Watch Theorem For Free

Overrated and overhyped

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Surpassing the new-realistic themes or those of past history Pasolini enters deep waters of philosophical questions of post- industrial society mainly on those concerning the upper class of those possessing the production means. It is a hard accusation there of unmeaning way of life. Now the technique and theme is surrealistic, reminding "maitre of surreal", Bunuel's, former film "The Exterminator Angel". In their big wealthy Milanese house they're all wandering without a meaning of existence. The son has no talent for the art of painting he wants to follow, the daughter has no love to stand upon, the mother the same. Dressed with high fashion clothes and hair-styled the same, she passes all time wandering in the big garden with no real feelings deep inside her. Her husband spends all time at his industry not paying any real attention to his family. Their maid as she represents the opposite to bourgeoisie class stays always silent serving them the dinner - a figure representing New Testament's "Happy those who have no mind". She is the one who can be saved as she returns to her village staying silent all day with no food or water. As the stranger arrives all are astonished by his beauty: His eyes, his smile, signs for the promised paradise they couldn't attend on this earth. But are they really attracted to his beauty or in the notion of salvation he carries? With this prophetic film Pier-Paolo Pasolini shows that there is no salvation in that chosen road: surrounding landscape is cold and desert if it is without the human joy of life. Where that joy is hidden? In the blue eyes of the visitor, in the open air smile and joy he carries with him. But as he has to leave the house all again is getting more and more obscure. The boy's paintings a mess on the walls of his room, girl's pessimism in not finding affection hidden in the old family's photo albums drives her to complete paranoia. Same for the father who wants to get rid of the factory offering it to the labor-workers, drives him to madness in Milan's rail-way station by getting rid of all his clothes. Same for the wife who is searching for love affairs in the streets with passing by strangers. The only one who can be saved is maid's returning to her village, gifted with miracle's power to cure diseases. Last scene with her body except the head in the ground an allegory of the lamb carrying all human sins. There is no way of salvation no matter if you are lamb or wolf. For the first the mud of this world, for the second the madness. Mud, madness is the crowing of that post-war industrial society Pasolini says. Contrary to Trilogy of Life looking at as an Ode to Life, this film is an Ode to Death. If you want something to be changed to that structure you find yourself powerless and mad to the end. Why this terrifying Teorema is in front us? Because - according to precedent Pasolini's works of the new-realistic school, is built on exploitation of other people, on no-mercy rules of western societies which condemns people living in poverty, growing aversion between them. The building you construct has no strong basis it's going to fall, he says to us. Finally a bell is ringing? An SOS bell. A pessimistic sound for society we all live. Teorema is a puzzle that can't be solved by human race of modern times.Only if you have salvation angel besides you, who by all means, you keep it all time close to you, salvation could be earned.

Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Teorema" had me dumbfounded! It was one of those rare instances where I was unable to formulate a clear opinion of what I thought about it. For one, this minimalist picture from the controversial filmmaker has "art-house" written all over it. Yes, there is extreme minimalism, very little dialog (it seems the number of actual spoken words in the film is about 923!). This almost silent film is allegorical…rife with symbolism and religious connotations, and may not be a very interesting subject matter for those looking at mainstream cinema, that is for sure! Terence Stamp is "The Visitor", a mysterious stranger who once visits the mansion of a rich family of four. The man of the house is Paolo, a rich businessman who owns a factory, and then there's his awkward son, a daughter, a beautiful wife who is sexually repressed and a scary-looking maid. In the next few days that pass, this visitor has sexual encounters with each of the inhabitants of the house! In a way, he "seduces" them. And almost as suddenly as he appears, he soon takes leave of them, leaving them in a state like never before! All of these people he "touched" exhibit marked changes in their lives, of a different level altogether! The "consequences" forms the crux of this strange film and paves way for detailed discussion! What makes Pasolini's film so important is the daring concept that Pasolini presents to his viewers with a script set in the contemporary world. From what I understand, The visitor is supposed to be a God-send or an angel who influences the members of the house in one way or another. Why "sexually" is a good question, but that depends on how you see it. Is it the touch of God, or the Devil's seduction? Perhaps it is symbolic of a "close encounter with God"? So what exactly does God do to these bourgeois individuals? Apparently he makes them see beyond their pretentious cocooned life. They all go through a self-realization phase, which they all confess one by one to the Visitor when it is time for him to leave. But he isn't there to see the changes. Are these changes always positive? Does being "blessed" always lead to happiness? Or is there another side to it? Pasolini, through his seemingly simple yet highly complex allegory poses these ambiguous questions, which likely polarized his audiences, based on their religious beliefs! Being an atheist I wasn't particularly offended or overwhelmed with the subject, but I was definitely intrigued by how drastically different this film and its viewpoint is! Pasolini's technique of story-telling is poetic! It is almost like Pasolini deliberately chose the visual style as exists in the film to give it a meditative form. Long takes, solitude, mostly gentle atmosphere, intermittent random scenes of a vast empty desert, the presence of a radiant light just before the visitor appears, all tactfully done! The visuals are also enchanting, the cinematography is beautiful, with the colours changing from sepia (in the beginning during the introduction of the characters, perhaps to show their 'ordinary' life?) to vividly colourful (a marked change with the introduction of the "visitor"?). It is then, mostly on the technical front and the handling of the film with its layered theme that makes "Teorema" most watchable.Where it falters is in some (only a couple or three) haphazard sequences here and there, and in the tepid acting from the actors playing the son and the daughter. I don't know if it was intentional but the daughter, Odetta (Anne Wiazemsky) who also appeared in Robert Bresson's "Au Hasard Balthazar" delivers what could be one of the most wooden acting performances I've seen! At one point it even becomes slightly apparent that she is reading her lines from cue cards!! The son, Pietro is played by Andrés José Cruz Soublette also seems somewhat awkward, but maybe his acting reflects his character who behaves like that owing to being a closeted homosexual! The finest acting then comes from Terence Stamp, even though he doesn't have much to do except give mysterious smiles once in a while and appear compassionate! A close second best actor in the film is the beautiful Silvana Magnano, the lady of the house. Her Lucia's perplexed state of mind is wonderfully portrayed by the actress. Also impressive is Laura Betti as Emilia, the maid. Laura looks and acts the weird Emilia quite earnestly.But how does one eventually evaluate and rate something as flummoxing as "Teorema"? Why is it even called that anyway? ('Teorema' means 'Theorem') There are views that the structure of the film itself and the psychological transformation of all characters follow a single formulaic structure! The film doesn't boast of great acting, neither is it an intimate character portrait. Not all characters are dug deep into. The subject matter is not what one would fall in love with, but it sure is extremely interesting! But in spite of this, there is something about "Teorema" that makes it worthwhile. While the visuals and the characters haunt your memory long after the film is over, the happenings in the narrative will give you something to ponder about. It is not a film one may go ga-ga about, but can one ever forget having watched "Teorema"? Hell, no! Score: 8/10.

The prologue of this movie is actually the epilogue. Pasolini emphasizes the artistic freedom to turn the world inside out and fictionally destroy all conventions. In a pseudo-documentary vignette intellectuals debate with the new industrialists {formerly "the workers"} and future plutocrats as to whether they will become subsumed by the bourgeoisie as a result of being inevitably corrupted by the trappings of wealth and power.In the jump between the main story and the prologue a motif, {repeated throughout the entire movie}, of the Hebrews wandering in the wilderness, hoping to find the Promised Land, is insertedWe are introduced to the nuclear family in its bourgeois construct as an Industrialist with huge factories and a magnificent Milanese villa, his trophy wife, a beautiful female, sybaritic, vacuous and fashionably attired and coiffured, as befits her class, their son Pietro and daughter Odetta. All of them are illustrated as typically bourgeois, self-satisfied and complacently entitled to lead their lives empty of meaning. All bourgeois households of their class have servants and the religious peasant Amelia runs their household.Pasolini then has a metamorphic agent, the boyish Terence Stamp, enter into their idyll. A cypher for the creative force of the auteur Pasolini himself, "the boy" insinuates himself into the individual lives of each of the five personae in the household. First, for no explicable reason other than the sexiness of his appearance, {Pasolini's homosexuality focuses on Stamp's prettiness and young slender physique}. Stamp's personality is quite reserved and introverted, so although he is seen to be reading the iconic gay poet Rimbaud, and playing the fool in a boyish way, we are never quite convinced of any intellectual passion. The five seductions are all carnal, starting with the peasant Amelia, who is overwhelmed by Stamp's "aura" and, initially trying to avoid her "fall" by attempting suicide, succumbs to her desire for sexual congress with "the boy". In quick succession "the boy" inducts the younger son into the homosexual life. Here the thought occurs that a typical initiation into homosexuality by the older man would most likely be Pasolini's personal narrative, especially, as the story develops we see the son overcome his anguish by sublimating into the arts, as Pasolini himself, did. Next "the boy" is seduced by the mother and then the daughter pulls him into the bedroom. Finally the heterosexual father {in a typical gay fantasy "all straight men are potentially gay" } is seduced by "the boy". Having performed his role of alchemical mischief we are introduced to Tolstoy's novella "The Death Of Ivan Ilyich" when as if enacting the final chapter, the father falls ill and "the boy' takes his legs and holds them above his head giving him relief - it should be noted that Nabakov lectured on this work stating that Tolstoy considered bourgeois hypocrisy to be a moral death or suicide of the soul.Then, suddenly "the boy" - the revolutionary agent of transformation - announces his abrupt departure {this takes place almost exactly half way into the movie}. Like the aftermath of a bad L.S.D. trip, {Pasolini created this movie in 1967 at the height of the 60's revolution}, the confusion and dismay of the five individuals are the necessary results of picking up the pieces, and living a life with new values, and the meaninglessness of the past.Of the five the most personal is the son Pietro, who leaves home to take the path of the artist {Rimbaud's calling} and become a painter {deeply inspired by a coffee table art book of Francis Bacon}. He muses that now that his past delusions of normality were shattered by his realization of his homosexuality, he must embrace his difference and become a creative power himself. He becomes a painter and paints on glass reminiscent of Duchamp's "Bride Stripped Bare" - he goes through many changes and humiliations, eventually restoring his equilibrium and health, by realizing the inconsequence of his life in relation to the universe. Here you have Pasolini's personal odyssey integrated into the story.As to the other players, Amelia the servant returns to her country roots, where she becomes an austere penitent, and performs the Catholic miracle of levitation, only to be buried by an old peasant woman {played by Pasolini's mother} and once again with reference to Tolstoy's "Death of Ivan Ilyich" she declares that she is not dying but acting out of sympathy for those that are still living in moral death, aka the bourgeoisie. The mother in true homosexual style becomes a woman driven to find young boys { as in gay "cottaging", rent-boys, etc,}, and has anonymous sex with them. We leave her in a state of ungratified anguish. Odetta, the daughter {described by her mother as "caught up in the Cult of Family"}, allows her life force to seep away, while the father gives away his factories, and strips himself naked, ending up like his wife, wandering in the wilderness with no hope of finding the Promised Land.Another peculiarity of this beautifully framed cinema is Pasolini's gay framing of the male crotch which is in contrast to the usual Hollywood focus on the female mammary, buttocks and legs. There is also some clothing fetishism with the camera lovingly gazing at the male Y-fronts. {underpants}At the end of the explication of a theorem "Q.E.D." is affixed "that which has been demonstrated". I recommend this movie to those that are interested in the art of the 60's, gay art, revolutionary politics, and Surrealism in cinema. Its a mind blowing experience!

"There are only 923 words spoken in "Teorema" - but it says everything!", brags the tagline. It makes some sense, since Pasolini's film feels like a rhythmic visual poem with scattered dialogue. "Teorema" looks and feels like a haunting silent film integrated with sparse dialogue - failed attempts of communication and change among the characters.A beautiful and enigmatic visitor (a young Terence Stamp, one of the intriguing, almost androgynous cult sex figures of the 60's, along the lines of a Udo Kier and others) seduces and then leaves each member of a bourgeois family. The father (Massimo Girotti, of Visconti's "Ossessione"), the mother (Silvana Mangano, "Death in Venice"), the daughter (Anne Wiazemsky, of Bresson's "Au Hasard Balthazar" and Godard's then wife), the son (Andrés José Cruz Soublette) and even the housemaid (Laura Betti, best actress at the Venice Film Festival for this performance) are all altered by the visitor's sexual presence in their lives, and each will try to find salvation or catharsis once they're abandoned. Their ways can be seen as an allegory of the fears and misconceptions of those trapped in their own conventions, and the tragic consequences of their failed attempts to get away - after the visitor, an hedonistic angel of death, tricked them with false hopes of sexual and emotional liberation. At least, that's how I see it - which I wouldn't dare to claim as an ultimate view on it. As enigmatic and haunting the images in "Teorema" are, they ask for repeated viewings. And just the fact that they give you enough interest for a second look, it's quite a feat. An interesting, cerebral cinematic exercise, to say the least. 8.5/10.