Battisti suona la chitarra e canticchia mentre sullo sfondo, di tanto in tanto, si sente un gallo cantare e delle oche che starnazzano. La versione in questione vede Lucio Battisti alla chitarra e al canto e lo stesso Colombini al pianoforte. Inclusa in una delle audiocassette fatte pervenire in forma anonima al giornalista Leo Turrini, venne trasmessa nel corso di una puntata del programma televisivo di Canale 5 Target Dovrebbero essercene almeno due versioni. Nella lunga coda strumentale Lucio Battisti si lascia andare a vocalizzi non sempre troppo intonati.
La batteria, il contrabbasso, eccetera , ossia: One, two, three, four. Le chitarre sono molto in evidenza. Di nuovo riprende con la seconda strofa ripetuta e poi il finale: Alla fine si sente Claudio Maioli che dice: Sussistono tuttavia delle leggere differenze testuali rispetto alla versione incisa da Marva Jan Marrow nel Un bridge con assolo di xilofono e il finale non ha cori ma ancora assoli di tastiere, molto soft, ma con meno forza.
Qualche problemino con la pronuncia. Arrivederci a questa sera Mogol — Lucio Battisti In questa versione il titolo nella registrazione viene citato in italiano , oltre al tipo di arrangiamento decisamente differente, ci sono un paio di strofe che non verranno poi utilizzata sul disco: Nella registrazione Lucio Battisti si dimentica alcune parole e traduce il titolo in Proud And Dignity. Quando Westley gli chiede di tradurre il titolo Battisti replica: Una sorta di lettera scritta a un amico rimasto in Italia. Windsurf, windsurf Battisti — Velezia Parte la base ritmica e, poi, un suono di tastiera molto semplice e scarno che ricorda quasi un organo giocattolo.
Raccontalo alla luna Roberto Matano — Lucio Battisti. Lasciami sperare ancora Roberto Matano — Lucio Battisti. Il giorno che… Roberto Matano — Lucio Battisti.
Sono nessuno senza te Roberto Matano — Lucio Battisti. But, on a working level, how much weight do you really give to these speculations? Do you consider your cinema instinctive as one would think seeing the expressive urgency and violence that transpires from the images of your works or theoretical as, however, is clear from your interviews? There are two different moments. So you can be very clever in a way but when you shoot you must be totally inside, you must not have too much distance with what you are doing.
I try to be deeply concerned by what I feel on the set, what I feel with the actors, with what is surrounding me, the landscape, what I feel with the sound that I hear. I shoot very very rapidly, I never rehearse, I never repeat the scenes, I take the camera and shoot directly. But you think a lot before…. Ceasar said something very clever: Cinema is deeply inside these two aspects. The use of darkness is undoubtedly central in your work.
I find interesting that in your films there is not only a peculiar use of off-screen, but that, often, the field of vision itself is in the darkness, in the non-visible. So I wanted to ask you to talk about your relationship with the non-visible … and with the dark. For Un lac , for instance, it was very hard to find this lake. All of this is constructing a type of forces and you are able to shoot at this moment, but the idea to show the lake, by making a large shot, trying to express correctly how a lake is, for me is absolutely non-sense, totally non-cinematographic, because cinema is when you get all these forces, and when you confront by the editing the different types of forces, which are modelling the shot.
Your films, I think, reflect on corporeality in a plastic and philosophical sense. In Sombre , for example, the acts of sex and violence are relegated to obscurity. They are framed too closely, or they are too blurry, or in darkness. Why this way of filming the body, in your films? The body is never one body. I try to steal, to approach what a body is, what a body in front of me is giving to me.
What I can film of the body is this way of its existence, but its existence in my mind, in a way. Is the same way for the landscape? You want to be inside the landscape?
I want to be inside the reaction that the body could build with the desire. You can be also very frightened by the body… There are a lot of different sensations. You must try to be very alive with the writing, with the filming, with the editing. I think we should consider cinema in a totally different way now.
We are still thinking of cinema like it was in the 20th century. With different steps, with different moments of the process of filming, we can do movies so differently. I would like to get closer and closer to what I want to do.
Speaking of the relationship between the body and the way you film them, I would like to cite a thought of Stan Brakhage that I think fits well to your films: It is just seeing — it is a very simple word — and to be a visionary is to be a seer. The problem is that most people can not see. Children can — they have a much wider range of visual awareness — because their eyes have not been tutored to death by man-made laws of perspective or compositional logic. And, of course, I would like to ask you: But the children is too late.
I would say the eyes of a baby, the first weeks of the human being, the first months maybe, but not too much, because after that the language, the word puts all this social distance between the sensation, the emotion and how we can manage with this emotion. They are without structure, they are open…. Yes, they are open and they are close to this chaos of sensation. Lawrence, that to be an artist is making a cut on what preserves us from the chaos and to be able to live the wind of the chaos inside us. How can we have access to this moment of our lives?
So do you think that you can reach this kind of way of being through cinema? Yes, I think we can do that through cinema, but cinema must be more free. We must go more down, we must die more inside of ourselves to be able to approach it in this way, to give another kind of representation of the images. In fact the Real, which is what the vision in your films pushes us to, can not be represented; It can only be circumscribed as an excess. How does your work as a director react in front of this impossibility? Do you feel that there is something you want to shoot but you can not, and to which you can only tend?
