jean-Luc Godard: Her film was refused by Gilles Jacob, yes.

Hal Hartley: Is it in any of the other categories?

Jean-Luc Godard: No. In a way, she was relieved, shocked by the refusal, but relieved by the refusal.

Hal Hartley: I'm often uncertain of what's expected of a movie. More and more, even with a measure of success, I'm not sure what it is people are seeing when they see a movie I've made.

Jean-Luc Godard: Well the trouble with Hollywood is that it has poisoned us. If you see a poster of a movie it is mainly the picture of a woman and a man. Always a love story. Yes. But it shouldn't be that way. It should be another (way).

Hal Hartley: There's got to be more.

Jean-Luc Godard: More things to see through. It's not astounding that it is more difficult. We are losing our own capacity because we are poisoned in one way or another. What I like in pictures whether by an old director or a young director is when I have the feeling he or she is really using the capacity of film.

Hal Hartley: That's what I feel I have to get to. Just looking without all the other needs of a movie. I mean, you've talked about this as clearly as anyone over the years. I don't mean to flatter you, because I think it's something you know. But I think your pictures bring out, underline the very fact, that we have this capacity to see with our eyes. And that this is a very amazing thing. I'd like to get there. I think maybe my first attempts at making moving pictures when I was like nineteen years old, in Super-8, did bring about this sense of mystery. The excitement of just getting an image of anything–a reflection in glass–to me that was the most exciting thing.

Jean-Luc Godard: You have to continue and discover the grammar of things, of what we can see.

Hal Hartley: Any particular reason why you decided to make a self portrait now?

Jean-Luc Godard: Self-portraits have been done in painting, but never in music or literature. It has no meaning, it makes no sense. And in movies I was wondering if it could. And how.

Hal Hartley: I guess it can. (Martin) Donovan came away from the film yesterday and said he felt like he had just spent a day with this stranger.

Jean-Luc Godard: Yes. It's a compliment. You can have a feeling of daytime. And that's why I put "a self portrait in December". If it was in July it would have been different. More or less the same kind of movie but not at all the same pictures. Not the same lake, not the same tree.

Hal Hartley: Not the same thoughts.

Jean-Luc Godard: Certainly not the same thoughts. These are the thoughts of this day.

Hal Hartley: Your father was a doctor?

Jean-Luc Godard: An ordinary doctor. A general practitioner. Which is less and less happening today. There are specialists.

Hal Hartley: Everybody's a specialist.

Jean-Luc Godard: Yes, everybody's a specialist, except of himself. 


la foto di Godard e stata scattatta da Robert Altman a New York City nell'aprile del 1970.

No Comments

Il tamburo di latta – Volker Schlondorff; Germania 1979

Oskar Matzerath


Scheda critica:  Officine Cinematografiche, CPA Firenze Sud, 2/05/05

                      "  Il Tamburo Di Latta  "  '79

                      di V. Schlondorff



"  L 'immaginario e' cio che tende a divenire reale  ".


Una simile affermazione, per quanto ha di involontatriamente restrittivo, puo' servire come pietra di paragone, e fare giustizia di qualche parodia di rivoluzione letteraria: quel che tende a restare irreale sono le chiacchiere.

La vita, di cui siamo responsabili, incontra, insieme a grandi motivi di scoraggiamento, un'infinita' di diversivi e di compensazioni piu' o meno volgari. Non c'e' anno in cui delle persone che abbiano amato non incappano, per non aver chiaramente compreso le possibilita' presenti, in qualche clamorosa capitolazione. Ma esse non vanno a rafforzare il campo nemico, che contava gia' milioni di imbecilli, e dove si e' oggettivamente condannati a essere imbecili.

La prima deficienza morale resta l'indulgenza, in tutte le sue forme.


Guy-Ernest Debord, "Introduction à une critique de la géographie urbaine", in "Les Lèvres nues". n.6, settembre 1955, Bruxelles.



                                     Buona visione!

