This story is so sad yet essentially beautiful in its presentation of children's lives. The story of two siblings cooperating and sharing a pair of shoes brings out true values. Childlike and heartwarming innocence of its main characters impersonates authentic virtue and simplicity.
This movie teaches us two things: you don't have to use special effects, hire famous actors or work in an enormous Hollywood studio to make a great movie and you don't need to have much to be truly happy, to be human, to build a world of goodness. This movie will restore your faith in humanity.
This somewhat disturbing dark comedy will keep you in anticipation and wonder-struck throughout.
The story is about three youngsters who live with their parents in complete isolation and in fear of the outside world.
While watching any scene one must constantly question the motives of characters actions. A viewer manages to comprehend and put the puzzle pieces together, but remains astonished and shocked.
A viewer incessantly reviews the reasons why these parents decided to raise their children in this way. The answer can be derived from a father's sentence addressed to Christine, a woman who became a disturbance to their lives: "I hope your kids have bad influences and develop bad personalities. I wish this with all my heart." A viewer can conclude that he wishes to provide his children only with good stimuli in order to become good people. What he considers good, of course. This makes this movie a true example of the proverb: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." These children truly live in hell of ignorance leading to sociopathy.
If KKK masks ever made you feel unpleasant this Monty Python-like scene will make your fear or restlessness go away.
Tarantino presented these fear sowing people as simple, dullish, lowbrow characters. Without facial expressions, but with dull appearance thanks to their bags, with their accent and body language these characters will make you laugh until you cry.
This is probably one of the funniest scenes in the movie and it perfectly demystifies the obscure enigma of the Klan. Their sinister ideas are reduced to low-minded issues in a funniest way possible.
What makes a ‘good
adaptation’? Is it the rigorous following of plot, faithful representation of
characters’ personality and physiognomy or something else?
According to its
dictionary meaning “to adapt” is to adjust, to alter, to make suitable. When considering this definition it is necessary to remark that an adaptation
is not a copy of the already existing work (in another medium). Adaptation is a
creative process; some might even say that it is more difficult to adapt a
scenario than to produce one. Because
of the time limit, film must exclude much of the content, nevertheless, has to
grasp the atmosphere.
I will try to clarify whether the directors of two adaptations of Emily
Bronte’s Wuthering Heights (William
Wyler’s [1939] version and Peter Kosminsky’s [1992] version) succeeded in creating a ‘good
adaptation’. I will try to discuss on the matter of three kinds of fidelity
when adaptation is concerned: the fidelity of plot, the fidelity of characters,
and the fidelity of, what will be named, ‘soul’.
FIDELITY OF PLOT
The fidelity of the
plot or the narrative is something that every book reader and movie viewer
notices first. It is more than obvious that a student who wants to avoid
reading Wuthering Heights and watches
Wyler’s movie instead will most probably fail the exam. The Wyler’s movie, in
fact, covers only half of the book, and even the covered half is not without
deficiencies (Hindley’s wife does not give birth, neither does Catherine). As
it is stated in the The Encyclopedia of
Novels into Film: “The William Wyler adaptation of Wuthering Heights captures much of the romantic aura of the novel
while leaving much of the plot and the more disturbing imagery behind.”[1]
On the other hand,
Kosminsky’s version covers the entire novel, the first and the second
generation of characters, both the romantic and the villainous side of
Heathcliff.
The viewer can
judge the quality of the movie simply by the degree of fidelity concerning the
plot. The more faithful the plot is the better the movie is. Is this criterion
just, in this case at least? According to my opinion, and according to the
ratings on Internet Movie Database and Rotten Tomatoes, this can hardly be the righteous
and the sole criterion. Namely, the 1939 movie’s ratings are much higher than
the ratings of the 1992 movie.
Manifestly, there
is something else that makes a good adaptation. I will try to investigate what
that is, whether it is the fidelity of characters or the fidelity of “soul”.
FIDELITY OF CHARACTERS
Do directors of the
two adaptations of WutheringHeights succeed in
transferring rhetorical and aesthetic effects through Heathcliff’s character?
