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!

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

Along with the dream-logic violence of his first film 'Fireworks', and the infamous leather 'n' engines homoerotica of 'Scorpio Rising', 'Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome' is one of Kenneth Anger's most powerful films, and the all-important centrepiece of his 'Magick Lantern Cycle' collection.

This film is a dizzying neon kaleidoscope of the rebellious imagination: drag queen-like, garish chameleons taunt us from behind ceremonial masks and drink a powder that transmogrifies them into drugged-up lusty creatures of bestial ecstasy; subliminal magick symbols appear and vanish, burning our eyes; black-and-white footage of a turn of the century film adaptation of Dante's Inferno glows as a sinister backdrop, its moonlight illuminating heathens being shovelled into pits of flame by demons -- all the while mocked by the laughing monsters of our own film in the foreground; faces emerge and disappear, dart and glide in and out of view, giving the intimate experience of being limbs-tangled-deep inside this orgy of occultism and colour.

This is one of Anger's longest short-films, and features Janáček's 'Glagolitic Mass' as both ironic and fitting soundtrack (other Anger films feature bubblegum rock 'n' roll and doo-wop of its era, adding a perverse sweetness to the subtlety malevolent imagery). With the added length, the film feels more exhausting and epic than some of Anger's shorter films, yet it lasts for under forty-five minutes.

'Inauguration' is queer cinema (before it existed), post-Cocteau Surrealism and Crowley-inspired, esoteric true-will in action, all at once. And, love or hate him for it, no other director is more responsible for MTV and music video culture in proceeding generations -- just without the Thelema, intelligence and intentional homoerotica (lots of unintentional homoerotica was retained).

A celebratory rebellion against the tedious repressions of religion and Christian 'morals', very brave, and really quite astonishing for the post-World War II 'new world' of 1950s cinema: 'Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome' is essential-viewing for fans of influential avant-garde, experimental cinema.

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.

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!