No Comments

Berlino, Sinfonia di una grande citta’ – Walther Ruttman; Germania 1927

Sull’oscuramento di del tre luglio:

avrete notato per una buona parte di martedì tre luglio il sito è stato
irraggiungibile. I motivi di questo oscuramento li potete leggere sul blog di autistici/inventati, il collettivo che mantiene anche questa piattaforma di blogging. Già ieri pomeriggio avevamo ripristinato il servizio aggirando il blocco del provider, che dopo un po’ di discussione è stato rimosso in nottata. Adesso dovrebbe essere tornato tutto normale. A breve, sempre su cavallette, troverete un articolo che vi racconta l’epilogo (speriamo) della vicenda.

    locandina di Berlin die sinfonie der grosstadt

    fotogramma da Berlin 

 Still frame from: Berlin: Symphony of a Great City
Berlin: Die Symphonie der Großstadt
– video (clicca sull’anteprima per vedere il video)

Officine Cinematografiche, CPA Firenze Sud, 20/11/05
"Berlino, Sinfonia di una grande citta’" di W. Ruttman; Germania 1927.

Scheda critica.

"Un tempo si raffiguravano solo cose che potevamo vedere, o che ci sarebbe piaciuto vedere. Ora invece ci si palesa soprattutto la relativita’ delle cose visibili, che si manifestano pertanto come un piccoloesesmpio della totalita’ del mondo, e delle innumerevoli verita’ latentiche esso contiene. Le cose ci appaiono in un senso piu’ vasto, moltiplicato, e che sembrano contraddire l’esperienza razionale di ieri. Si sta diffondendo una essenzializzazione del casuale".

                                  Paul Klee, Berlino 1920

Il cinema e’ una cultura urbana, cresciuta parallelamente all’espansione della metropoli.. La citta’ "doveva" diventare il cinema per non annoiarsi a morte… Il cinema ci mostra il paesaggio urbano dala prospettiva delle immagini… noi costruiamo un’immagine di noi stessi, e ci sforziamo di somigliare a questa immagine… e’ questa l’identita’? Il corrispondere dell’immagine che ci costruiamo e di noi stessi?… Viviamo nelle citta’, le citta’ vivono dentro di noi… il tempo scorre… tutto si trasforma velocemente… soprattutto le immagini… a partire dal big-bang delle immagini eletroniche… possiamo fidarci dell’immagine elettronica? Con la pittura tutto era ancora semplice:essendo unico l’originale, ogni copia era una copia cioe’ un falso. Con la fotografia e poi con il cinema tutto si e’ fatto piu’ complesso: ‘l’originale’ e’ un negativo, e no puo’ esistere senza la copia, tutt’altro: ogni copia e’ un originale. Ora, con l’immagine elettronica e con quella digitale, non c’e’ piu’ negativo, e tantomeno positivo, l’idea stessa di originale decade. Tutto e’ copia. Ogni distinzione sembra puro arbitrio. Chi pora’ scandalizzarsi allora se il concetto di identita’ e’ talmente scaduto in basso?

Mi sto perdendo tutto… adesso ascolto la voce di Bob Dylan che canta: "Ring them bells, you hear them, for the city that dreams…"… Sono contento di essermi perso tutto, ma ho l’impressione di non dover rimpiangere nulla… Spero che quando tornero’ i miei sogni sulla citta’ non diventino incubi.

                                 Buona visione!

No Comments

Quarto potere – Orson Welles

Quarto potere

Scheda critica: Officine Cinematografiche, CPA Firenze Sud 6/12/04
Quarto Potere
di Orson Welles – '41

Il senso delle ultime parole spiega forse una vita intera?

Tutto dipende da chi ne parla. La verita' e' data dalla somma di tutto cio' che e' stato detto. Lo scopo e' proporre il problema piuttosto che risolverlo. Al termine del viaggio dovremmo riconoscere il nostro volto piu' segreto. Ricostruire a posteriori non comporta una ricerca di riproducibilita' della realta', ma semmai un ingigantimento – una deformazione in ogni caso – della realta', per mostrare gli splendori e le miserie. Si capisce, tra l'altro, lo sconcerto dei nostri catechisti della "ragione" burocratico-progressiva di fronte a una cosi' rovinosa eclisse dell'individuo.
Ma c'e' una razza che non accetta gli alibi,
una razza che nell'atimo in cui ride
si ricorda del pianto, e nel pianto del riso,
una razza che non si esime un giorno, un'ora,
dal dovere della presenza invasata,
della contraddizione in cui la vita non concede
mai adempimento alcuno, una razza che fa
della propria mitezza un'arma che non perdona.
Gli uomini belli, gli uomini che danzano con ragazzette tenere e ingenue, tra boschi e mucche, gli uomini integri, nella salute propria e del mondo, gli uomini solidi nella gioventu', ilari nella vecchiaia – gli uomini del futuro sono gli uomini del sogno. Ora la mia speranza non ha sorriso, o umanaomerta': perche' essa non e' il sogno della ragione, ma e' ragione, sorella della pieta'.

