gri_2003_m_46_b06_f04_017

Max. dissimilarity: 0.293
Mean dissimilarity: 0.118
Image votes: 0.0

Transcribers

72083697 - Preacher357
72191271 - altheist
72384505 - Zooniverse2017
72546739 - FearPsychosis
72566746 - Infinicorn
WINNER - 73006862 - not-logged-in-3a97b3c25296fb08fce4

72083697 - Preacher357

11
add up to a single point and the implication is that any of the
objects in the office might be traced through a total net-
work of encounters, failures, violence, pleasure. In that sense
the film depends on giving us a sense of the city with all its
inhabitants - the complex simulaneity and, at the same time, dis-
parate existence of people. That is implicit in the device-for-
continuity but the stories are too neatly packaged up in half-
hour sections labelled bitter-sweet, regional-humorous, and so on.
In Le Plaisir (1952) the divice-for-continuity is again mag-
ical and irrational. The commentator is Guy de Maupassant him-
self, terribly cute and French, speaking from hades or wherever.
The identity of author and story is cemented here, denying the
distance and autonomy which the novelist can enjoy. The mechan-
istic story is beautifully exposed by these devises-for-contin-
uity which do not betray the original authors but do them
real justice. The three episodes deal with sexual pleasure from
a moral standpoint: in the first we encounter a few puppets 'un-
der the shadow of pleasure'; in the third a couple are bitterly
linked, paying for their early pleasure; in the second the point
is, I supposed, in this context, that Rivet does not copulate with
Rosa despite the flowers and the fine weather. The commentator
is the point-of-view underlying the stories: the author is his
own form. The writer with a God-complex is superbly in the know
and his comments are designed to make us marvel, chuckle, shud-
der at the bag-of-tricks which is life. Destiny as the gimmick.

72191271 - altheist

11

add up to the single point and the implication is that any of the object in the office might be traced back through a total work of encounter, failures, violence, pleasure. In that sense the film depends on giving us a sense of the city with all its inhabitants - the complex simultaneity and, at the same time, disparate extistence of people. That is implicit in the device-for-continuity but the stories are too neatly packaged up in half-hour sections labelled bitter-sweet, regional-humorous, and so on.

In Le Platisier (1952) the device-for-continuity which do not betray the original authors but do them real justice. The three episodes deal with sexual pleasure from a moral standpoint: in the first we encounter a few puppets 'under the shadow of pleasure'; in the third a couple are bitterly linked, paying for their early pleasure; in the second the point is, I suppose, in this context, that Rivet does not copulate with Rosa despite the flowers and the fine weather. The commentator is the point-of-view underlying the stories: the author is his own form. The writer with a God-complex is superbly in the know and his comments are designed to make us marvel, chuckle, shudder at the bag-of-tricks which is life. Destiny as the gimmick.

72384505 - Zooniverse2017

11
add up to a single point and the implication is that any of the
objects in the office might be traced back through a total net-
work of encounters, failures, violence, pleasure. In that sense
the film depends on giving us a sense of the city with all its
inhabitants - the complex simultaneity and, at the same time, dis-
parate existence of people. That is implicit in the device-for-
continuity but the stories are too neatly packaged up in half-
hour sections labelled bitter-sweet, regional-humorous, and so on.
In Le Plaisir (1952) the device-for-continuity is again mag-
ical and irrational. The commentator is Guy de Maupassant him-
self, terribly cute and French, speaking from hades or wherever.
The identity of author and story is cemented here, denying the
distance and autonomy which the novelist can enjoy. The mechan-
istic story of beautifully exposed by these devices-for-contin-
uity which do not betray the original authors but do them
real justice. The three episodes deal with sexual pleasure from
a moral standpoint: in the first encounter a few puppets 'un-
der the shadow of pleasure': in the third a couple are bitterly
linked, paying for their early pleasure; in the second the point
is, I suppose, in the context, that Rivet does not copulate with
Rosa despite the flowers and the fine weather. The commentator
is the point-of-view underlying the stories: the author is his
own form. The writer with a God-complex is superbly in the know
and his comments are designed to make us marvel, chuckle, shud-
der at the bag-of-tricks which is life. Destiny as the gimmick.

