I saw this when it was released and was overwhelmed by the fantastic, bizarre, and sometimes shockingly repellent imagery -- the production, make up, musical score, and wardrobe are out of somebody's oneiristic alternate universe.
Now I've just seen it again and, whether because my brain cells are aging or because even Fellini has been outdone by some of the grotesque crap that's appeared on the screen since 1969, it seems less of an accomplished work.
I think I paid too much attention to the plot this time. Or, rather, I tried to because there isn't much of a plot. It's a series of episodes in what passes for Ancient Rome, without much connection between them.
The only linking thread is Martin Potter as the blond, blue-eyed Encolpio, whose peregrinations we more or less follow. He's a handsome young man (I guess) but I never cared what happened to him. He's not particularly sympathetic. Now and then his friend Ascilto shows up, sometimes to accompany him on a trip, sometimes to taunt him, but when Ascilto is found dead towards the end, Encolpio's response is as shallow as that of any psychopath.
The opening episode has Encolpio telling us how much he loves and misses Gitone, the boy/girl who has been taken from him. He spends a good deal of time in pursuit of Gitone and when he finally finds him, Gitone chooses to be the sex slave and idolater of Ascilto. O men, O women, O homosexuals! That's the sort of thing that may have kept the viewer's eyes open in 1969 but it has been since overtaken in the outrage race. "Mala Noche," anyone? How about "The Boys In The Band" or "Staircase"? At any rate, Gitone disappears entirely from the narrative with no explanation, kind of like King Lear's fool. Maybe that was meant to be Fellini's point. Love doesn't conquer all. It just disappears from the story.
I won't bother describing the other episodes. They involve Encolpio's impotence, a hermaphrodite living god who dies, a poet who learns that getting laid is more important than art, and who knows what all? Something about the Minotaur is in there too.
Since I never read Petronius's story I don't know how closely the film follows it. A friend -- who is not known for showing off -- tells me it's not a close adaptation, but Fellini himself describes the movie as only "loosely based" on Petronius. Not that it matters much. Literary works are always somewhat mangled in adaptations to the screen. That's inevitable. We can only judge what we see, and what we see is like a kaleidoscopic view of some barbaric world as seen by somebody on mescaline or psylocybin. And once you get past the phantasmagoric images, it's a little dull.
Now I've just seen it again and, whether because my brain cells are aging or because even Fellini has been outdone by some of the grotesque crap that's appeared on the screen since 1969, it seems less of an accomplished work.
I think I paid too much attention to the plot this time. Or, rather, I tried to because there isn't much of a plot. It's a series of episodes in what passes for Ancient Rome, without much connection between them.
The only linking thread is Martin Potter as the blond, blue-eyed Encolpio, whose peregrinations we more or less follow. He's a handsome young man (I guess) but I never cared what happened to him. He's not particularly sympathetic. Now and then his friend Ascilto shows up, sometimes to accompany him on a trip, sometimes to taunt him, but when Ascilto is found dead towards the end, Encolpio's response is as shallow as that of any psychopath.
The opening episode has Encolpio telling us how much he loves and misses Gitone, the boy/girl who has been taken from him. He spends a good deal of time in pursuit of Gitone and when he finally finds him, Gitone chooses to be the sex slave and idolater of Ascilto. O men, O women, O homosexuals! That's the sort of thing that may have kept the viewer's eyes open in 1969 but it has been since overtaken in the outrage race. "Mala Noche," anyone? How about "The Boys In The Band" or "Staircase"? At any rate, Gitone disappears entirely from the narrative with no explanation, kind of like King Lear's fool. Maybe that was meant to be Fellini's point. Love doesn't conquer all. It just disappears from the story.
I won't bother describing the other episodes. They involve Encolpio's impotence, a hermaphrodite living god who dies, a poet who learns that getting laid is more important than art, and who knows what all? Something about the Minotaur is in there too.
Since I never read Petronius's story I don't know how closely the film follows it. A friend -- who is not known for showing off -- tells me it's not a close adaptation, but Fellini himself describes the movie as only "loosely based" on Petronius. Not that it matters much. Literary works are always somewhat mangled in adaptations to the screen. That's inevitable. We can only judge what we see, and what we see is like a kaleidoscopic view of some barbaric world as seen by somebody on mescaline or psylocybin. And once you get past the phantasmagoric images, it's a little dull.