Buona visione!

No Comments

La religione del mio tempo

 L'angelo sterminatore

Nessuna delle passioni vere dell'uomo si rivelo' nelle parole e nelle azioni della Chiesa. Anzi, guai a chi non puo' non essere ad essa nuovo! Non dare ad essa ingenuo tutto cio' che in lui ondeggia come un mare di troppo trepidante amore. Guai a chi con gioia vitale vuole servire una legge ch'e' dolore! Guai a chi con vitale dolore si dona a una causa che nulla vuole se non difendere la poca fede ancora rimasta a dare rassegnazione al mondo! Guai a chi crede che all'impeto del cuore debba l'impeto della ragione rispondere! Guai a chi non sa essere misero nel misurare nell'anima i fondi piani dell'egoismo e le derise pazzie della pieta! Guai a chi crede che la storia ad una eterna origine – per candore piuttosto che per fede – si sia interrotta, come il sole del sogno; e non sa che e' erede la Chiesa di ogni secolo creatore, e difenderne gli istituiti, l'orribile, animale grigiore che vince nell'uomo luce e tenebra! Guai a chi non sa che e' borghese questa fede cristiana, nel segno di ogni privilegio, di ogni resa, di ogni servitu'; che il peccato non e' che reato di lesa certezza quotidiana, odiato per paura e aridita'; che la Chiesa e' lo spietato cuore dello Stato.

Da "La religione del mio tempo", di Pier Paolo Pasolini, 1961.

Martedi' 6 dicembre 2005, Officine Cine matografiche, CPA Firenze Sud,
per "Madonna che barba!", compleanno di Eleonora.

No Comments

Censurato!!! Censored!!! torna visibile, ma il blocco del provider rimane!

Pubblicato il 03.07.2007 in Avvisi, Cyber_Rights, home page da R* ||

Come avrete notato potete di nuovo raggiungere (DNS permettendo). Il blocco disposto dal provider è ancora attivo, ma la crew di A/I lo sta aggirando usando le proprie doti sciamaniche. Restiamo in attesa di comunicazioni con il provider.
Non abbassate la guardia, e continuate a mirrorare il gioco!

As you may have noticed, Noblogs.orgcan now be reached again (if your DNS has already been updated!). The block set up by the provider is still on, but the A/I crew is bypassing it with its shamanic skills. We are still waiting for the provider to give us official news.
Do not relent, keep mirroring!

Stanotte Dio ha telefonato in America

Pubblicato il 03.07.2007 in Comunicati, Avvisi, home page da R* ||


Ieri vi raccontavamo del caso e della censura di Molleindustria e del gioco satirico pretofilia: accusato di pedopornografia da un’interrogazione parlamentare, il gioco è stato rimosso dal sito di molleindustria a pochi giorni dalla sua pubblicazione.

I mirror sono subito spuntati come funghi, come è giusto e naturale che i funghi spuntino; e il gioco è stato pubblicato anche su alcuni blog della nostra piattaforma

Dopo il caso scoppiato, la minaccia era nell’aria e dire che non ce l’aspettavamo sarebbe una menzogna: ma di certo non ci aspettavamo che a bloccare tutta Noblogs (e quindi tutti i blog che centinaia di persone usano per comunicare) giungesse di notte la voce di uno tanto in alto.
Proprio quello là in alto.

Stanotte Dio ha telefonato in America, per la precisione al provider che ospita il server di Noblogs, e con tono imperioso ha intimato di chiudere il servizio. Non disponendo di fax su nei cieli, l’Onnipotente ha ritenuto che la sua voce potesse bastare a ottenere l’effetto desiderato, ma ha compiuto l’errore di sempre: non ha fatto i conti con i miscredenti.