The recognition of Wyler’s Heathcliff is valid, as well as the one of
Kosminsky. The viewer is successfully presented with the character in both
movies. Wyler’s Heatcliff is completely aligned with his version of the novel.
He presents a tragical love story and represents Heathcliff as a victim of unjust
an inhumane class structure. While Wyler represents
Heathcliff as a 'Byronic romantic lead' “Kosminsky and scriptwriter Anne Devlin imply that none of the other
adaptations had the courage to reflect in full Heathcliff’s villainy as Brontë
displayed it in the second half of the novel. This is surely a valuable
principle on which to base their adaptation, not because of its fidelity, but
because of the attempt to break away from the partial, sentimental readings of
the novel of the previous sixty years. Sadly, Kosminsky’s film is only this,
failing to simply tell the story with an adequate rhythm and enough clarity.”[2] Wyler obviously failed in providing the viewer with allegiance; most
probably he did not even want to represent Heathcliff faithfully. On the other
side, Kosminsky tried to achieve allegiance. However, it is nearly impossible
to present all Heatcliff’s mood changes in such a short period which is
required for a movie, at least in my opinion.
Considering all of
the above, if we are to judge which adaptation is better according to the
fidelity of characters, excluding the quality of actors’ performances, we will
have to say that both adaptations failed.
FIDELITY OF “SOUL”
The author of The Theory of Adaption asks what exactly
constitutes that transferred and transmuted “content” and provides the reader
with notions of the ‘spirit’, ‘tone’, ‘style’ ‘the story’.[3]
In the notion of “soul” I will include Hutcheon’s ideas as well as symbols and
themes covered in the novel.
Hutcheon also
states that “Themes are perhaps the easiest story elements to see as adaptable across
media and even genres framing contexts.”[4]
This is true, and in transferring themes both adaptation pretty much succeed.
Themes such as love, destructiveness of love, and the problem of social class
are present in both movies.In presenting the
motifs of moors, symbolism of windows and the overall tone of the book and the
atmosphere Wyler’s movie are much more successful. Kosminsky’s moors seem too
artificial and the attempt to transfer the symbolism of windows, which is very
prominent in the novel, seems futile.
Wyler interpreted
the novel as a tragic love story and presented Heathcliff as a romantic Byronic
figure and a victim of fatal love while Kosminsky decided to include the
diabolical and abysmal aspect of the novel. Even though Wyler’s version can be
characterized as a ‘better’ movie it can hardly be described as a successful
adaptation because, as stated in the Encyclopedia the film resembles more of a
“variation on a theme from Emily Brontë than a full adaptation of the novel." [5]
[1, 5]Tibbetts, J. C. ,
James, M. W. The Encyclopedia of Novels
into Film. New York:
Fact on File inc., 2005.
[2]Martin, S. What
does Heathcliff Look Like? Performance in Peter Kosminsky’s Version of Emily
Brontë’s WutheringHeights, in: Books
in Motion: Adaptation, Intertextuality, Authorship, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005.
[3,4]Hutcheon, L. A Theory of Adaptation. New York: Routledge
Taylor & francis Group, 2006.
OTTO E MEZZO (1963) Fellini's 81/2 is a movie which contains almost all elements typical for modern novel and modernist style in general.
In the movie, plot is not based on the relationship between a human and his surroundings, but rather within a man himself. The conflict is transferred from outside world into the human mind.
The narrative of this movie is brought down to memories, associations, imagination. The movie starts with protagonist's claustrophobia attack in a traffic jam which makes him fly. Immediately afterwards viewer finds out that this was actually a dream. Associations which remind the protagonist of his childhood are oft-recurring in this film.
This movie is a story about creative as well as existential crisis in general. Since modernism did not consider movies as objective world outlook but rather subjective and authentic, this movie is abundant in autobiography. Director Guido (the protagonist) is considered to be Fellini's alter ego which Fellini use to represent his own creative crisis.
This movie is also auto-referential. This means that movie does not hide its techniques and editing but makes them obvious.
Besides these elements, this movie has so-called meta-film characteristics. This, basically, means that this is a movie about making a movie, maybe even this one in particular.
81/2is an anti-narrative and lacking culmination. Guido himself says: "un film dove succede niente" (a movie where nothing happens).