72546739 - FearPsychosis

add up to a single point and the implication is that any objects in the office might be traced back through a total net-work of encounters, failures, violence, pleasure. In that sense the film depends on giving us a sense of the city with all its inhabitants - the complex simultaneity and, at the same time, disparate existence of people. That is implicit in the device-for continuity but the stories are too neatly packaged up in half-hour sections labelled bitter-sweet, regional-humorous, and so on. In Le Plaisir (1952) the device-for-continuity is again magical and irrational. The commentator is Guy de Haupassant himself, terribly cute and French, speaking from hades or wherever. The identity of author and story is cemented here, denying the distance and autonomy which the novelist can enjoy. The mechanistic story is beautifully exposed by these devices-for-continuity which do not betray the original authors but do them real justice. The three episodes deal with the sexual pleasure from a moral standpoint: in the first we encounter a few puppets 'under the shadow of pleasure': in the second the point is, I suppose, in this context, that Hivet does not copulate with Rosa despite the flowers and the fine weather. The commentator is the point-of-view underlying the stories: the author is his own form. The writer with a God-complex is superbly in the know and his comments are designed to make us marvel, chuckle, shudder at the bag-of-tricks which is life. Destiny as the gimmick.

72566746 - Infinicorn

11
add up to a single point and the implication is that any of the
objects in the office might be traced back through a total net-
work of encounters, failures, violence, pleasure. In that sense
the film depends on giving us a sense of the city with all its
inhabitants - the complex simultaneity and, at the same time, dis-
parate existence of people. That is implicit in the device-for-
continuity but the stories are too nearly packages up in half-
hour sections labelled bitter-sweet, regional-humorous, and so on.
In Le Plaisir (1952) the device-for-continuity is again mag-
ical and irrational. The commentator is Guy de Maupassant him-
self, terribly cute and French, speaking from hades or wherever.
The identity of author and story is cemented here, denying the
distance and autonomy which the novelist can enjoy. The mechan-
istic story is beautifully exposed by these devices-for-contin-
uity which do not betray the original authors but do them
real justice. The three episodes deal with sexual pleasure from
a moral standpoint: in the first we encounter a few puppets 'un-
der the shadow of pleasure'; in the third a couple are bitterly
linked, paying for their early pleasure; in the second the point
is, I suppose, in this context, that Rivet does not copulate with
Rosa despite the flowers and the fine weather. The commentator
is the point-of-view underlying the stories: the author is his
own form. The writer with a God-complex is superbly in the know
and his comments are designed to make us marvel, chuckle, shud-
der at the bag-of-tricks which is life. Destiny as the gimmick.

WINNER - 73006862 - not-logged-in-3a97b3c25296fb08fce4

11
add up to a single point and the implication is that any of the
objects in the office might be traced back through a total net-
work of encounters, failures, violence, pleasure. In that sense
the film depends on giving us a sense of the city with all its
inhabitants - the complex simultaneity and, at the same time, ,dis-
parate existence of people. That is implicit in the device-for-
continuity but the stories are too neatly packaged up in half-
hour sections labelled bitter-sweet, regional-humorous, and so on.
In Le Plaisir (1952) the device-for-continuity is again mag-
ical and irrational. The commentator is Guy de Maupassant him-
self, terribly cute and French, speaking from hades or wherever.
The identity of author and story is cemented here, denying the
distance and autonomy which the novelist can enjoy. The mechan-
istic story is beautifully exposed by these devices-for-contin-
uity which do not betray the original authors but do them
real justice. The three episodes deal with sexual pleasure from
a moral standpoint: in the first we encounter a few puppets 'un-
der the shadow of pleasure': in the third a couple are bitterly
linked, paying for their early pleasure; in the second the point
is, I suppose, in this context, that Rivet does not copulate with
Rosa despite the flowers and the fine weather. The commentator
is the point-of-view underlying the stories: the author is his
own form. The writer with a God-complex is superbly in the know
and his comments are designed to make us marvel, chuckle, shud-
der at the bag-of-tricks which is life. Destiny as the gimmick.

Previous document

Next document