Satiricón

Fellini engages us through a tapestry of decadence during the Roman Empire with such stunning juxtapositions of exceptional images from a collapsing society that one cannot help but be reminded of our own times and its disconcert morality…

The film is freely adapted from Petronius' book, which is the exploits of two young Romans, Ascilto and Encolpio, as they venture throughout the empire, indulging in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships… In the course of this proliferation of sensuality, Ascilto becomes impotent and madly goes for a cure which ends in tragedy for Encolpio…

The movie's treatment of the sexual decadence is remarkably powerful without being explicit… In fact, in light of the mental images it presents, it actually puts on view very little on screen… But there is a great quantity of mysterious whores, hedonists, gluttons, and gross indulgence in carnal pleasure… In the midst of this chaos, however, there is a beautifully light reprieve as the young Romans come across a forsaken villa... A very charming slave girl has remained behind, and she playfully troubles the two men into an erotic game…

Apart from that, the sex is portrayed as bizarre, tempting, suggestive of hidden secrets, violating the rules of morality, and going beyond the limit

For a long time I have been interested in seeing the work of Fellini, and it would seem Satyricon would be my first taste, but it was not one bit appetising. Many opinions vary on this film, some hail it as a masterpiece, others pass it off as a self-indulgent failure, well I'm afraid I'm with the latter group. Satyricon is a slow, bleak and slightly disturbing look at depraved ancient Rome, as two young men fight for the attention of a young slave boy, they are involved in a series of bizarre, erotic and non-linear escapades. I think I got to the emperor's pre-funeral party (about an hour in) before I began tiring of the film, it was just too much to take in and not hardly as interesting as I had thought, also the morals of the film where a bit troubling, now I am no prude but you only have to look at the lecherous cover art to see what I'm talking about. Don't get me wrong, the film is not that graphic, but there is an unsettling air that runs through it. I'm not going to abandon Fellini, having spoken to others who where also bored and puzzled by Satyricon but have enjoyed his other works, I think I may just have to start with one of his earlier films.

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 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.

"Satyricon" studies ancient Rome of the first century, and is virtually plot less. The images drive the movie, not the story and characters, and the movie is essentially a montage of unrelated scenes. Cinematography and art direction are wonderful and the film is truly the feast for eyes. Its beauty comes from El Fayum portraits, wall paintings (frescos) and mosaics from Rome and Pompeii. The problem with Satyricon is that IMO Fellini himself did not like it very much. He seems to be a remote observer in that gorgeous but empty, soulless, decadence world of Nero's Rome. Two main characters that connect unrelated events are so insignificant, dull, and futile that they only take a screen time from the magnificent images which are the main attractions of "Satyricon". Even those images cannot safe Satyricon from being just a glorious illustration to an ancient book.

"Satyricon" feels empty, loud, and shallow. I rather read Petronius's book or watch the immortal, impressive, and full of character El Fayum portraits.

I prefer more " Fellini's Roma" – as beautiful as "Satyricon", it is much more enjoyable, has a subtle message and a lot of heart and magnificent Eternal City is deservingly the only main character of Maestro Fellini's very personal film.