can you imagine being a Roman Legionary standing in battle line , looking out over a mass of Celtic warriors going wild , and then these horns sound , you know the charge is coming , the true age of warriors !
Today in France, Arverns are called "Auvergnats", and now this ancient tribes territory had been melted with the Aedui's territory, mentioned by Gaius Julius Cesar in his book : "Gauls war"... I grew up in a little town called "Romagnat" (Rome is the biggest ), just under the ancient oppidum of Gergovie, where this f****** roman guy was defeated by Vercingetorix, the ultimate leader of an ultimate shout from Gauls to Rome. I used to spend every Fridays and week-ends when I was a kid with a friend or alone klimbing upon the Plateau of Gergovie...those ancient people touch me, and I feel close to them (even if I have a German name who came later by my father, and a very, very old name and morphology, before the celts invasion of France 's territory; by my mother...and I' my one of the tirth's human beings that can drink milk as an adult 😅). In this video we can here more than one Carnix, and see the guy using it by another to carry it...and maybe we can imagine that with proper harnesses, warriors whom role was to play this impressive music instrument were very efficients...we can imagine a lot of things, and this video blowed my mind...thank you mister 😎👍
Being a diva and acting like a moron socially isn't excused by "Geniuses aren't like ordinary ppl," and to call an actor a genius is...odd at best. Actors play make-believe for a living, memorizing lines written by other people and trying to project emotion, all while avoiding, during a live performance, having the audience jeer or throw rotten tomatoes at them. Please use the word genius to describe people who actually are (Leonardo, Newton, and Curie, are). Chefs, actors and Kanye West aren't.
u say it comes from savages clearly not savages are they. very stereotypical back then. forget theres god who creates wat you all would call savages. in a world full of extreme violence.
Should poetry exist? If so, whose? What role does the reader play in qualifying the work(s)? What about canon? The gatekeepers? What will AI do to poetry and poetics? If poetry is called poetry, is it poetry for others? Isn't poetry just a product of poetics? Does a static poetics, and thus a static poetry, exist? Whose art? Whose interpretation? Whose world? What function does the context play in the reception of language, the qualification of 'art'? Does art exist? Should it? Why and why not? Is art inevitable? Is miscommunication, exclusion, needed for one thing to be not the other thing? If art is inherently exclusive, what should we exclude? People? Or conventions? Or contexts outside of the now? Please answer these questions...we are trying to find the answer...
I am a Beat Poet and I write to express myself to bring out imagery feelings of love, anger, loss, despair, loneliness and the beauty I see, the injustice, the terrible, the hurt, the abandonment, etc. I only speak for myself. I cannot speak for other Beat poets or artists I can only guess. Maybe this helps you.
Olivier is right. I thought Olivier was the greatest I"d ever seen, but I have to admit Laughton was even greater. Good for Olivier to recognise it. Laughton thought he was ugly and fat, but boy, his acting made you fall for him. Marlene Dietrich called him "the sexiest man in the world."
@@JingleJangleJam says who? The people who write the content of the nightly national news annoy the shite out of me. That must mean atheist writers are great because they annoy religious believers and vice versa. Try again. And try an original thought next time, not a stock quote. Gawd.
@@bardoface It's a misquote of Kinglsey Amis, and yes, he wrote some work for television and radio included with his formidable body of poetry and a literary critic.
@@JingleJangleJam I can get snarky. I’m annoyed by folks dirth of original ideas in comment sections and lack of criticism. I think quoting others is lazy and over resorted to. Nothing personal, your quote isn’t bad actually. I like the idea of being annoying too and shaking it up. I think Pynchon and Wallace are great and funny but I don’t like demoralizing as an approach at all.
@@bardoface Thomas Pynchon's universe is thought to be built up and constituted through irony, whereas Wallace I thought didn't like irony. Wallace's writing shows tragic opposition to nationalistic idealism... ''Are we not all of us fanatics? I say only what you of the U.S.A. only pretend you do not know. Attachments are of great seriousness. Choose your attachments carefully. Choose your temple of fanaticism with great care. What you wish to sing of as tragic love is an attachment not carefully chosen. Die for one person? This is a craziness. Persons change, leave, die, become ill. They leave, lie, go mad, have sickness, betray you, die. Your nation outlives you. A cause outlives you'' Like Wallace felt abandoned by a love, a citizen can feel demoralized, abandoned by a higher cause or belief in something they cherished in their childhood, like the bald Eagle and flag. You shouldn't try to find the source of demoralization of nations in the source of a conspiracy of writers by some psy-op of the government, or else, you yourself will become just as melodramatic and as paranoid in isolation as the conditions of society which these writers grew up in and reflected through their stories. Rather, for instance, in Pynchon, the origins of his paranoid melodrama come from the way Western civilization was changed by the paranoia and melodrama precisely such authors were growing up in, from the First World War up until the Cold War, which was all about and around them.
I have to agree that Heston did a good job at trying to save Little Chef. In fact my brother and I believe they would not still be going for longer without Hestons help.