Noi, che oltre a essere autistici siamo scettici per natura e se non vediamo non crediamo, aspettiamo invece una prova concreta, una comunicazione ufficiale. In attesa che l’Altissimo scenda giù dai cieli e faccia mandare una materialissima lettera da qualche suo rappresentante in terra, siamo intenzionati a riaprire, appena ci sarà possibile, Noblogs con tutto (tutto) il suo contenuto.

Nel frattempo ci teniamo a sottolineare che secondo noi Pretofilia non ha niente a che fare con la pedopornografia e, anzi, è ottima satira che si schiera contro le violenze sui minori accusando semmai chi quelle violenze vuole metterle a tacere: d’altra parte ultimamente le frecciate alla chiesa e ai preti pedofili non sono mancate (ad esempio in questa puntata di South Park e sul Vernacoliere). Per questo, per rivendicare il diritto alla satira e alla libertà d’espressione, invitiamo tutt*, sapendo che le grane non mancheranno, a mirrorare il contenuto e a pubblicare il link tra i commenti su cavallette.

E se l’ira del Signore dovesse abbattersi su tutt* noi, non temete: i file circoleranno sempre e comunque sulle reti p2p: mininova – slotorrent – link ed2k

***english text***

Last Night God called America is a site publishing satirical flash games with provocative political content. Its last game, called “Pretofilia” (i.e. Priestophilia), is a denunciation of the widespread use of pedophilia as an excuse for censorship, and of the widespread abuse on children in the catholic church.

After its publishing, the site has been immediately subjected to the attention of the Italian Parliament and the Interior Ministry answered prompting the police to act against the site. Molleindustria decided then to remove the game, but the file had already been spread far and wide on the Internet.

Soon after the news of the censorship threat was made known on the website, the game was mirrored even more, eventually also on some blogs on our platform.

After all that had been said and done on this harmless satire, we would not dare to say we did not expect some threats to our servers, but we would not have imagined that a small swf file could wake up someone so up above us to block all of (including all the blogs used by hundreds of people for their daily communication).
And when we say so up above us, we mean it!

Last night God itself called the provider hosting and demanded the whole server to be shut down. In the heavens above there are no fax machines, so the Almighty has deemed its voice by phone to be authoritative enough.
Unfortunately God never minds the Unbelievers.

Apart from being nerds, we are also strongly skeptical by default and we tend not to believe what anyone tells us unless we can touch it and feel it with our own hands. So we do not trust God’s voice by phone to be authoritative enough and are asking for a concrete and official injunction to shut down the site.
While we wait for the Almighty to have some of its representatives on Earth send a very material letter or order, we mean to reopen as soon as possible with all its content (and nothing less).

In the meantime, we would like to stress that in our opinion Pretofilia has nothing to do with pedopornography and that we deem it a very good satire against children abuses. It could at worst wake up some criticism on how much priest’s abuses are hidden and silenced, but lately satire on the matter has been far from random.

That is why we ask anyone caring for the freedom of speech and satire to mirror the game, knowing that it could imply a fair degree of legal issues and attacks by the Italian government, the Vatican, and their lot. We ask anyone to publish a link to these mirrors in the comments to our blog.

If the wrath of God Almighty comes down on us, do not fear: file will prevail on p2p networks!
mininova – slotorrent – ed2k link


Lunedì nero per la libertà di espressione: Pretofilia

Cyber_Rights Lunedì nero per la libertà di espressione: Pretofilia

Pubblicato il 02.07.2007 in Cyber_Rights, home page da R* ||

Torniamo oggi alla connettività a banda larga dopo una tre giorni in 20 con 56k (di cui presto avete un resoconto per capire come stiamo dietro alla manutenzione e implementazione dei servizi di autistici/inventati) e la reazione alle notizie è sospesa a metà tra la voglia di uscire e scatenare riot casuali, e un seppuku collettivo in piazza (forma di protesta molto radicale ancorché un filo giapponese).

