Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome

A Slavonic Mass by Leos Janácek plays as historical figures, biblical characters, and mythical creatures gather in the pleasure dome. Aphrodite, Lilith, Isis, Kali, Astarte, Nero, Pan, and the Great Beast and the Scarlet Woman are part of a visual feast of images superimposed, hallucinations, and the spirit of decadence of the "Yellow '90s." Kenneth Anger is a strange dude. No one else, before or since, has really made a name for themselves in blending mythology, the occult and elaborate costumes. How seriously you are to take his occultism is up to you, I suppose.

The version I watched had a rock score over the top. I am not sure it was there originally and I rather doubt it, but it helped the picture out tremendously. A retrospective on Anger really needs to be done, as it is surprising how few modern directors cite his work.

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.

Swallowing jewelry? Drinking potions? A birdcage as head-dress? Kenneth Anger's IOTPD is the trippiest, most gorgeously haunting and sensual of film experiences I have ever seen; trust me, it will leave your mouth gaping in sheer awe. Hallucinogenic, weirdly stagnant and moving at the same time, a head-first dive into Crowley Land, an otherworldly playground of dreams deluged with sensuality and, as the title suggests, pleasure. You can watch it again and again and still never bore of it. Mesmerizing and beautifully filmed. Easily Anger's masterpiece (more so than SCORPIO RISING or LUCIFER RISING), and better than any other dives into "psychedelic psinema" (THE TRIP and the acid montage from EASY RIDER come to mind). There has never EVER been anything like this trippy tour de force of style in the history of the cinema.

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!