Title : "What is the reason of this phenomenon? The solution of this question belongs to the domain of pathology rather than that of aesthetics."
link : "What is the reason of this phenomenon? The solution of this question belongs to the domain of pathology rather than that of aesthetics."
"What is the reason of this phenomenon? The solution of this question belongs to the domain of pathology rather than that of aesthetics."
"A physician, whose speciality is female diseases, and whom I asked to explain the magic our Liszt exerted upon the public, smiled in the strangest manner, and at the same time said all sorts of things about magnetism, galvanism, electricity, of the contagion of the close hall filled with countless wax lights and several hundred perfumed and perspiring human beings, of historical epilepsy, of the phenomenon of tickling, of musical cantherides, and other scabrous things, which, I believe have reference to the mysteries of the bona dea. Perhaps the solution of the question is not buried in such adventurous depths, but floats on a very prosaic surface. It seems to me at times that all this sorcery may be explained by the fact that no one on earth knows so well how to organize his successes, or rather their mise en scene, as our Franz Liszt."Wrote Heinrich Heine, in 1844, quoted in the Wikipedia article "Lisztomania," which I'm reading because I was looking for the movie with that title. "Lisztomania," the 1974 Ken Russell film, which Roger Ebert called "a berserk exercise of demented genius" that "Most people will probably despise it." According to WaPo's Gary Arnold:
A boudoir-farce approach to the life and legend of Liszt would have been trivial-minded, but harmlessly trivial-minded compared to the collection of obscene fantasies and gassy porofundities Russell resorts to after his muse runs out of comic ideas.No, "porofundities isn't a word." It's just supposed to be "profundities," even though it's hard to picture profundities being gassy. How do gassy things stay deep? Wouldn't they float upward?
Anyway... things said in 1974. Why am I reading that today? I saw a link at Facebook (from my son) to "Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody Is Now the Biggest Music Biopic Ever. It’s Also Total Bullshit/The classic rock band has always been savvy about its own branding and legacy, but their Oscar-nominated film takes things too far."
I realize that doesn't quite say "Bohemian Rhapsody" is the biggest bullshit. It's "biggest" in terms of gross worldwide ticket sales. And it's total bullshit — which is itself bullshit — but I don't believe you can multiply the dollar amount by 1.00 (to represent the assertion of 100% bullshit) and get to a number to compare to other music biopics and discover which one is the biggest bullshit.
I think the factual inaccuracies of "Bohemian Rhapsody" bother the people who are bothered because the movie is relatively conventional and sincere. I think it's unfair to the concept of bullshit to rank something like that first. I say go deeper — explore the porofundities! — before you make the final call. Consider the berserk obscene fantasies of the demented genius Ken Russell from back in the 70s when bullshit was bullshit!
Thus Article "What is the reason of this phenomenon? The solution of this question belongs to the domain of pathology rather than that of aesthetics."
That's an article "What is the reason of this phenomenon? The solution of this question belongs to the domain of pathology rather than that of aesthetics." This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article "What is the reason of this phenomenon? The solution of this question belongs to the domain of pathology rather than that of aesthetics." with the link address https://infotodays1.blogspot.com/2019/02/what-is-reason-of-this-phenomenon.html
0 Response to ""What is the reason of this phenomenon? The solution of this question belongs to the domain of pathology rather than that of aesthetics.""
Post a Comment