This Bergman's essay-like film represents the dark Middle Ages and
people who struggle the ignorance, the void, the plague of that time. The movie is based on a contrast between death and life. The contrast between fear and happiness, between flagellants and artists. Between people who blindly believe and people who want to know.
The
existential questions asked in this movie are presented directly and the symbolism
is quite obvious. The main character, the knight Antonius Block, is asking
questions and stating his thoughts directly through monologues or dialogues
with Death while his chess game with Death itself depicts a human struggle to
live and to achieve the meaning of life.
The philosophy of the movie is introduced in Block's confession. He wants to know, he cannot believe. He believes that people created god out of fear, but he wants to experience him with his senses.
“To believe is to suffer. It is like loving someone in the dark who
never answers.”
Although the title of the movie refers to the last chapter of the
Bible, the Book of Revelation or the Apocalypse, I believe that the end of the
movie does not indicate death. It displays what is still left to live. And
although Antonius Block dies, he helped the happy family to stay alive which
leaves us with optimistic thoughts of leaving the Middle Ages and entering the
Renaissance, the time of the human, of art, of knowledge, of life.
“I want knowledge. Not belief. Not surmise. But knowledge.”
Lady Gaga, once again, managed to raise controversy with her music video
for the song “Judas”. Both the song and the video have some obvious biblical
references starting from the title itself. This has caused some people feel
offended. Moreover, some religious groups consider this video to be an attack
on the religion. I will try to find out whether this offense is justified or unreasonable
by analyzing symbols used in the video and their meaning. First of all, I will
provide you with a short description of the video, giving emphasis on the
symbols to be described and analysed. Secondly, I will analyse every symbol
paying attention to the possible blasphemy. And, finally, I will try to answer
the question posed in the essay title.
Since everything in the world can be seen as communication, this
video is trying to communicate something and deliver a message. Is it trying to
offend Catholics, is it trying to shock us or only show us artistically the
metaphor of the struggle between good and evil? Does this video show disrespect
to god or not, i.e. is the video blasphemous or not?
FAMILIARISING WITH THE
VIDEO
The video begins by
showing biker gang riding their motorcycles on the highway. Lady Gaga is with
them, riding with the driver ahead of the formation and continuously looking
back. Where is she looking? She constantly keeps looking back where one other
member of the gang is. They arrive at a party where she continues being with
the same man while the other one shows his promiscuous behaviour by being with
diverse women during the video. So, we have bikers, party, promiscuity; how do
we know who these characters are. Actually, it is easy. Bikers wear jackets
with names such as John, Thomas, Philip, John, Peter...which is a really
obvious reference to the Twelve Apostles. Now it is not hard to decipher who is
ahead of the gang and who is the man Gaga keeps looking at. The leader of the
disciples is Jesus and the crown of thorns makes it easy to discover the
reference. On the other hand, the man behind is Judas, man after whom the song
is named. In the chaotic and even post-apocalyptic atmosphere of the event
there is a fight, there is Gaga’s try to kill Judas, there are Judas’ kiss and
Gaga’s kneeling in front of Jesus all interwoven and intersected with dancing.
Since the video is not really harmonically put together there are two more
events or scenes which are not directly connected with, let’s say, the main
one: the one where Gaga is being splashed by large waves and the one where she
is together with Jesus and Judas washing Jesus’ feet. The video ends with close-up
of Gaga shedding a tear and her death by stoning.
CROWD OF CROSSES
The biblical
reference is easy to notice and it is pretty obvious. But why did it raise
controversy instead of appreciation for keeping the biblical theme always
actual and contemporary? Why is there a reason to find the video blasphemous? Well,
it is considered that combining a half-nude body with Christian symbols is not
common or even desirable, and thus it is not moral. Crosses sewn on a
brassiere, crosses as a pendant, a shirt with Sacred Heart of Jesus, all in all,
an abundance of symbols sacred to every Christian in liaison with dancing, bare
skin and popular culture. All of this is more likely to raise controversy and
mutiny of religious groups than to be analysed in a different way, as a form of
art. But art, no matter how we define it and what we consider to be one, has
always raised issues, brought about and provoked different opinions and
judgments. Many people may deny the artistic status of the video, but this is
undoubtedly work of art. The video is using the technique of pastiche which is
one of the main characteristics of postmodernist art.