He says that life is in your art. For example when you are in front of a face painted by Rembrandt you have a feeling of what it is to be a human being. Epstein and then Deleuze said that cinema could approximate the Real exploiting the mechanical properties of the camera. During the filming of La Vie nouvelle , you said you shot the film without watching the rushes. In doing so did you want to get closer as much as possible to the mechanical eye of the camera?
What can you say about that? I just wanted to be close to myself. So I was working inside my own memory, like working inside of a landscape that I was building.
In your interviews you often cite the key authors of the post-structuralism Klossowski, Bataille, Lacan, Deleuze. How can we have access to this moment of our lives? Il Dottore e Bill si ritrovano nella Londra del 4 febbraio del , nel bel mezzo di una fiera del ghiaccio sul Tamigi congelato. Io faccio film per questo. Per questo ti ho proposto la lettura di questa mia esperienza: But the children is too late.
I was growing the landscape, and when I was growing the landscape I was working inside of it. I would like to talk for a moment of La Vie nouvelle. In particular, I would like to examine two sequences that I consider fundamental for your cinema, the sequence of the dance of Melania and the sequence made with the thermic camera. Both sequences start from an excess of physicality, but at the same time this excess leads to the de-materialization of the body, its dissolution.
I would like you to explain this process… Am I wrong if I say that this process of formal release is a constant of your movies? If you are thinking much more in terms of energy, of intensity, through the body, through the framing, through the light, through the sound, through the editing, you get access to the story by another way, you get access to the psychology of the character by another way. You can have a hand, the face, and the sky and the world and by the editing you get the same meaning as of somebody getting out of this room, but you give another sensation, and this sensation is, for me, what cinema is dealing with.
I would like to talk now about your relationship with the narrative. Rather one could speak of weak narration. Do you consider your fiction films anti-narrative? What is your relationship with the narrative? How much do you consider it important? Well, it is important. You can build the world that you want with this simple story but I think that you need this story to be able to construct the movement inside of the movie, the movement of what we are following like a wave. So stories are important for me and also this question of making the audience inside of something that is possible to follow, even if it is very difficult to follow, even if it is very confused, very obscure, very hard to understand, but the structure is very simple.
So the story is important, but it must be very simple…. Yes, for me yes. So, in a way, the story for me is like a face or like an apple. It is a concretion of force that makes visible, sensitive, what otherwise would not be. It seems to me that this is a great point of philosophical convergence between David Lynch and you. Recently I saw Wild at Heart , and I noticed moments that were very close to your work … I mean those shots of the details of the matches and the flashback of the burning house… times when the sound literally breaks and saturates the soundtrack. The same thing happens in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me , a film that from a formal point of view strongly anticipates a lot of your cinema.
Here, I would like you to tell us about your relationship with the cinema of David Lynch, and which of his films you saw. Well, I think Lynch is important of course because he succeeds in putting this question of the phantasm, of the energy of the figure inside the classical representation.
I think he is a very hollywoodian filmmaker, he is very theatrical, he organizes the shoots, the colour of the wall, the design of the furniture. The film that I like of Lynch is the first one, Eraserhead , I like it a lot. And also I like a lot Mulholland Dr.
I recently watched again two classics by Stan Brakhage, Anticipation of the Night  and the more recent The Mammals of Victoria . Did you see them? At the beginning you are thinking that you are going to go out of the sierra, but the way he films the body, the materiality of the body is so strong… I was very impressed by this movie. Your first two fiction films possess a very elaborate extradiegetic soundtrack. What can you say about the sound of this film? This is just out of curiosity: Un lac was introduced in Italy, at the Venice Film Festival in How was it received?
It is your most spoken work. How did you want to build the relationship between word and image? Well, it was strange how this film came in, because I met Adachi the first time when there was a retrospective of my movies in Japan, in Tokyo. Adachi saw La Vie nouvelle , and I think he loved it, and we talked together. Then Nicole Brenez and I decided to make a series of films about the filmmakers who fight with the aesthetic aspect, the political aspect of filming. So, it was very strong because at the very beginning when I shot with him there was a bar and we drank beer, sake, and at a certain moment I took my camera, I was alone, there was only a guy with me with the sound and I saw his hands when he took the glass to drink.
I saw his hands and I was very close to his hands.
So I took the camera and shot his hands, and it gave me access to the movie, this first shot of his hands, then I shot his face, it was just trying to approach his body. So nothing was planned? Nothing was planned, I got inside of the movie like this, I shot four nights, but the more I had the feeling that I got close to him, the more I had the feeling that I wanted his voice also, only his voice, so the movie appears like that. Where did the idea to make a project like this come from? Why, suddenly, did you do without the narration, the psychology, the characters, all of which, albeit in a minimal form, unstructured, were present in your previous films?
And why the choice of vertical format and slow motion? So there was no more text, only bodies, and then I thought that I wanted to work with three movements. So you begin with something and suddenly the movement steals its forces, its way, its life, and you are inside this movement, this process, and more and more you get access to what you want.
Yes, The Brutality of Fact …. Yes, it is very important. If you are not lost with yourself how can you access to what you want? What do you think? It creates new relationships between bodies, between images. At the same time, the superimposition shows that there are areas unthinkable by the viewer that the film, however, can think. How did you choose to use the superimposition? They are totally free, these films.