Customer Reviews
A singular triumph 
2007-02-11
Many complain "Satyracon" is lewd and "over the top". Hello! It's Ancient Rome! Many complain "Satyracon" is fragmented and episodic. Wake up people! It's taken from an ancient episodic work [like the Odyssey] that has only survived in fragments.
"Satyracon" is genius! It's a dream, a romp through the civilized western world without Christ or Christianity. A place where homosexuality and slavery are taken for granted. Where magic rules and life has quite a different meaning than it does today. To understand the genius of this film, one can simply compare it to 2 other films of about the same era, and themes.
One is "Caligula". It takes place in the same period of Ancient Rome, and the film even has the same designers! But "Caligula" is trash and porn and is all shock value that leaves little behind after you struggle through it. It's crap. Not so for "Satyracon". Both films have blood and gore and sex, but "Satyracon" does it with style, and it is never gratuitous.
The other is "2001: a Space Odyssey". Both films are experiments in filmmaking firmly planted in the period in which they were made: the late sixties. They are based, sort of, on an aesthetic of the time called "the happening" in which events unfold spontaneously. Plot becomes secondary...or tertiary even. Remember the musical "Hair", a hit of course at the time, has no plot. This 60's notion can be seen in other films too, that don't work and have become very dated, like "Easy Rider" or "Lucky Man". But "Satyracon" and "2001" take this happening idea and use it to concentrate on images. After all these are "motion PICTURES" and both films could almost be silent films [how the very genre of film started!] and they still work. Both involve unfamiliar places and cultures, one in the future [for the 60's] and one in the past. The characters in both realms take for granted the things we look on with amazement.
Yes, "Satyracon" is a period piece, a 60's film, but unlike others who tried to get "the happening" to work and failed, this film succeeds beautifully [partly by cleverly basing the film of a fragmented source]. And like "2001" it is still original, unique, and mysterious. It's brilliant! Don't miss it!
Bygones 
2007-01-23
There is a gentleman here hoping for a better print of Satyricon. Sadly, the best print was when The Criterion Collection released it on laserdisc. I have not seen it anywhere for sale and I lost the VHS copy I made from the CAV many years ago. I sold all my laserdiscs 15 years ago. Had I known what one-of-a-kind things they were I would have saved them.
the fellini paradox 2006-12-17
Satyricon is a film that may have multiple functions: it can be viewed as a "satire" of hedonistic Rome, portraying the emptiness of a life driven by banalities through the coldness with which Ascilto, Encolpius and the rest of the "supporting" (i think more of- "incidental") cast is presented and developed. We only keep a record of Ascilto and Encolpius' doings, while the rest of the characters involved vanish, disappear with their affairs unresolved, perhaps as a metaphor for the lightness of a life lived only for the purpose of receiving pleasure.
On the other hand, and paraphrasing Andy Warhol, it can be understood as a stationary work of art... a movie that acts as a hanging portrait: a visual treat, purely for the sake of pleasure (here the paradox!). Like Warhol used to say about his movies of men sleeping: something to look at, that i can go to the kitchen and return and will still be there, beautiful. The characters' handsomeness, the exciting, beautiful sets one after the other, the odd ugliness that becomes strange beauty being something only Fellini can accomplish... and most of all, the straying away from any sincere human feelings or eroticism, in order to keep any actual emotional involvement at bay, make it a worthy "picture" to look at for the hours of its duration.
Fellini surely had a blast making this film, and it shows. He added and substracted oddities, freaks, epic beauties and creatures as he pleased. Scene after scene, incoherently put together as they are, something shocking or hypnotizing awaits. He loosely based himself on a story that lent itself to be ornamented, and transformed it into the greatest and most imitated trip/movie ever.
The film therefore can be interpreted as either of these two options, or as both, or as anything one wants it to be; in this sense, it's anamorphic and subjective. One thing is sure, though: it is bound to keep your eyes fixed on the screen. You can get up for a while and return, and it will still be there in all its color and charm. Whether you wish to analyze its meanings and symbolism does not affect its value entirely, because it works either way.
A standard for surrealalism, if a bit creepy. 
2006-09-13
Quite astounding when it first came out, your values may have changed a bit since you first saw this film way back when. Definitely a benchmark for cinema, regardless of your revisionist take on Fellini's "values".
