Satyricon

"Satyricon" is among the weirdest and most colorful, larger-than-life movies I've ever seen, along with Erasurehead, Erendira, Santa sangre, Naked lunch... If you don't like these, don't even try "Satyricon".

On one hand, its many flaws are rather upsetting. The out-of-sync lipping (bad post-sync), the fact that the movie neither really tells a story nor evocates sensible moral or philosophical concepts... so one may say it's actually a dull movie. The violence in this movie doesn't seem to make real sense, neither does the homosexuality, neither does the "romanian decadence" portrait.

On the other hand, the scenography, the sets, the costumes and makup are among the most dazzling ones you'll ever see in cinema, and the cinematography... well... maybe the BEST one you'll ever see. I can't think of any another movie able to compete with "Satyricon"'s mindblowing cinematography. Each scene is a terrific picture, with several visual layers, extraordinary lights and focuses, a lot of invention, of visual flair, and the overall technical mastery is stunning.

The result is something mesmerizing for some, totally disgusting for others. I have to say I'm more on the mesmerized side, because I was mainly focused on the visual/meditative aspects of the movie, not on the narrative ones.

If you're really into cinema, I mean as an artistic media more than as entertainment, you MUST see "Satyricon", as it's to my sense the most *visually* outstanding movie ever made. Be prepared for some disappointment about the movie as a whole, though...

Fellini Satyricon is based on the first century "novel" by the Roman writer Petronius Arbiter, who was a sometime crony of the degenerate emperor Nero, and who was ultimately one of his numerous victims. If any writer from this period is a perfect match-up for movie adaptation by Fellini, it is certainly Petronius. The structure of the book is similar to the organization of many Fellini movies -- a series of somewhat loosely related stories woven around the adventures of a central character, who in this case is an attractive scoundrel, or, rather, two scoundrels. The movie itself features comedy of several varieties -- the simultaneous send-up of the hedonistic ex-slave Trimalchio's pretensions and of the hypocrisy of the philosopher who is one of his meal-grubbing guests; the loss of sexual prowess in front of a jeering crowd of onlookers; the attempt to steal a hermaphroditic "god" from his/her shrine; the escapes from death by the hand of Nero's grim sea-captain (who marries Encolpius in a homosexual sailor parody of a wedding ceremony) and from the Minotaur (who says, "Today I have lost the contest but I have made a new friend"). And there is much more, often bizarre and always entertaining. The ambience of Rome and of various corners of the empire is depicted beautifully. There are brief visual "flashes" only marginally related to the story which are penetrating and lasting in their imagery (for instance, the Roman general leading a column of soldiers on a destructive march). And the movie ends on a beautiful note -- the fading of Encolpius at a banquet into a wall mosaic that has lasted to the present day -- a symbol of the timelessness of humanity? Perhaps, but by the way, Fellini has led us here by means of a very special banquet, a cannibalistic feast on the corpse of a wealthy man who makes this ceremony a condition of sharing in the proceeds of his last will and testament. After two thousand years the grimness is gone, but the beauty and humor remain.

I've voted 8 out of 10 for Fellini Satyricon, but I can imagine that a few people may find that to be an overly indulgent grade. Actually, I know that a few people will feel that way -- I've shown it to several friends, and they all agree it looks beautiful and manages to amuse on numerous occasions. But they don't get much more out of it. That's too bad for them. Aaaw yeah.

As Vincent Canby said in his review, from 1970 in the New York Times, 'Fellini Satyricon is its own justification'. This movie exists purely to engage on an aesthetic level. The surrealism, the carnival-of-life atmosphere, the monumental pageantry, the visual juxtaposition of beauty and ugliness, and the black humour are all the film possesses and are all it requires. I believe that Fellini's intention with this film was simply to entertain. And he was a master entertainer, no doubt.

Don't expect much in the way of characterisation, of complex plot developments, or of nifty moral expression. This is a film that looks and sounds beautiful, and it manages to hold your interest (or mine anyway, I can't speak for everyone) for two brief hours by doing just that. Fellini = Godlike genius.

Fellini - Satyricon (1969)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Set during the first century Rome, Encolpio (Martin Potter) and Ascilto (Hiram Keller) fight over which one will get to be with a young slave boy (Max Born). After that we travel through various parts of Rome seeing its history through the eyes of Fellini who is certainly more interested in visuals than an actual story. This is an extremely bizarre film that will probably drive a lot of people crazy but to me the movie was so crazy and so over the top that it kept me interested from start to finish. I think you could show this movie with every scene out of order and it really wouldn't make a difference because the actual story really isn't there because we just have various settings for the director to do his magic. One scene that place on a huge, pyramid like set where we get a great visual of people coming out of various doors and that's pretty much it. I can only imagine a lot of work being done for such a short scene. The eventual destruction is very well done as were various other segments thrown around here. There's a cannibal orgy, beheadings and other forms of violence, which are more corny than shocking but they're all done in a nice visual style and that includes a great scene where a decapitated head is floating in the water. The performances were decent enough for what the film required but none of them are going to really stick out. In the end this movie isn't really a movie but instead just a group of weird images thrown together to make the viewer scratch their heads. On that level the movie works but I can see plenty of people turning this one off early.

...and because I had read "Satyricon" before I saw it I probably was less baffled by the movie than most people. Very little survives of the content of original story, a few longish bits and lots tiny fragments, sometimes as short as a sentence or a word. All disconnected from each... ...ning and end of Petronius' novel are missing, what we have left suddenly starts in the middle without any background or prelude. And each of the surviving bits is the same way, giving few, if any hints, of how our heroes got there from their last adventure, or how their current one will be resolved. Or even what their current crisis is. We can onl... ...bother making a film of from such a fragmentary source? Because Petronius is wickedly funny and has a gifted insight into human... ...participant in the decadence and depravity, yet judging and commenting on it at the... ...2000 years been read and translated... ...amorallity, but social standards always... ...Fellini captures the spirit not only of Imperial Rome but of... ...doesn't make sense, so like you do in the original, you have to extrapolate based on... ...satiric, sardonic, and visually stunning... ...enjoy...