And another question remains concerning the overflow of Catholic
emblems. Why did producers, directors, costume designers, make-up artists and
others who worked in making this video along with Lady Gaga herself (for the
sake of text-economy I will use “Lady
Gaga” later in the text as a metonym for everyone who worked on the video)
decided to use such steep amount of this iconography? In my opinion, it is most
probably that she used it to provoke people to talk about it and to make the
reference as obvious as possible. For her, it does not really matter how people
react, do they find it offensive or innovative, blasphemous or brilliant as
long as it is talked about since it is commonly known that any publicity is
better than no publicity at all. But, is there a justified reason to consider the use of iconography
blasphemous? If you ask Jesus he would probably find blasphemous any excessive,
overdone and inordinate thing or phenomenon; and not only the ones used in this
video, but even colossal, immense edifices and sheen vestments built and worn
by “his people”. Jesus is the only
one who could find profusion of imagery blasphemous while people of today are
hypocritical. They take amiss Gaga’s excess, her immoderateness and do the same
by themselves. Taking the abundance of imagery in consideration as a metaphor,
Gaga can easily be parodying the pomp and profusion of the “saints” of today
who live in gilded palaces and wear vestments made of silk and velvet.
GOOD BIKER/BAD BIKER
Lady Gaga presented apostles and Jesus as bikers. I consider that
there is no specific reason for that other than being the easiest way to
modernize the theme. Is there a better way to show thirteen men in their
thirties spending time together? But, since Gaga enjoys evoking provocation,
bikes could be in connection with the notorious motorcycle club named Hell’s
Angels. The oxymoron of the name illustrates the good and the evil existing
together. The battle between the two is being displayed throughout the video.
Two men who take lead roles in this gang are Jesus and Judas. They
are two opposite personalities presenting the dichotomies of good and evil, of
forgiveness and betrayal, of sanctity and damnation. Jesus is the one who
forgives, the one who turns the other cheek. Jesus’ look is mild; his face
expression is sad and even tormented and suffering. He heals, forgives and
redeems. Judas, on the other hand, is arrogant and vain. He is promiscuous,
aggressive and as the lyrics say: “He’s so cruel”. It should be impossible to
find the way these two characters are represented blasphemous. It is a typical
black-and-white representation. The difference between the good guy and the bad guy
is being enhanced; the opposition of the two kinds of personalities is being
emphasized. The difference between good and evil is evident and clear. Although
Gaga cannot win the fight with Judas there is not a sign of her taking the side
of evil, only the fight between the two opposites.
THE LIPSTICK-GUN
In the video, as well as in the lyrics, Lady Gaga is torn between
these two contrasting men. She stands by Jesus’ side throughout the video, but
keeps looking back on Judas. She even tries to put an end to evil. She
approaches Judas with a golden gun, seeking for approval from Jesus who, once
again, shows his human, altruistic and merciful personality and does not
consent to her intention. She points her gun to Judas, fires, but, there is no
bullet. What comes out of the gun is lipstick. Lipstick-gun? Seems absurd and
nonsensical, seems gaga. But the notion of this product could easily be
connected with subsequent Judas’ kiss. The kiss which betrays Jesus, i.e. which
betrays good now includes not only Judas’ lips, but also Gaga’s lipstick. Gaga
is not able to kill old habits, she is not able to eliminate the grain of evil
which follows her and probably many other people. Instead, she leaves her
lipstick on the lips of betrayal. This could easily symbolise that she is also
the one who betrays Jesus; she is letting him down because she cannot break
away from the dark side although she tries and makes effort. Because of this
inability to win the fight with evil she becomes a co-betrayer. Betraying good,
not being able to fight the evil is immoral, weak and not a good exemplar, but
it should not be called blasphemous. The representation of the weakening in the
fight with the defiant should not be blaspheming but a presentation of a veritable
duel.
