HOUSE OF GUCCI

HOUSE OF GUCCI

The Gucci family has repeatedly dissociated itself from the portrait that the film portrays, and I will not go into the merits, but now I can finally say that Lady Gaga in the House of Gucci is truly credible, for the vision I had of it.

So, taking up the talk on Patrizia Reggiani, apparently Lady Germanotta’s decision not to meet her did not affect the interpretation, despite Reggiani being annoyed.

Obviously I observed clothes, accessories, and outfits in general, with particular interest both for Gucci pieces and for 80s looks, and I have to say that I enjoyed the work of costume designer Yanti Yates.

Very scrupulous work, starting from months of study in the archives of the Gucci maison.

In an interview with the New York Times,  available in full on Instagram, Yanti Yates stated that Lady Gaga was hugely involved, not least because she is a complete clotheshorse and looks marvelous in everything. She was hugely focused on how her character might appear at a particular moment, and had very strong views on aspects like hair and makeup.

But also difficult work, again according to the statements made during the interview: I would create initial selections, and then she would select from there.

Gaga selected.

It also seems that there have been days when for her it was “not today.”

Moreover, the same Gucci website reports as an iconic statement from Yanti Yates: “Lady Gaga told me that in this movie she wanted to dress like her Italian mom. To create her looks, I was able to draw on both her personal and historical Gucci archives.”

Like her Italian mom

How good does this sentence sound?

At the same time, however, I have this doubt that is spinning in my head, so help me understand if my perception is deceiving me since, actually, in the early 70s despite I wasn’t really in the world from longer (also now I am not, but this is a other story).

Unfortunately I could not find the image of the scene in which Maurizio Gucci introduces Patrizia to his father Rodolfo, but more or less the same goes for the floral dress in this picture.

Obviously I’m nobody to question the reconstruction, which in all other situations I have admired, and I stress it well, but the idea of this dress leaves me perplexed. I’m wrong, right?

I leave you this roundup of outfits.

In addition to the clothes, House of Gucci offers the vision of a fantastic series of precious “vintage” cars.

In particular, I really loved the way director Ridley Scott frames the arrivals at Rodolfo Gucci’s home: focused on the entrance. From the outside to the outside.

This shot occurs more than once in the movie, with different cars arriving in front of that entrance.

For me it was a sort of “story within history,” almost a symbol to mark the time.

In the picture below, with the same principle, in contrast we are witnessing a departure.

Which is also a beginning: the beginning of a strategy for Maurizio being back in the company.

For the rest, I refer you to the review by Matavitatau, me, a bit like Cruella, I really enjoyed the non-original soundtrack.

As for the floral dresses, I felt a sort of temporal disorientation that in some cases conquered me, in others it left me a kind of question mark.

For example, I liked the choice for George Michael’s Faith as soundtrack of the wedding scene: despite the anachronistic incongruity, it gave me a joyfulness that counterbalanced the void created by the absence of Maurizio’s family.

On the contrary, I was perplexed listening to Ritornerai by Bruno Lauzi as the background to the scene in which Aldo Gucci goes with Maurizio and Patrizia to the estate where their historic breeding is located. The song is wonderful, ça va sans dire, and the meaning is centered on returning to the origins, but for my personal perception it is as if something screeches.

Apart from that, I could list one song more beautiful than the other, and I would like to propose them all: Here comes the rain again by Eurythmics, Heart of glass by Blondie, Ashes to ashes by the White Duke David Bowie, Blue Monday by New Order, Una notte speciale by Alice, Sono bugiarda by Caterina Caselli, but also Largo al factotum from Il Barbiere di Siviglia by Rossini, Madame Butterfly and much more.

As you choose which one you prefer to listen to first, here are some coffees.

And… the final blessing.

A MONUMENT TO REMEMBER

A MONUMENT TO REMEMBER

A monument to remember, or a monument that must be kept in mind every day is the final sentence of what I could never simply define “comment” that Nick from Matavitatau generously wrote about the Weimar Republic

In case you haven’t read it, I strongly advise you not to lose it: you can find it here

Among other things, he also restored confidence to Massimo since I had wandered a lot from his idea laughing

I absolutely agree with the concept of a monument as something that tells us not to forget what has been, since too often we do not take into account the importance of the lessons we could draw from what has already happened.

Instead we fall back.

Life, one would say, is made up of relapses and even death must be a kind of relapse.
Samuel Beckett

Of course we could work on how to get to this “final relapse” … or not?

Yet we persevere in being naively seized by the drifts that drag us too easily into the undertow of the historical ebbs, which rather resemble refluxes, which evil regurgitates after having eaten with impunity.

I quote again: the Weimar Republic remains there as a gigantic warning to “how it was” and to “how it is good that it never again is:” studying it is like seeing ourselves in the mirror, today that democracy is in such danger precisely due to new famines and new racisms.

So why don’t we want to look honestly in the mirror?

If nothing else, at least the unconscious could register what we don’t want to see, even Profondo Rosso teaches us this.

 

Can it then be said that we consciously refuse to see or unconsciously shun the evidence before our eyes?

Now I digress again, I know, but bouncing from mirror to mirror I came across a research by Professor Giovanni Battista Caputo from University of Urbino,  renamed as Caputo effect, do you already know it?

It is based on visual illusion: the professor recorded the reactions of a sample of fifty people who were asked to observe their own image reflected in the mirror for ten consecutive minutes.

The mirror was placed inside a room illuminated only by the light of a lamp positioned so that its light remained behind the observer’s field of vision and could not be reflected.

The results demonstrated distorted views and in particular: most testified that they saw distortions on their face.

