In defense of Arthur Rimbaud.
734
poet here. Leonardo portrayed him and loves the poet too. Here is one of my
favorite of his poems.
Visit a great web site on him if you want more.
http://members.tripod.com/adm/popup/roadmap.shtml?member_name=roadside6&pa
th=index.html&client_ip=205.188.208.101&ts=956675406&ad_type=POPUP&id=75fa
18424499d9b51f8d80acc2e39521
Barbarian
Long after the days and the seasons, and people and countries.
The banner of raw meat against the silk of seas and arctic flowers; (they
do not exist).
Recovered from the old fanfares of heroism,-- which still attack the
heart and head,-- far from the old assasins.
--Oh! the banner of raw meat against the silk of seas and arctic flowers;
(they do not exist).--
Bliss!
Live embers raining in gusts of frost.-- Bliss!-- fires in the rain of
the wind of diamonds flung out by the earth's heart eternally carbonized
for us.-- O world!
(Far from the old retreats and the old flames, still heard, still felt.)
Fire and foam. Magic, veerings of chasms and clash of icicles against
the stars.
O bliss, O world, O music! And forms, sweat, eyes and long hair floating
there. And white tears boiling,-- O bliss!-- and the feminine voice
reaching to the bottom of volcanos and grottos of the arctic seas.
The banner...
Centuriian
because your professors have categorized his calamitous poetry as mediocre,
midling, and unexceptional at best? Indeed, his poetry has been panned by the
great majority of critics.
As to your defense of Leonardo and the great amount of time he painstakingly
devotes as he scrutinizes a script before accepting a role , may I quote you:
< Because the film choose to titillate rather than teach. DiCaprio
himself was disappointed. The poetry and the spirit behind it was what he was
attempting. The film is largely shit. >>
If, indeed, the film is largely "shit", may I ask, what then is Leonardo?
May I also point out a blaring error Rimbaud made in writing this catastrophic,
perdition of a poem, or, was it you that aded the words {they do not exist}?
Please reread this verse:
>
>--Oh! the banner of raw meat against the silk of seas and arctic flowers;
>(they do not exist).--
In fact, Arctic flowers do exist! The bitterly cold Arctic climate relents
sparingly each year and allows enough of the frozen tundra to melt, thus
allowing a vast array of
plantlife{ which include flowers} to grow and provide nourishment for the many
Arctic animals that congregate in this region for the purpose of giving birth
to their young.
Marc
> Rimbaud.
>From: shnoo...@aol.comnojunk (734)
>Date: 4/25/00 10:11 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000425111104...@ng-da1.aol.com>
734
First things first.
Leonardo took the film because it was recommended to him by Jim Carroll. It
was a childish thing to do. He was under a different impression I am told of
what the film would be. He dove in without checking for water in that
proverbial pool. Leonardo is not shit because of the film. he is not
appreciated because so many only love him for his looks. It is sad. But I
really don't care. I know why I like him and and don't give a monkey's why
anyone else does.
If he spends so much time on a script now, it is because of his other hideous
mistakes. Allow me to share even worse peices of crap he's done with you.
Critters 3. He played a brat for about five minutes in the begining.
Poison Ivy. He has one big line. Something to the effect of "Hey! A dog got
hit!" You can't even see his face because the camera never focuses on him.
Now, about them fightin' words . . .:-)
"Perhaps, was it
because your professors have categorized his calamitous poetry as mediocre,"
My professors never even heard of him. They taught Longfellow and Wadsworth
who in my opinion were most eloquent in their description of nothing.
I care not for critics, as Rimbaud himself did not write for critics. In fact,
he never published his own work. He burned a great deal of it. It is Verlain
that ended up publishing most of what is available. The rest went to those who
sought to attack the existing poetic community and only had Rimbauds words.
Most people thought Rimbaud was dead when they published and the poems are
attributed to "the late Arthur Rimbaud" He was alive and being ripped off by
African tradesman at the time and couldn't have cared less.
I need not reread this verse. You must be a literalist. He doesn't mean there
are no arctic flowers. Poetry is written impressionism Why stop at the
flowers? How many 'banner(s) of raw meat" or "sea silks" have you bumped into?
I respected your critique until I saw that. Arthur loved discourse. Loved to
argue. You actually disappointed me with that. How could you possibly have
gotten that from the poem?
Let me simplify Rimbaud for you. If he was alive today, he would be Howard
Stern's biggest fan.
ddr...@my-deja.com
shnoo...@aol.comnojunk (734) wrote:
> Leonardo took the film because it was recommended to him by Jim
Carroll.