THE PURIFICATORY WATER
The scene where Lady Gaga is being splashed by massive waves is
somehow isolated from the whole song i.e. there is no music accompanying the
scene but the sound of splashing waves. This isolation makes the scene more emphasized
and accentuated. The splashing water is an inescapable and self-evident symbol
of baptism. Baptism denotes the redemption from sins. Water represents cleaning
and purification. Lady Gaga is sinful, cannot break away from the evil and
baptism should help her redeem. According to Catholic beliefs a person who
admits his or her sins should be forgiven and given another chance; in Jesus’
words: “Forgive them for they know not what they do”. The symbol of baptism should not be considered offensive or sacrilegious since the
only thing it represents is good. It represents cleansing people of their sins
and bringing them to everlasting life.
The scene intertwined with the sacramental one is another scene
including water: Lady Gaga in between two opposites, Jesus and Judas washing
Jesus’ feet. This is again one undisguised reference to a biblical motif. It is
a reference to the Last Supper and Jesus’ washing disciples’ feet. “The common explanation for
this is that it teaches us to learn humility by doing good for others, by doing
acts of service or kindness for our brethren. This is certainly a good lesson
that we can take from Christ's example.” This quotation confirms what
my religious acquaintances said about the symbolism of feet washing. And if
washing somebody’s feet is a symbol of humility, modesty and humbleness than
what did Lady Gaga want to say by including this scene into her music video?
Since she is not capable of denying evil, of persisting her and Judas’
co-betrayal of Jesus she is trying to surrender to Jesus and trying to be
docile.During
the process of her attempt to redeem she uses another motif including water as
a symbol of purity.
TO FORGIVE OR NOT TO FORGIVE
Lady Gaga’s
repentance is best seen in the next scene where she is kneeling in front of
Jesus. She is kneeling, begging for forgiveness because of her inability to
resist the sin and the vice. She regrets, she is weak, she is begging; and
Jesus, who is, as it is already said, noble, generous and gentle forgives her.
The main postulate of Catholicism should be the ability, the capability to
forgive and that is what Jesus preaches. He is the only one who actually
practices what he preaches and no matter what Lady Gaga did, she is being
forgiven by Jesus. In the video she is being kissed by him on the forehead as a
symbol of forgiveness, comfort and consolation.
Very few people are
ready to forgive. Jesus is able to condone Gaga’s sin but vox populi is quite different. She is exposed to public lynch and
she is stoned at the end. Close-up of
her crying portrays her regret, sadness and weakness. Final scene, her death by
stoning represents the punishment. It sends the message of carrying
responsibility for your actions, paying dues for sins made before. This scene
of lapidation greatly suggests the lapidation of Mary Magdalene. Some articles
suggest that Lady Gaga is a modern-day Mary Magdalene. Actually the only thing
that can connect her with the biblical penitent-prostitute is the stoning. But
the great difference between the two is that Mary Magdalene is being
successfully saved by Jesus who used his famous words: “Let he who is without
sin, cast the first stone”. Although Jesus has
forgiven Gaga she is still being punished. Stoning may symbolise an explicit
punishment of the society or can be a metaphor of punishing herself by carrying
the burden of guilt throughout her life and not being able to live with this
cross on her back.
The idea of
forgiveness can again be connected with the previously mentioned motorcyclist
club. The motto of Hell’s Angels is “When we do right, nobody remembers. When
we do wrong, nobody forgets”. Although Gaga
tries to repent, tries to fight evil, she is not being forgiven; she is being
punished because people remember only what they want to.
THE ANSWER
All things considered, there are
some instances of the video which could be taken as blasphemous by some people.
Instances such as the mere notion of choosing Judas over Jesus or huddling
Catholic imagery combined with things by then uncommon to be seen alongside
with the crucifix. Nevertheless, there are significant signs in the video which
show that what Lady Gaga did is not to be followed. What she did is sinful and
impure, she repents and she is trying to redeem; but although Jesus forgives
her others are not that sublime. The “others” may symbolise everybody but
Jesus, including herself i.e. her conscience. The “others” cannot forgive her
and she is being punished.