Non è una novità, dato che ha già fatto il giro di mezza internet la vicenda di Pretofilia, il gioco flash prodotto da molleindustria che ha scatenato immediatamente un dibattito e una censura a livello parlamentare e ministeriale (d’altronde è sicuramente un cosa importantissima da discutere, molto di più che la situazione previdenziale, la precarietà o che ne so le missioni di guerra…).
L’Italia si conferma ormai uno stato esplicitamente confessionale, in pieno balzo all’indietro nel tempo a tutto ciò che il laicismo degli anni sessanta e settanta sembrava aver gettato nel dimenticatoio. E’ pur vero che insistere sulla guerra di civilità impunemente per anni avrà anche i suoi effetti culturali. Sperare che il buon senso e la difesa della libertà di espressione vincano su bigottismo e cultura politica dello scandalo e delle boutade futili che coprono l’assenza di dibattito reale sui problemi delle persone sembra onestamente un’utopia.

Invitiamo tutti a scaricare, copiare, pubblicare lo zip del gioco, che potete trovare qui Pretofilia games.

Presto novità su questa vicenda. Stay tuned!

Ma non è finita qui: non facciamo in tempo ad aprire punto informatico che già l’orticaria è oltre il livello consentito: infatti scopriamo che in nome di un’interpretazione del diritto d’autore ottocentesca (perché alla fine nel Settecento la cultura illuminista era un filo più avanzata di quella con cui facciamo i conti ora) wikipedia italia ha deciso di rimuovere tutte le foto di materiale architettonico di autori vivi o morti da meno di 70 anni. Pare che in Italia non abbiano ancora scoperto che il diritto d’autore ha fatto il suo tempo e che nel resto del mondo riprodurre una foto di un’opera è un veicolo di pubblicità e di cultura. Ma si sa che in Italia l’amore per la cultura e per la crescita intellettuale della popolazione è ai minimi storici: altrimenti non si comprenderebbero le fiction che ci ammorbano, la telecrazia devastante, la rimozione di fondi da ogni cosa che sappia anche vagamente di cultura non patinata (vedi il caso a milano dell’assenza di fondi per l’iniziativa “biblioteche in giardino”, destinata alle periferie), e in generale la voglia di lobotomia generalizzata che sembra dominare il dibattito italiano. L’asfissia culturale ci ucciderà? No, ma probabilmente ci renderà servi migliori. D’altronde si sa che i soldi delle agenzie che gestiscono il diritto d’autore di Fuksas sono più importanti della possibilità di conoscere le opere stesse.

A questa chicca possiamo pure aggiungere la confortante notizia che la polizia italiana si appresta ad avere anche lei una banca dati genetica a fini investigativi: ma sui i miei geni io il copyright non ce l’ho? Buon travaso di bile a tutt*

Questi testi sono tratti da

No Comments

Officine Cinematografiche – flyer scans volume 1 + programma luglio

locandina americana di "Per un pugno di dollari" 

Centro Popolare Autogestito – C.P.A. Firenze Sud
Officine Cinematografiche – – presentano… 

"Estate calda… sfida infernale"
…rassegna intorno al cinema western…

2 luglio 2007, 0re 22.30:
"The great train robbery" – E.S. Porter – USA 1903 – 12' – b/n.
"West and soda" – B. Bozzetto – IT. 1965 – 86' – col.

9 luglio 2007, ore 22.30:
"Sfida infernale" – J. Ford – USA 1946 – 97' – b/n.

16 luglio 2007, ore 22.30:
"Per un pugno di dollari" – S. Leone – IT. SP. RTF. 1964 – 100' – col.

23 luglio 2007, ore 22.30:
"Pat Garrett e Billy the Kid" – S. Peckinpah – USA 1973 – 106' – col.

30 luglio 2007, ore 22.30:
"Giu' la testa" – S. Leone – IT. 1971 – 138' – col. (proiezione video)

… tutti i film sono proiettati rigorosamente in pellicola 16 mm, dove non ( ) segnalato.

i lunedi' di luglio all' arena estiva del cinema del C.P.A. in via
Villamagna. Sottoscrizione 2 euro.  Autobus 3 – 8 – 23 – 31 – 32  33 – qui si possono vedere le scansioni dei flyer del vecchio cinema Longinottik – sito ufficiale – pagina del cinema al cpa

Questo blog e' dedicato allo Zio Jo La Face, l'uomo dalla testa piena di film.

