Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.