What Lady Gaga said
to defend the video was: “I don't view the video as a religious statement. I
view it as social statement. I view it as a cultural statement. It's a metaphor. It's not meant to be a
biblical lesson.” This statement is
completely understandable and sensible. It really illustrates what the video
could be communicating. The video can communicate and illustrate the fight
between good and evil. It is a metaphor of the battle between virtue and vice
with an obvious morality at the end: if you choose vice over virtue you will be
punished. Presenting this group from the first century as bikers from today
gives this metaphor another dimension; it makes it universal, timeless and
evergreen. These kinds of metaphors easily make people to identify with the
protagonist and his struggle. This does not send any immoral message, but what
many people ask is that why Jesus and Judas, why not Road Runner and Coyote or
why not Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader?
Well, the only thing that comes to my mind to answer this question is
that choosing anything else would not cause such commotion. Lady Gaga made a
video which is viewed by more than 43 million people, which is talked about and
about which essays are being written, she did what she intended to do. And is
this blasphemous or not? According to Collins’ dictionary blasphemous is
something which shows disrespect to God. If the video is watched carefully and
given more attention, it is easy to see that what is against Jesus’ preaching
is being punished. Every religious symbol or motif, such as the baptism or
Judas’ kiss, is not being used to have the opposite meaning from the one from
Bible. The baptism is purifying and Judas’ kiss is betrayal.
All in all, the
video, especially its ending, signifies that the sin is being punished, and
that should not be considered as showing disrespect to God, thus, it should not
be considered blasphemous.
Fellini nam predstavlja svijet grotesknih likova, patuljaka i bogalja,
homoseksualaca i hermafordita, proždrljivaca, ubojica i pljačkaša o čemu ne
znamo što da mislimo i kamo da se okrenemo. Trimalhionova gozba prestavlja nam
ono što se cijeni u tom svijetu, to su „Affarone“, „Guadagnone“ i „Contetone“
(Veliki Posao, Velika Zarada i Veliko Zadovoljstvo), Trimalhionovim riječima. A ono što je pjesnik
Eumolp spomenuo nekoliko scena prije je zaboravljeno, zaboravljeno je ono što
je nekoć bio čovjekov ideal, a to je bila vrlina, jednostavna i čista vrlina.
Istinska umjetnost više se ne cijeni, žudnja za novcem dovela je do loše
umjetnosti. Onaj tko je istinski genije nužno mora biti siromašan, jer bogat je
Trimalhion - „pjesnik“ koji krade stihove. Fellini ukazuje na potpunu
dekadenciju društva groteskno-satiričnom scenom Trimalhionova podrigivanja
kojem sluga tumači značenje. Čitanje iz dlana, iz taloga kave ili karata ovdje
je prikazano kao čitanje iz podrigivanja.
Zašto je Fellini
odabrao upravo antički rim za prikaz ovakvog svijeta? Kezich i Proctor pišu kako
je redateljeva namjera bilo potpuno estetsko odvajanje kako bi razdvojio likove
i njihove živote od današnje moralne prosudbe. Postavio je sebi velika
ograničenja: dva protagonista koje je teško voljeti, postavu odvratnih i
neprijatnih lica, zvučna montaža toliko očita i pretjerana da zvuči i izgleda
kao tehnička greška – sve to orkestrirano kako bi se publika osjećala
nelagodno, kako bi prisilila ljude da gledaju na prošlost kao objektivnu
stvarnost iz potpuno vanjske perspektive. Fellini za svoj film kaže kako je to
znanstveno-fantastični film o prošlosti, trebao bi izgledati kao da je publika
izašla, iznenađena iz vremenskog stroja kako bi promatrala antički Rim.[1] A on je to napravio kako bi prikrio izravni
napad na sadašnjost (tj. doba u koje nastaje film), kako bi kroz prikaz davnog
i prividno prošlog svršenog vremena implicitno prikazao zapravo sve što je isto
takvo u ovome sada.
Ovaj svijet ne poznaje moralni sustav vrijednosti, ovom
svijetu čovjekova ruka, pa ni čovjekov život nije vrijedan. U ovom svijetu
slavi se pjesnik-kradljivac, a pravi pjesnik se gađa rajčicama. Ovaj svijet
obiluje praznovjerjem gdje su hermafroditi polu-bogovi, a kanibalizam je svet.
