CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
7.5/10
2.8 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Pier Paolo Pasolini entrevista a los italianos de 1963 sobre el sexo, el matrimonio y los roles de género.Pier Paolo Pasolini entrevista a los italianos de 1963 sobre el sexo, el matrimonio y los roles de género.Pier Paolo Pasolini entrevista a los italianos de 1963 sobre el sexo, el matrimonio y los roles de género.
Io Appolloni
- Self - Girl at Lido with Swimming Cap
- (sin créditos)
Graziella Chiarcossi
- Graziella the Bride
- (sin créditos)
Graziella Granata
- Self - Girl at Lido with Long Hair
- (sin créditos)
Pier Paolo Pasolini
- Self - Interviewer
- (sin créditos)
Opiniones destacadas
At first sigh, social portrait. Pier Paolo Pasolini across Italy , talking with large categories of people about not very comfortable themes. Their answers, the crowd, the familiar names from Antonella Lualdi and Oriana Falacci to Alberto Moravia, Cesare Musatti or Giuseppe Ungaretti interventions and the answers, genuine, innocent, in few cases hypocritics of people and the discover of powerful tradition defining rules of life, the difference, real profound, betwen South and North of Italy, the silence of middle class , the laws and the essence of a special world. Sure, in my case, the name of director/ interwiever was the basic/ fundamental kick for not ignore this documentary. The prize - the high honesty, the humor, smiles, reactions, laugh, shame, reactions, the manner to explore the one front of him by Pasolini, the crumbs of nostalgia, the memories about pasolinian textes. So, a large slice of life, provocative, in same measure, yesterday and today and, in my case, just fascinating.
Pasolini's informal interviews with Italians about sexual matters doesn't make for a perfect study or a perfect documentary, but it does provide an interesting window into the time period, and it was pretty unique as well. The people he talks to seem to provide a pretty good sample, including those from many regions in Italy and across various categories - men/women, old/young, city/rural, college educated/blue collar, and conservative/liberal. As most of his interviews are conducted in big groups and what appear to be impromptu meetings I don't think it was all that scientific, and wondered how many things were left unsaid out of social pressure. However, in the end I felt like people hadn't been shy with expressing their opinions, and a picture was painted of a changing country - the deeply conservative aspects gradually facing inevitable progress.
The questions that Pasolini seemed most concerned with were:
Is sex important? Are young girls as free as young boys? Should a woman be a virgin when she gets married? Does marriage solve the "sexual issue"? What do you think of sexual "abnormality"? (by this he means, argh, homosexuality) Should divorce be legalized in Italy? (it wasn't possible in the country until 1970)
It's a little tough to hear some of the answers, e.g. about how women are inferior and shouldn't be allowed to work or even go out to a café alone, how a woman should be killed if she commits adultery instead of divorced (to lots of jokes and smiles!), or how homosexuals are disgusting and should be "cured." It was also a little tough to hear Pasolini push so much for prostitution, asking young women workers why they don't make a lot more money by selling themselves, not thinking to interview a prostitute about the significant dangers of her profession or the emotions involved with selling one's body. Similarly, he doesn't interview someone who is gay, even with their identity concealed. His questions often reflect the patriarchy and conformity, making it a window into Pasolini in addition to the window into Italy, and I say that knowing his orientation.
I don't fault the film too much for these things because it's reflecting the society in 1964, and I'm happy times have changed. If a documentary was made about values today, I'm certain that when viewed over half a century later we, too, would collectively appear backward (hell, we appear pretty backward even today :). It was also a pleasure to hear answers which were real gems, a lot of times from young women, professing a desire for equality between the sexes, an end to the outmoded double standard, and practicality in allowing divorce. In a couple of places a clear link is formed between poverty and some of the archaic attitudes, which I found fantastic. That included one guy explaining that sexual harassment at work is a problem thusly:
Man on street: "Freedom is conquered through work. In Germany, they work from when they're 12 to old age. ... In Palermo, if a woman goes to work, her brother grabs her and says, 'Where are you off to?' 'To work.' 'You can't go. The boss will harass you.' Do you understand?" Pasolini: "And so you agree that if economic conditions changed in Palermo..." Man on street: "When employers learn how to behave with girls! Only then! When employers are polite towards women."
Pasolini then idiotically says "but the boss can't have sex with one hundred workers," which even if he's playing devil's advocate is a flawed argument in several respects and which leads to a response that goes down the rathole, that yes indeed, here in Sicily one or two women a day could be easily done. These are the kinds of things you put up with in Love Meetings.
The questions that Pasolini seemed most concerned with were:
Is sex important? Are young girls as free as young boys? Should a woman be a virgin when she gets married? Does marriage solve the "sexual issue"? What do you think of sexual "abnormality"? (by this he means, argh, homosexuality) Should divorce be legalized in Italy? (it wasn't possible in the country until 1970)
It's a little tough to hear some of the answers, e.g. about how women are inferior and shouldn't be allowed to work or even go out to a café alone, how a woman should be killed if she commits adultery instead of divorced (to lots of jokes and smiles!), or how homosexuals are disgusting and should be "cured." It was also a little tough to hear Pasolini push so much for prostitution, asking young women workers why they don't make a lot more money by selling themselves, not thinking to interview a prostitute about the significant dangers of her profession or the emotions involved with selling one's body. Similarly, he doesn't interview someone who is gay, even with their identity concealed. His questions often reflect the patriarchy and conformity, making it a window into Pasolini in addition to the window into Italy, and I say that knowing his orientation.
