Home View Cart Bookmark This Page Contact Us
Select Store:
Canada ON
 
Categories
Books
DVD
iPod
Music
Software
Video Games
Videos
Home > Video > Fellini Satyricon
Fellini Satyricon

List Price : CDN$ 24.14
Our Price :
You Save : CDN$ 24.14 (100%)
     
2 Used :from CDN$ 103.94
   
Availability : Currently Unavailable
Add Review
Editorial Reviews: 
Trippy is as trippy does, even when you're talking about a movie set in ancient Rome. This 1969 Fellini opus was among the most visually arresting entries in a year when the psychedelic experience was trying to claw its way into every movie coming down the pike. But Fellini, in telling a negligible story about two young men tasting the various pleasures of Nero's hedonistic and priapic reign, aimed for images that jarred as well as seduced. He found humor in freakishness, contrasting beauty and ugliness while effortlessly passing judgment on the emptiness of a life devoted to sensation and personal freedom. More of a fever dream than a linear story, Fellini Satyricon crystallized the director's reputation as a visionary--but may have trapped him into spending the rest of his career (with the exception of Amarcord) trying to top himself in reaching new levels of outrageousness. --Marshall Fine


Custom Reviews: 
Two half naked roman dudes fight over a half naked male brat.
1 out of 5 stars.
Fellini brings light on space instead of space on light.
He brings mysticism to the movie not the movie to mysticism.

He brings boredom and rattling to a new height.
Lots of nice emotionalism and sweat.
Waging tongues and blood. Candles and tits.
Bondage and perversion.

We learn Italian words that we can not use.

Here is a good tidbit "Child of Aphrodite and Hermes...Hermaphrodite."

The subtitles conveniently disappear at crucial moments. Even in Italian the voices do not match the sound.

One of the roman dudes Encolpio (Martin Potter) finally got a real part as "Doctor Who" in1983.



This movie is terrible
1 out of 5 stars.
This was the first and the last Fellini movie I will ever purchase. The movie is totally incoherant. I do not see what is so compelling about this movie. It was a waste of my time.

You don't get it? You may be the one being taunted,friend.
5 out of 5 stars.
I firmly believe that if one does not "get" this film, then they are the type of person this film is satirizing. Something tells me that Fellini, with this film, came closer to illustrating the atmosphere of ancient Rome than anybody. It shows the pitfalls of superstition, how drugs and illusion play a role in what people have called "witchcraft","voodoo","macumba" and such. It shows the unmasked view of the delight that some people take in others' misery, in watching them suffer, and in confusing and bewildering them with smoke and mirrors. I enjoyed the scenes that depicted the morally reprehensible theatre of ancient Rome, especially in using period sound effects to illustrate how what we today see and hear in film and theatre is not so far advanced from the illusions that the ancient Romans used to propagandize and marginalize the lives of it's people. The parallel to modern society is so great that those who fit that materialistic mold won't get it, because their minds will protect them from the truth. However, we see over-indulgent despotic emperors using their wealth and power to seduce the minds of the populace. We see the same social elite engaging in disgusting orgies of food and sex. The main character, Encolpius, believing himself to be on a path of discovery is actually being lead through a maze of snares and traps at the delight of his so-called mentor. Soon one might be asking themselves if this man is mentor or tor-mentor to poor Encolpius. This film is a such a startling comparison to modern life that it could stop all temporal arrogance. How dare we think we're so advanced when our society behaves the same as they do, only the names and methods have changed. This is Rome, we live in Rome, it's only been transplanted over here and updated to "modern sensibilities" but Rome is still as decadent and wasteful as ever, as if we think we're rising above nature by destroying it. Well, isn't that how "civilization" works? Destroy one people's way of life and force them to conform to yours. This is Satyricon.

Satire of the Satyr
5 out of 5 stars.
Some movies you just have to see -- forget about plot synopses or snippets of dialogue, you just have to see it to understand. For these movies, there's no way to answer that most natural and inevitable of questions: What's it about? Satyricon is one of these movies.

I've been a fan of Satyricon for about four years, when I first took it out of the public library. I'd heard it was weird and had also seem some stills in movie books like LIFE Goes to the Movies. Something about freaks, absurdity, ancient Rome, I gathered. Maybe that was actually as much as I needed to know since that's what it all boils down to, at its essence.

I probably would have had more of an idea what to expect that first if I'd simply known about the director, Federico Fellini. At that time, I didn't, and so when I first sat down with Satyricon it struck me not just as an anomaly but as a major shock. Sure, I'd heard of Fellini, but this? This was Fellini? Why hadn't anyone told me? They should have shown this movie to me while I was in the crib, it was so cool.

Later on, through watching another great and bizarre film of his, Roma, I figured out what some of the Fellini motifs were and how strongly his personality and taste come through, but at the time, it was a bit of a mind-blower. This guy had survived making this film? Nobody put him in an insane asylum? He was considered great? Certainly I thought he was great, watching the movie, but I tend not to give fellow humans that much credit.