Um, I thought TE was recommended by Leo's father. I don't think Leo was
ever close to Jim Carroll.
>Leonardo is not shit because of the film.
Of course not. A film is a director's vision, an actor is only playing
his part. I thought Leo did wonderufl job with the material he was
given.
>he is not appreciated because so many only love him for his looks.
I don't understand this. People love his looks because he's not
appreciated?? I love his looks, and I adore him as a person as well as
a performer.
> If he spends so much time on a script now, it is because of his other
hideous mistakes.
He always spends a lot of time on a script because he can never make up
his mind!!
> I care not for critics, as Rimbaud himself did not write for
critics.
Totally agree. This should apply to every artist. I don't think Leo
care about critics either, he always does whatever he believes in. I
admire him for that.
Thanks for the poem. ;-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
GG2676
>Critters 3. He played a brat for about five minutes in the begining.
>
OH-OH! You are very VERY VERY WRONG about this. This only proves to me that you
did not watch this movie because LEOO is in the movie a lot. LEOO is in it all
the way to the end. You see, I WATCHED THE MOVIE,CRITTERS 3, all the way to the
end. LEOO did not even get killed in it. You should not write anything unless
you know what you are talking about first. I will not say anything about poetry
because then I would not know what I was talking about. I do not like to read
poetry. I like to watch movies.
gg
>Subject: Re: In defense of Arthur Rimbaud.
>From: shnoo...@aol.comnojunk (734)
>Date: 4/26/00 8:44 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000426094446...@ng-cv1.aol.com>
>
>The poem is intact. I neither embellish nor edit.
>
>First things first.
>Leonardo took the film because it was recommended to him by Jim Carroll. It
>was a childish thing to do. He was under a different impression I am told of
>what the film would be. He dove in without checking for water in that
>proverbial pool. Leonardo is not shit because of the film. he is not
>appreciated because so many only love him for his looks. It is sad. But I
>really don't care. I know why I like him and and don't give a monkey's why
>anyone else does.
>
>If he spends so much time on a script now, it is because of his other hideous
ddr...@my-deja.com
gg2...@aol.com (GG2676) wrote:
> OH-OH! You are very VERY VERY WRONG about this. This only proves to
me that you did not watch this movie because LEOO is in the movie a
anything unless you know what you are talking about first.
Chill, GG. She made a mistake, so what? Critter 3 isn't the most
memorable movie Leo has ever made. She might forget it since the last
time she saw it.
SlyDarkie
juz hush up ddrew yo fool mouth dats rite, uh huh cuz ya all gots a who mess o
chillin out yoself fool, uh huh , duh icicles be growins n hangin on dat long
scraggity crookeded bitchy witchy noze ya all gots , dats rite! nows juz bag
dat ass up n haul it on outta here
Sly--bags it up fool---Darkie
734
care about critics either, he always does whatever he believes in. I
admire him for that.
Thanks for the poem. ;-)
You're right. But there are those who only see his looks. Nothing else.
They don't see the art. Maybe too young. What I meant by this is really that
some take issue with him only because of his "heart throb" status. They ignore
or disregard his talent. He did portray Rimbaud as well as the film allowed.
I imagine that he captured Rimbaud's personality to the letter. They just
chose the wrong moments from the poets life.
Jim Carrol actually thought very highly of Leo. They share a scene in
Basketball Diaries. (Jim is the junkie talking about how he went to church and
imagined a giant spoon over the six foot candle filled with bags of dope.)
I too adore Leo. He is cute, but a little young for me. (I'm 36) But I know
he impacts possitively on many of my generation. He succeeds at what the likes
of Demi Moore and Jonny Depp attempted. Whatever that thing was, exactly.
GG2676
gg
>Subject: Re: In defense of Arthur Rimbaud.
>From: slyd...@aol.com (SlyDarkie)
>Date: 4/26/00 1:58 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000426145828...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
ddr...@my-deja.com
In article <20000426145828...@ng-bk1.aol.com>,
slyd...@aol.com (SlyDarkie) wrote:
> Who da phuck youz be ta be tellin my bro GG to chill out, humph, ya
all besteds
> juz hush up ddrew yo fool mouth dats rite, uh huh cuz ya all gots a
who mess o
> chillin out yoself fool, uh huh , duh icicles be growins n hangin on
dat long
> scraggity crookeded bitchy witchy noze ya all gots , dats rite! nows
juz bag
> dat ass up n haul it on outta here
>
> Sly--bags it up fool---Darkie
>
>