Some people have seen the face of a parent, in some cases deceased.

Other unknown faces, animals or even monstrous beings.

Do you think we could try too?

I mostly considered the idea as a metaphor.

In your opinion, what role does the lamp play?

How can we better enlighten to see in the mirror?

COFFEE IN ENGLAND ALWAYS TASTES LIKE A CHEMISTRY EXPERIMENT Agatha Christie

COFFEE IN ENGLAND ALWAYS TASTES LIKE A CHEMISTRY EXPERIMENT Agatha Christie

An entire blog should be dedicated to the one who is the absolute Queen, just to express that minimum of admiration and esteem She deserves.

But to remain in our space-time measure of coffee in the meantime, I would start from the bottom: that is, from the trailer for the next Death on the Nile. Have you already seen it?

Needless to say, I am very curious, not to mention that as soon as I heard the first notes of Policy of Truth  a standing ovation was triggered.

Unfortunately I haven’t been to many concerts but Depeche Mode in Milan in the 80s was a big yes.

But let’s go back to Death on the Nile: we can consider this one as the third version after the film with Peter Ustinov in 1978 and Poirot on the Nile in 2004 with David Suchet.

I’d say Kenneth Branagh feels comfortable playing the detective born from the pen of Agatha Christie if he’s decided to replicate after Murder on the Orient Express.

Yet Hercule Poirot is a very particular character, apparently uncomfortable I would say, and in general I would never have associated him with Branagh even if I consider him very good. Maybe because I have always perceived him as very English and as a Shakespearean actor par excellence.

Moreover, in Murder on the Orient Express, in my opinion Kenneth Branagh’s proof became even more complicated with the presence of Johnny Depp: since he is possessed by the spirit of Jack Sparrow he has accustomed us to caricature roles such as Lone Ranger, Dark Shadows, not to mention Mortdecai, who, as far as I’m concerned, caused the question “why is Depp Ratchett and not Poirot?”

To tell the truth, however, Branagh’s mustache, for how exaggerated it may seem, is more faithful to the mustache described by Agatha Christie, isn’t it?

So, leaving aside interpretations that have not left their mark such as those of Albert Finney, Tony Randall, Austin Trevor and Alfred Molina, who is your favorite Poirot?

Peter Ustinov, David Suchet or Kenneth Branagh?

WATER IS BEING DEPLETED MANY, MANY TIMES FASTER THAN NATURE CAN REPLENISH IT. Maude Barlow

WATER IS BEING DEPLETED MANY, MANY TIMES FASTER THAN NATURE CAN REPLENISH IT. Maude Barlow

Water is an essential good for life itself.
Among the countless uses, water is also used for our coffee 🙂
If I asked you to describe what water is for you, what would you answer? What is the first word that comes to your mind?
The vocabulary defines it a chemical compound in its three states of aggregation, DIFFUSED IN NATURE.
For me, immediate association is a “precious asset”.
What I wasn’t thinking about was the vision as an economic good: commodity.
And while here in Italy the various governments follow one another with the more or less common denominator of circumventing the outcome of the referendum according to which we would have voted not to privatize it, there are parts of the world where water is subject to market prices.
Yes, as on the stock exchange, precisely with the price fluctuating even according to the weather forecast.
Can the need for water be considered a market demand? According to an increasing number of investors, without any doubt.
This speculation started quietly over fifteen years ago and provides for a division of the water into quotas: a part for the needs of the urban centers, a part for agriculture divided in proportion to the properties, and a part for the environment, for good peace of ecologists.
All this is happening for example in Australia, where as we know there are large desert areas and very hot temperature.
At the beginning, farmers were given the mirage of the option of being able to sell part of their water, if in excess, and make a profit.
But an analyst is not needed to consider that water gradually decreases from year to year.
And when does the quota allocated end?
Simple: you can buy more water.
But obviously the price will have gone up.
However, the “rising” figure, which is constantly exponentially increasing, attracts speculators is another: the total population.
More people means more water needed, not only for the needs: also for the production of food.
All this leads to a consideration: if the oil was called black gold, the water for many is already “Blue Gold”.
In the title I quoted Maude Barlow: born in 1947 in the campaign to make water recognized as a human right, to conclude, on the other hand, I would like to draw inspiration from Thomas Fuller’s phrase:
We never know the worth of water till the well is dry.
Maybe allow me to update it: we don’t know the value of water until it becomes a commodity.

RED PILL OR BLUE PILL?

RED PILL OR BLUE PILL?

We use to divide the generations: Millennials, Generation X, Boomers and so on; despite the common path, each one has a particular vision on different spans of time obviously marked by the events that characterized them.
Many of us perhaps had never had a concrete experience on certain types of emergencies, and the general test of panic, which we are witnessing in these days, certainly opens up various new scenarios or at least never seriously considered.
You hear and read everything and the opposite of everything and the questions burst like an uncontainable quantity of corn kernels exposed to heat.
Yet I observe, as always, correct me if I am wrong, that most people continue to lock matters up between the four corners of their garden. Behavior from which, for example, the race to flour and sugar in supermarkets. As if having a spare in your pantry could be enough to shut everything else outside the door.
Question: what can be the reason?
Is it really enough to wash hands?
And, beyond the specific, even in a context of normal routine, don’t you think that in general people prefer not to face reflections that could lead to uncomfortable or unwanted conclusions?
It is inevitable to remember the famous example of the free will Matrix format:

“You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
Remember, all I’m offering is the truth – nothing more.

Among the countless interpretations and dissertations there is also the hypothesis that blue pill is the choice of the dogmatic, but I would like to remain at the most basic concept: how many would choose the red pill?

Pin It on Pinterest