Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome

I first encountered this work around 1967, in a period when I was seeing many underground films in New York and Los Angeles, some shown in progress by the makers themselves. It was a heady time, and my memory was of a richly textured, opulent work that was surely Anger's magnum opus up to that time.

Last week, more than 3 decades later, I saw it again and was amazed at how inept and self-indulgent it was. The only thing holding it together is the appropriated sound track, Leos Janacek's masterful Glagolitic Mass, a creation that is far older than the film but has retained its genius. The visuals (like all of Anger's work, this is a silent movie with music) are little more than a pretentious thrift-shop costume show aspiring to pageantry, with little detectable underlying meaning or cinematic form.

The notion of camp was not yet formulated in 1954, when IotPD was made, but the film inadvertently exemplifies the concept -- or was Anger really satirizing a self-conscious social circle along with a certain type of dilettantish cluelessness and muddled cinematic thinking when he made this? What a huge disappointment after mistakenly thinking so well of this movie for so many years!

this film is a devastating visual, sensory experience. i have been haunted by its breathtaking imagery & multi-layered arcane symbolism since the first time i saw it. i've watched it over & over again in the years since first viewing it & it never loses its overload of impact on me. i am not an acid casualty, in case you are wondering. it assaults the senses from all angles in a cubist, multidimensional sense. each viewing will bring new insight & renewed, shimmering ecstasy. i promise this to anyone who is open & teachable & cinematic ally inclined to new experience. kenneth anger is a national & world treasure. can you tell i like this film? the flaws in it, if any, have eluded me for years. -bobby

I have only had the priviledge of seeing three Kenneth Anger films, all picked up as curiosities from the college library. But, this film is staggering in the sensory rampage it inflicts. Deep, primal archetypes are brought to life in a chillingly abstract vision.

Browsing the record for Kenneth Anger I was staggered to see that this masterpiece and Scorpio Rising were languishing in the 6.somethings ratings while the much less impressive Lucifer Rising was in the upper 7s... I can still recall the thrill I had in seeing this film at an 'underground' (literally!) screening in 1968. The colours seared from out of Anger's blackness and the characters have haunted my subconscious ever since. This is the most Crowley-like of Anger's films and all the better for it. There is true magic in his style and imagery.

Plot less short about some Greek gods (or something) getting together in a pleasure dome. There's no dialogue--only music which is supposed to match the images (I think). The color (in the restored print) is incredibly vivid and rich and some of the images are eye-catching but this is more boring and self-indulgent than anything else. The same images are shown again and again and AGAIN...it gets tedious rather quickly. With no plot or story to follow this gets to be a chore to watch. This might be of some interest to some since it has author Anais Nin as Astarte and artist Paul Mathison looking incredibly handsome as Pan. But, all in all, this is boring and pointless. It comes across as little more than director Kenneth Anger and his friends playing dress up. I give this a 4 for the imagery and color alone.