Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome

Ancient, monumental epics once dominated the silver screen. The silent classics of Griffith and DeMille were smash hits, breaking box office records, and revolutionized film as we know it. these are the types of films that Kenneth anger seems to be recalling with "Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome". He mixes the flavor of old silent Hollywood's most influential and magnificent epics with slightly disturbing and discomforting occultist imagery, making this short one Hell (no pun intended) of a weird ride.

It starts off cohesively enough as a wordless examination of some fantastical characters in an Inferno-like setting, made up of loose vignettes and beautiful, eye popping colors and effects; however, things take a turn for the insanely radical by the second half of the film. Soon, Anger seems to have completely lost his mind in the editing room and images are placed onto one another, demons smirk and sinful souls fall and cry in fright, creatures dance, beautiful women delightfully smile while monstrous beings pop from the opposite side of the frame. It's a dense, lyrical work of cinematic poetry that combines beauty with horror in a jaw dropping fashion, unlike almost any other movies being produced in the 1950's. Here's a weird, surrealistic experience that will please anyone that enjoys exploring the deepest depths of underground/avant garde filmmaking- it's a classic of the genre if there ever was one!

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.

Quite possibly,the most incomprehensible film every made, Kenneth Anger's INAUGURATION OF THE PLEASURE DOME deserves a place in cultural, if not film history. Arcane satanic references merged with bizarre hallucinogenic Egyptian rituals, and all done with a straight face, are endlessly fascinating to any student of the subculture of Hollywood and San Francisco in the post-war years. This was a time when to be gay or of a mixed gender was considered not just socially unacceptable, it was considered a sign of sickness. I don't think that a film like this could have been made without the cultural stigma associated with being part of the sexual underworld.

As an 'experimental film,' though, it's not really that original. Anger borrows heavily from Cocteau, Luis Bunuel, Maya Deren and others, whose work was far more original and far less self-conscious. It nevertheless, amazingly I should say, holds your interest (since it's only 35 minutes, partially) and I would reccomend it to anyone interested in the fringes of the art world.

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

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.