

rarely read reviews after seeing the movie and I almost always disagree with the critics who have produced them, often forced to doubt that the authors of these criticisms have actually seen the same movie I saw, indignant because they are paid to watch movies that I will pay to see.
Using this method, rigorously and with conviction, having it validated by many years of assiduous and desperate of cinemas where the film screened they cheered and lit in a childhood and an adolescence, not really happy, without being really tragic, but above all, and certainly taught me to live, I was taught to feel emotions, feelings, passions, and taught me very clearly and explicitly What is the sense of duty and the ineffable satisfaction in having done or that you feel better in having tried to do it, they taught me a sense of honor, loyalty to an ideal of respect for others and ourselves, also respect the feelings of others and their opinions, even and especially if discordant mine.
They taught me to love history, made not of subsequent events and dates, but of men like me with their passions, doubts, uncertainty, poverty and nobility, cowardice, but also courage and dedication.
I have shown, illustrated, taught the many facets, various expressions of the human soul and continue to teach again, I no longer adolescent psychiatrist but a mature age, and perhaps as many more texts and volumes of products my subject.
Not all films, of course, but most certainly and we continue to go to the movies, so I still consider the cinema, not simply as a leisure and entertainment and a chance to break from work, but as a school of life and of humanity.
That still before yesterday I went to cinema, with intent to see a film which many had already heard from him before he saw on the screens.
a specific reference to the film "Hachiko" directed by Lasse Hallstrom who co-starred on the scene to see how the famous actor Richard Gere.
co-star, because the real protagonist is a dog, Hachiko indeed, a wonderful example of the Japanese race Hakita.
But perhaps the real star of the film is not the man nor the dog, but the wonderful, poignant feeling that inextricably link the two, a feeling which does not dissolve, that does not break, does not stop even when death interrupts the life of one of the two, man and dog Hachiko, faithful to this feeling, for ten long years, every day, goes to the station to wait for his master decides to return, to come down from that train every day now brought him back down from him to rejoin that wonderful marriage, which even death was able to dissolve, but after ten long years of waiting, death itself will reconstitute the dog, allowing him to finally reach its owner in a better world where no one ever will be able to separate them.
whole history here, simple, basic, clean, natural, but true, absolutely true that happened in Japan, at the beginning of the last century, where a statue of the station and recalls always remember, who will be able and will want to understand the extraordinary, superhuman, but profoundly true loyalty and love that binds the dog man.
Only those who have the good fortune, fate, the privilege of having close, close, or have had a dog, can fully understand.
But even those who do not enjoy this privilege, or perhaps they want to enjoy can come close to understanding it, can enjoy this feeling, it can be moved in front of this wonderful feeling, mostly unknown to us humans.
When the film ended, when the lights are ablaze in the room, everybody's eyes, children, young people, mature adults, men and women were red emotion and also my course and the people who were with me.
While people sedately and slowly came out of the room, no one had the courage, the desire to speak, to comment, to utter a word, do not waste, he argues, not to contaminate the atmosphere of excitement and emotion that the film had aroused and left before them.
But perhaps one of the audience was not moved, only one, if you have seen the movie in any room, one that has seen the film to work and not because prompted by a legitimate desire, or the "film critic" Paul D'Agostino, who commented on the movie page of yesterday, January 2, 2010, the newspaper "La Repubblica".
A Paul D'Agostino did not like the film, it is obvious and clearly inferred from his words and for this I have nothing to say, it is his freedom that respect, but do not agree.
But that does not respect and do not share is the superb air of superiority, haughtiness and haughty detachment with which our critic mocks the film considered "a tearful apology and mannered fable about loyalty and love."
Perhaps the pessimistic and disenchanted critic believes that these feelings are nonexistent, outdated, anachronistic, unnecessary, naive, useless in our society as modern and progressive?
Maybe I'm not politically correct?
Maybe I'm not high enough and sufficiently culturally "left" for the public learned of his readers?
Domenico Mazzullo
0 comments:
Post a Comment