american splendor versus THE MAHABHARATA BY PETER BROOK
sirb...@hotmail.com
romanticism/modernism/postmodernism versus STRONG
ROMANTICISM/MODERNISM/POSTMODERNISM.
american splendor was praised by a bunch of far out spanish critics who
arent afraid of the multinational monopolised power and control over
what cinema is and are proud to mention how much they use stuff like
kazaa which by the way, is a superstructure (as marx doth did certainly
did say, it be the superstructures that define what a 'person' say, not
the 'person' itself) that is glaringly lacking in this ng, not
surprising with the likes of gongo, stewe, gaza or pillbox or boots,
the last two who have embittered themselves year after year and have
adopted creepshit shitball kimball kimshit's positions, and it's all
about hyperrealising the day to its end, using their paper to enslave
and piously, like the puritans with nike shirts that they are, avoiding
the liberty (the true libertarianism) of online sharing. it is also a
superstructure that's obviously lacking within anglo-american
criticism, drowning as it is in conservofascism, amnesia and saying
what the multinational corporations want them to say. the epitome of
all of this came months ago, in an endlessly phony post by joe gillis
about the 'freedom of choice' where he pasted a guy who forgot to
mention kazaa and oh what a surprise mentioned something called
netflix.
be that as it may, american splendor is far too weak, and therefore is
pretty crappy, i dont care for these morons you see, i is magnificient
and therefore i think brook's four hour version of the hindu stuff
which you can download off the internet is absolutely amazing, cuz of
its strength. its a bit like comparing woody allen with tom waits, or
shyamalan with haneke. in mahabharata there are some absolutely
unforgettable sequences and it has cutely slipped into my 10 fave
mooees of all time. watch it.