Ovo potonje veoma lako može može aludirati na katolički običaj jedenja Isusovog
tijela.
Ebert je Satyricon usporedio s noćnom morom. Kao i svaka
noćna mora, Satyricon je fragmentiran. Toliko fragmentiran da zapravo egzistira
na rubu između vremena i prostora.[2]
U jednom trenu se spremaju ispeći pjesnika u pećnici, u sljedećem ga nose u
pozlaćenoj stolici. U jednom trenu Enklopije i Ascilt su neprijatelji u drugom
su opet suputnici, u jednom oplakuju umrlog hermafrodita u drugom vojska tjera
Enklopija. U jednom trenu na brodu izvlače čudovište iz mora u drugom potpuno
novo-uvedeni lik oslobađa svoje robove. I Petronijevo djelo je fragmentirano i
ne dovršeno. I film i rukopis završavaju nedovršenom rečenicom. Satyricon je
putovanje, ilustracija doba, a ispričati klasičnu priču tradicionalnim
narativnim stilom vrlo vjerojatno i nije bila redateljeva namjera.
Ovaj film sigurno pripada modernističkom stilu jer
uključuje poetske i raspravljačke elemente, poput pjesnikovih misli o
kompromitaciji umjetnosti. U filmu je modernističko i to što naglašava
inovativnost, iako je film temeljen na već napisanom djelu, ipak zadržava
epitet inovativnog, jer ovakvo nešto prije nije viđeno.U filmu je najvidljivija modernistčka
karakteristika razlomljena struktura, sve su epizode djelomično autonomne, a i
završetak je „otvoren“, film završava nedovršenom rečenicom: „koji mi je rekao
da je tim u godinama“ („…e racontò che negli anni…“).Kada se film tek pojavio možda je bilo
teško govoriti o njemu kao autorskom, jer se autor potpuno udaljio od
dotadašnjih svojih gotovo potpuno autobiografskih djela Slatki život i Osam i pol.
Ali, danas ga možemo staviti u kontekst njegove posljednje faze (izuzevši Amarcord) koja obuhvaća filmove Giuilietta od duhova, Casanova i Grad žena.
Ovi filmovi
zadržavaju neke osobitosti njegovih ranijih filmova poput oniričnosti i
asocijacija, te izrazitu fragmentarnost. Ono što ih razlikuje je tematika koja
je sve više fantastična i ne vezuje se eksplicitno uz redateljev život i
svijet.
A što je
Satyricon unutar unutar ove posljednje faze? Ovo je djelo nadrealni ep koji
disharmonično, rascjepkano, groteskno oslikava svijet kao jedan veliki festival
nakaza koji uživaju u zvuku dodekafonije koja često prati kaotične scene, a na
koju i nalikuje smijeh nakaznih stvorenja.
Na novinarovo
pitanje: „Je li sve ovo studija o degradaciji?“ Fellini odgovara: „Ne, ne
uopće; namjera mog filma nije pokazati porok i korupciju, to bi za mene bilo
vulgarno. Pa, koliko sam u mogućnosti, moja je namjera dati nepristran pogled
na ovaj svijet“[3] Teško je povjerovati da
je modernistički redatelj želio objektivno prikazati svijet isključivo radi
prikazivanja tog antičkog svijeta, jer mimeza i nije baš njegov glavni cilj, pa
je vrlo lako zaključiti da postoji određena referenca da suvremeni svijet gdje
je sustav vrijednosti poremećen kao i svijet Satyricona. Baumgold, novinar New
York Magazinea zanimljivo je opisao ovaj film: „Sva elegancija dekadencije“ (All the elegance of decadence[4]), kakav film
uistinu i jest.
[1] Kezich, T.; Proctor, M. Federico Fellini: his life and work.
[2] Ebert, R.( 1. sij 1970). Fellini Satyricon u: Chicago Sun-Times.
[3]Hughes, E. (15. kol 1969). A life-size whale in three days – „it's enough to make you cry“ u: LIFE
[4] Baumgold, J. All the Elegance of Decadence
u: New York magazine 9. ožu 1970.
_poster.jpg)