Knowing a bit more about Fellini at this point, I can say that while Satyricon isn't the anomaly I once thought -- Roma is pretty similar and I've heard other of his films also follow along in a similar style -- it is certainly in a class of its own. What's it about? Again, I can't say really, but pressed to the wall with a gun to my head, I'd squeal and saying it's a crazy experience, a vicarious exploration of insanity, of dreams, of an absurd adventure by a blond-haired poet who just wants to get his boy lover back and be done with it all. That summary doesn't really express any of it, but it's the best I can do and there it is.

Perhaps giving a little background would help. First of all, Fellini didn't make the story up, although the film is certainly a product of his imagination and he did make up a few scenes. The plot, such as it is, springs from that most bizarre and unprecedented of ancient works, Satyricon by Petronius. Nobody actually knows much about the author and this is his only work, but what can be said is that it's a book very different from what most people would expect of an ancient book. You can actually get a hint of this by its very title, which is a pun on satyr (from the Greek saturos) and satire (from the Latin satira), meaning that it's an attack on human vice or folly and a depiction of some serious depravity. Did I mention that this was written around the time of the reign of Nero?

Again, having read the original book -- had to having seen the movie -- I can say that it's nothing like any ancient work I've ever run into except possibly the poetry of Catullus, which is hysterically coarse at times. It's simply not ponderous. It doesn't dwell on gods or philosophy or sublime human comedy. No, instead, the book just creates its own territories and definitions. People have tried to analyze it -- the fragments that are left, now that several sections have been missing for ages -- and the general conclusion, so I've read, is that the novel, like the movie, is something far afield from the norm, a twisted tale of such originality as to make analysis within normal frames of reference irrelevant.

The question resurfaces: What's it about? A few scenes may help to convey a sense of its atmosphere at least, if not the plot, since the plot is rather secondary. Picture this: Our hero (well, anti-hero really) Encolpio ends up on a mission to collect a hermaphroditic god(ess) from a hidden temple. He and his companions show up in a cave where they find the god(ess) pale and weak, lying in a pool surrounded by worshippers seeking to be healed. They steal the god(ess), throwing the deity into a cart and fleeing across the desert. Unfortunately the god(ess) is weak and needs water. The god(ess) dies and for that, there is a punishment.

Encolpio and friends end up in another town (where he ends up in a battle with a man wearing a bull mask... don't ask) and although Encolpio is basically rewarded by getting to bed an insatiable woman, he is embarrassed before a crowd of hundreds when he can't get it up. He's been made impotent! To make things better, he's sent to a special treatment facility where he's put in a room filled with dozens of extremely exotic prostitutes who proceed to try just about everything to get a rise out of him. They pin him down and flog him. There's something about a giant swinging canopy with bevies of girls on it but even thought I've seen the film a half dozen times, I can't remember the specifics, nor do I remember if the "cure" was successful. It's besides the point.

I do remember more, though. I know an Roman couple lives in home built into the base of a cliff. They end up committing suicide by slitting their wrists. Later Encolpio and friends run around inside their house and find an African slave girl who speaks in clicks and squawks. There's another big section with a huge ship on rough seas; they capture a giant creature that looks like an ancient depiction of a whale. There's a theater of the absurd, a gallery of freaks, a hysterically fake earthquake, a massively disgusting feast, and oh, it's all in dubbed Italian (at the time, the Italians dubbed over everything, even Italian) with the subtitles making some sense but not all that much since really you use your eyes to understand. Ah, why do I bother trying to explain? What does it add up to? What does it mean? What's it about? Go and see it -- that way you'll find out.

One of the Greatest Movies
5 out of 5 stars.
Occasionally a movie comes along in which a simplistic, mono-dimensional meaning isn't laid out in such a way that even the laziest minds just couldn't miss it. I remember as a teenager seeing this movie for the first time, and being astounded that all that people seemed to see were shocking depictions of Roman decadence. I had sat through the movie amazed at its extraordinary cinematography, and overwhelmed by a moral story of epic proportions. Like most great art, the meaning of Satyricon is multi-layered, and reflects against itself enough to hold a richness of ambiguity that unfolds more for me each time I see it. I was also incredulous to read reviews accusing the movie of being formless. On the contrary, Fellini had created a beautifully structured work out Petronius' rather episodic tales.
Satyricon is a powerful portrayal of a young man's quest to rediscover the potency he has lost in a corrupt world (our world being no less corrupt than that of Fellini's Rome), both sexually and aesthetically. The events and characters in the movie resonate deeply with mythic archetypes, all playing a part in Encolpio's quest.
If you want a key for delving into the structural and metaphysical meaning of this movie, consider the two legacies of Eumolpus: the first he offers to Encolpius as they lie in the fallow fields after being evicted from Trimalchio's Feast, just as the dawning sun begins to lighten the sky. The second he leaves at the end of the movie to those who will consume his body. The first is the wealth of poetry, of the heavens, the earth, the air, of life itself. The second is worldly wealth and its corruptions. How beautiful is the moment when Encolpius joins the ecstatic, dancing, laughing servants of Eumolpus to sail away from the bizarre funeral feast to the true legacy of the great artist. So with us: what are we able to take from the legacy of Satyricon - does Fellini offer us merely a superficial indulgence in the perversity of Roman decadence .... or rather, are we able to comprehend his true gift, a profound vision of the potency of life itself?




Copyright © 2007 CanadaOL.com - In association with Amazon