I don't fault the film too much for these things because it's reflecting the society in 1964, and I'm happy times have changed. If a documentary was made about values today, I'm certain that when viewed over half a century later we, too, would collectively appear backward (hell, we appear pretty backward even today :). It was also a pleasure to hear answers which were real gems, a lot of times from young women, professing a desire for equality between the sexes, an end to the outmoded double standard, and practicality in allowing divorce. In a couple of places a clear link is formed between poverty and some of the archaic attitudes, which I found fantastic. That included one guy explaining that sexual harassment at work is a problem thusly:
Man on street: "Freedom is conquered through work. In Germany, they work from when they're 12 to old age. ... In Palermo, if a woman goes to work, her brother grabs her and says, 'Where are you off to?' 'To work.' 'You can't go. The boss will harass you.' Do you understand?" Pasolini: "And so you agree that if economic conditions changed in Palermo..." Man on street: "When employers learn how to behave with girls! Only then! When employers are polite towards women."
Pasolini then idiotically says "but the boss can't have sex with one hundred workers," which even if he's playing devil's advocate is a flawed argument in several respects and which leads to a response that goes down the rathole, that yes indeed, here in Sicily one or two women a day could be easily done. These are the kinds of things you put up with in Love Meetings.
Pasolini had some topics of interest, and in this documentary he enquires the italian populace about some of them!
The movie follow some kind of structure, but the overall concept is Pasolini interviewing groups of people in several different places. I find some of the question he does a little vague but for at the time being were quite outrageous!
There's the general depiction of how people thought about in the 60's Italy and although both Pasolini and the crowd had some outdated use of language for today standards, there are several interesting points of view for further analysis. Even Pasolini had to regulate some of the answers here with an amusing "autocensura"!
I'm not very fond of documentaries, it drags on a bit after a while , but I found myself engaged at moments.
The movie follow some kind of structure, but the overall concept is Pasolini interviewing groups of people in several different places. I find some of the question he does a little vague but for at the time being were quite outrageous!
There's the general depiction of how people thought about in the 60's Italy and although both Pasolini and the crowd had some outdated use of language for today standards, there are several interesting points of view for further analysis. Even Pasolini had to regulate some of the answers here with an amusing "autocensura"!
I'm not very fond of documentaries, it drags on a bit after a while , but I found myself engaged at moments.
Pasolini filmed this documentary in 1963, looking for an account of sexual life in Italy at a turning point in history. He travels south and north, to towns and countryside, interviewing intellectuals, workers, farmers and kids. The result is a strikingly accurate portrait of diversities in the country, and of inhibitions and problems to talk about a "natural" thing. Between the notable people interviewed, Nobel prize poet Ungaretti, writers Moravia, Cederna, Fallaci, a whole professional football team, and more.
What stroke me more is the great journalistic pace of the documentary, the technique of intermixing different areas of the country, a very clever approach. A great work still "modern" nowadays.
Sadly amusing the part where Pasolini (an homosexual himself) asked common people an opinion about homosexuality receiving answers of total denigration.
What stroke me more is the great journalistic pace of the documentary, the technique of intermixing different areas of the country, a very clever approach. A great work still "modern" nowadays.
Sadly amusing the part where Pasolini (an homosexual himself) asked common people an opinion about homosexuality receiving answers of total denigration.
I too was disappointed, but not for the reasons cited in the previous comment.
Instead, I found the film very hard to follow, with lots of academic buzzwords (interviewer Pasolini refers to "the sex problem" at least 20 times), not all of it subtitled, and subtitles that faded out of legibility against light backgrounds.
The movie was visually unappetizing, in part because of inconsistent and often inept camera work, and in part because of a sloppy transfer to tape that washed out the middle tones and often made it hard to see and read people's faces.
The most annoying element was the recurrent muting of the voice tracks (and of course the accompanying sub-titles) that was labeled "self-censorship." Was this a comment on official censorship of the time? I get the impression that the most interesting answers were lost to the audience through this process.
An interesting and meaty idea from a provocative and often great filmmaker, undercut by directorial inexperience and poor repackaging.
Instead, I found the film very hard to follow, with lots of academic buzzwords (interviewer Pasolini refers to "the sex problem" at least 20 times), not all of it subtitled, and subtitles that faded out of legibility against light backgrounds.
The movie was visually unappetizing, in part because of inconsistent and often inept camera work, and in part because of a sloppy transfer to tape that washed out the middle tones and often made it hard to see and read people's faces.
The most annoying element was the recurrent muting of the voice tracks (and of course the accompanying sub-titles) that was labeled "self-censorship." Was this a comment on official censorship of the time? I get the impression that the most interesting answers were lost to the audience through this process.
An interesting and meaty idea from a provocative and often great filmmaker, undercut by directorial inexperience and poor repackaging.
¿Sabías que…?
- ConexionesEdited into Lo schermo a tre punte (1995)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Love Meetings?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 2,789
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 32 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta