Watch Fellini Satyricon For Free
Fellini Satyricon
After his young lover, Gitone, leaves him for another man, Encolpio decides to kill himself, but a sudden earthquake destroys his home before he has a chance to do so. Now wandering around Rome in the time of Nero, Encolpio encounters one bizarre and surreal scene after another.
Release : | 1970 |
Rating : | 6.8 |
Studio : | PEA, |
Crew : | Production Design, Production Design, |
Cast : | Martin Potter Hiram Keller Salvo Randone Magali Noël Capucine |
Genre : | Fantasy Drama |
Watch Trailer
Cast List
Related Movies
Reviews
Thanks for the memories!
Let's be realistic.
Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible
As Good As It Gets
Good actors but the script based on Petronius' writings is ambitious but flawed. Petronius' own writings is partially lost. Fellini tries to connect the surviving tales and loses credibility while trying to connect the surviving fragments. The highlights: the short but evocative performance of Lucia Bose as a slave owner who frees her slaves and commits suicide with her husband who are facing bad days ahead, The others are Capucine and Magali Noel (a Fellini regular) who have a commanding screen presence in their brief roles.
My favorite chapter was the "fire from her loins" , right near the end. The giant fish walking along the river banks was pretty cool too. The Satyricon by Fellini is a mix of history ( based on Petronius' fragmented, partial work) and an artistic, impressionist work. Lots of topless women running, jumping, standing, walking. Our hero Encolpio, (Martin Potter, a Brit) tells his young lover to choose between him and Ascilto, and when he does, Encolpio sets off on a series of adventures. Very artsy, wacky, silly make-up. Through-out the story, Encoplio runs into both the young lover and Ascilto (Hiram Keller, American, died quite young.), as well as casts of thousands in his adventures. This seems to be a whole lot of Roman history, mixed in with free interpretation by Fellini. Will definitely have to watch this one with the "commentary" turned on next time; may give some insight as to what's really going on. Make up a big bowl of popcorn, because this is over two hours, and covers a lot of ground. Capucine, the French actress is in here... she was big in Hollywood in the 1960s. Fellini was nominated for an Oscar twelve times, and finally won an achievement award in 1993, which also happens to be the year he died. Quite entertaining, if you have the patience. The fact that things are not always spelled out, and it IS artsy-fartsy, will turn off a lot of people.
I really don't know what to make of this film because in one way it seems to be incredibly disjointed, pointless, and apparently going nowhere, but in another way the scenes are beautiful, intense, and clearly the work of a master film maker. It has been suggested that some people rate this film highly simply because it was made by Fellini, and as such is carried through simply by the name of the director. I would have to disagree with that suggestion because people who make this suggestion clearly do not understand what it being done in this film. In fact, I have to admit that I really do not understand this film either, but a part of my wants to watch it again in an attempt to do so, however I feel that I will need to read the book that it is based upon first.The interesting thing about this film (with the exception that my DVD had the film in Italian, French, German, and Spanish, but for some incredibly bizarre reason, not in English) is that the book that it is based upon is not extant. What I mean is that the Satyricon is an Ancient Roman novel in which half of the book simply did not survive, which results in a story that is basically disjointed and incomplete. It is not that the book ends half way through either, it is that we simply only have sections of the book so if you were to read it you would find yourself jumping constantly and pretty quickly getting lost.Fellini, in making this film, decided that he would pretty much follow the book in that way, and not actually try to fill in the missing pieces. When I watched the film initially I didn't actually realise that he had done that, and found myself quite baffled at what was going on, and when I discovered that he had decided that he would actually not attempt to fill in the gaps, the theory behind the film actually made a lot more sense.I have noticed that some Christian commentators have pointed at this film as an example of how we as a race (that is Western Europeans) have lost touch with the spiritual realm and have found ourselves in a society that is based purely on the physical and as such have discovered that society is in fact disjointed, pointless, and meaningless. If that is the case, then Fellini has made a brilliant piece of filmography that pretty much captures the sense of our society and our modern mindset.The two parts of the film that stand out is the feast and the slave ship, and I liked those parts simply for the way those scenes were put together. However what is interesting is that on the slave ship there is a wedding between the captain of the ship, and the protagonist of the piece (both of them being male). What we have in that scene is a sense that society has simply become completely inverted. Okay, with the debate regarding gay marriage running around society it is not something that stands out to us now, but back when the film was made it would have – in a sense what we are seeing is a society that has not so much collapsed, but rather lost its identity as it travels through history grasping at straws and finding that it is forever failing in the task of seeking out its new identity.
I admire Federico Fellini and what films so far I've seen of his. While not a bad film at all, of the 8 films I've seen(La Dolce Vita, 8 1/2, Amarcord, La Strada, Nights of Cabiria, Roma, Casanova and Satyricon), Satyricon is my least favourite. I did find the story disjointed, some scenes are fine but others are not sure what tone it wants to be or I wasn't sure what they were trying to do. While the characters are not as detached to the audience in the way the titular character from Casanova is, whereas I identified with the leads of La Strada and especially Nights of Cabiria the characters were never really developed enough to make me care properly. Pacing has rarely, if ever, been an issue in Fellini films, I am well aware that his pacing is largely deliberate, but with a story and characters that I was indifferent to on the most part I will admit that my interest did waver. Also, the parts dealing with sexual immaturity were really quite bizarre to put it politely. However, Satyricon is stunning visually with striking roman garb and costumes beautifully photographed, and Fellini's direction while not as nostalgic as personal as some of his other films is accomplished. The score positively sweeps and accompanies the film very well, while the acting from especially the two leads is very good. Overall, there will be people who admire this film and others who'll find it self-indulgent and perhaps cold. Coming from someone who still isn't sure what she makes of Satyricon, I can understand both sides. I am glad I watched it, however I can't see myself watching it again. 6/10 Bethany Cox