Fellini - Satyricon

"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.

It was well known that in the late 60's, famed Italian director Federico Fellini experiment with LSD. That's why "Juliet of the Spirits" was so bizarre and colorful. But the 1969 head trip "Fellini Satyricon" was even stranger than previous Fellini films. Loosely based on the novel by Petronius, the beginning of the story concerns two men in the B.C. Roman era fighting over the love of one boy. Later they have many strange and colorful misadventures. This film may be to bizarre for some; with its grotesque images, a mild orgy, dwarfs and even a hermaphrodite goddess. The set pieces are out of this world. It's like being caught in a two hour dream. Many times I had no idea what was going on, but that didn't bother me. Satyricon is a visual decadent head trip of color. Fellini considered this film a sci-fi of the past. I consider Fellini a genius; he's designed a film that makes a great substitute for drugs. If you enjoy "Fellini Satyricon" you should also watch Vera Chytilova's "Daisies" (1966), Alejandro Jodorowsky's "The Holy Mountain" (1973), Guy Maddin's "Careful" (1992) and Tsui Hark's "Green Snake". All of these film contain bright colors and surreal images. Enjoy!

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.

...and because I had read "Satyricon" before I saw it I probably was less baffled by the movie than most people. Very little survives of the content of original story, a few longish bits and lots tiny fragments, sometimes as short as a sentence or a word. All disconnected from each... ...ning and end of Petronius' novel are missing, what we have left suddenly starts in the middle without any background or prelude. And each of the surviving bits is the same way, giving few, if any hints, of how our heroes got there from their last adventure, or how their current one will be resolved. Or even what their current crisis is. We can onl... ...bother making a film of from such a fragmentary source? Because Petronius is wickedly funny and has a gifted insight into human... ...participant in the decadence and depravity, yet judging and commenting on it at the... ...2000 years been read and translated... ...amorallity, but social standards always... ...Fellini captures the spirit not only of Imperial Rome but of... ...doesn't make sense, so like you do in the original, you have to extrapolate based on... ...satiric, sardonic, and visually stunning... ...enjoy...

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