La dedizione di quest'uomo verso il cinematografo e' immensa. Proiezionista in una sala di prima visione a Firenze, nei suoi 2 giorni liberi settimanali proietta film in 16 mm al cinema del Centro Popolare Autogestito Firenze Sud e in altri luoghi che sceglie a suo piacimento fra locali, cinema autogestiti e happenings vari.

Vorrei rendere omaggio con questa pagina alla passione per il cinema che Jo ha trasmesso a me e a migliaia di altre persone che hanno avuto il piacere di conoscerlo e di collaborare con lui. Inoltre vorrei ringraziare Alessio per i fantastici flyers che ha ideato nel corso di vari anni di esistenza della Longinottik prima e del nuovo cinema del CPA Fi-sud. Molte delle immagini di questo blog sono scansioni dei flyer di Alessio. I testi dei flyer sono di Alessio, quando non indicato.

Ringraziamenti (in ordine sparso) a:

Claudino, Nanone, Bozen, Lando, Caterina, Sara, Fiammetta, Rosa, Antonella, Maria Rita, Rita, Teresa, Ilaria, Chiara Vampyr, Kei, Titti, Marta, Mohamed, Hacklab, Eleonora, Maurizio, Martina, Angelo Quicksand, Syd, Francesca, Tetano, Edo, Wave, Weis, Mauro, Alessandro, Adamo, Francesco, Pralina, Massi, Banjo, Andrea, Fata Carabina, Ugo, Felix (R.I.P.), Spippi, Marta (R.I.P.), Debora, Enrico, Walter, Stefano, Ricca, Daniela, Harrypotter, Antonellina, Luciano, Paola C, Rashid, Hulot, Bamba Amara, Gigi Onazipac, Gabriele M, Lidia, Simona, Cristina, Aldo, Freddy, Flasc, Kriminal, Ogi:no Knauss (Miki, Lorenzo, Manu), Skuamo, Jimmy, Checca, Eva, Roberto (R.I.P.), Elisa, Niccolo', Mattia, Simone, Milly, Archi Sonori, Vincenzo, Dana, Antonio, Andrea, Natalia, Noa, Pippino, il Vecchio, il Perso, Marilena, Clara, Vortex, Kafa, Caterina P, Lucille, Chiarina e Elena V, Mao, Maurizio C, Riccardo C, Claudio, Frankie, Serena Gnapgirl, Rocco, Bozzone, Davide, Francesco, Franco, i ragazzi della Brera di Pistoia, le amiche e gli amici di Fiesolana 32, Burp (Mat, Robi WJM, Zazie), Novaradio, la famiglia Dembele', tutti i dj e i musicisti che hanno sonorizzato i vari film muti e tutte le altre persone che hanno contribuito alla realizzazione degli eventi cinematografici al CPA, al Saraceno Cineclub di Montemurlo, al Macadam di Perugia, e negli altri posti che con gli anni ho dimenticato. 

THX 1138 

Clikka sulle immagini per ingrandirle 

Journey into fear 

Rassegna I misteri di un'anima 

Lo straniero 

Rassegna Orson – l'infernale – Welles 

Les quatrecents coups 

Family life 

Le vacanze di monsieur Hulot 

Zero in condotta – L'Atalante 

Citizen Kane 

Quarto potere (Citizen Kane) 

Rassegna I misteri di un'anima


Rassegna Orson – l'infernale – Welles 

Rassegna Orson – l'infernale – Welles

Sistema tonale attuale 

Orson Welles 

Rapporto confidenziale (Mr. Arkadin)

The heart of age – Macbeth 


Le ultime parole in scena – Citizen Kane

Vita di O-haru, donna galante 

Rassegna Lo schermo insoddisfatto 

Rassegna Lo schermo insoddisfatto

diario di un curato di campagna (Journal d'un curé de campagne) 

Il mondo di Apu (Apur sansar) 

Per vedere altre schede e flyer vai a Schede Critiche Officine Cinematografiche – Vol. 2

No Comments