I have couple of technical issues with the DVD (I bought it in 2001):
1) A lip-synch error pervades the entire disc - the dialog lags the actors mouths by a consistent and noticeable fraction of a second.
2) A pivotal scene in the film, the death of the hermaphrodite in the white hot desert canyon, is intentionally over-exposed in the film to appear almost completely washed out on screen. The DVD production house has "corrected" this exposure, which now looks muddy and lacks its original magic and meaning.
Amazon replaced my first copy - same deal. Too bad either Fellini wasn't well enough to oversee these types of technical details, or else the people designated to do this for him couldn't be bothered to do their job. Or maybe it's been fixed by now. Caveat emptor.
Images, images, images....just absorb them, that's all you can really do, and that's all you're supposed to do... 2006-07-26
This is one of a handful of films where you just watch the images unfold before you. It is impossible to really make literal sense of the story, as that is not important here. The imagery is truly stunning, a 129 minute film of moving paintings. I had an argument with a teacher (who I admired) over this film when he asked me what is it about? And I said "nothing". He replied (missing my point entirely) "Tell me about it!". This film reminds me of Peter Greenaway's Prospero Books, Sergei Paradjanov's The Color of Pomegranates, and, to a lesser extent, Dario Argento's Inferno, where the films themselves are just one astonishing image after another. This is such a great film if you allow yourself to absorb it. That's really all you can do. For those who wonder why it's called "Fellini Satyricon" and not just Satyricon...the original novel, Satyricon, is in public domain. So anyone can make a film version of it. When Fellini announced this film, there were several knock offs before Fellini's film came out. That's why it's called Fellini Satyricon. It's not just a tribute to Fellini's ego. It's a fantastic parade for your eyes...
Oh so good! 2008-01-12
It's amazing to think that the original story behind this movie was created at about the same time as the beginnings of Christianity. I watch this video once each year on Christmas Eve or on Christmas Day. It's a great antidote to the insanity of the Christmas season as "celebrated" in the U.S. of A. Highly recommended!
Humanity & Fantasy 2007-12-10
SATYRICON may well be the crown jewel of the late 1950-1960's European/Asian Art Film genre--by one of the master directors of the time.
As mentioned in the press blurb, the film play is loosely (very loosely) based on The Satyricon by Petronious, and the storyline follows the sexual exploits of Encolpio who searches for his fickle lover, played out within the framework of a hyper-sexualized & surrealistic vision of Pagan Rome (and other locales that could be anywhere between the Italian countryside to Jupiter.)
This is Fellini's most opulent & lavish production (eclipsed only by his other masterpiece CASANOVA--a film critics found just a little too lavish & opulent, and a movie that seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth.)
SATYRICON (more or less translates as "Sex Play") is a sumptuous feast for the eyes & ears, emphasized by an non-intrusive & often very funny script. For example, in one scene a man entertains dinner guests with this story: Once upon a time a beautiful young widow had to bury her husband. Following the tradition of the time, she vowed to pine away next to the body she followed to the cemetery. Just over the hill a handsome young soldier was charged with the task of guarding the body of a hanged thief. The soldier hears the widow's crying & goes to investigate. With very little cajoling the widow & soldier make love next to the corpse. Meanwhile, the relatives of the hanged man steal his body. When the soldier finds out, he threatens to kill himself because he knows that he'll be held responsible. But the widow dissuades him, suggesting he replace the stolen body with that of the husband. She says, "Better to hang a dead husband then lose a living lover."
The storyteller's audience laughs--and the theatre audience laughed along with them. This exemplifies the intent of the director in this film--to show the continuity of human nature, with all its aspirations & foibles.
Another scene I liked involved a rich man who employed a fulltime soothsayer to interpret the meaning of his belches.
And this one: The intrepid hero becomes impotent, but unluckily for him, he is selected to play the role of Lover in a city fertility rite. The rather ample High Priestess displays herself on the altar & entices him to lay on top of her. Unfortunately that's all he does. In a huff she tosses him off the altar, picks up her clothes & goes stomping off yelling "You shriveled up little worm, you'll bring bad luck on all of us!"
There are poignant scenes between the humor.
In one such scene a Patrician (land owner) and his wife learn that Caesar (no particular Caesar is really identified) has been assassinated. As they were allies of his, they know that they are marked for death. They send their children away to safety (Fellini's daughter plays one of them.) Then in a highly stylized, emotive, graceful scene, they commit suicide. No melodrama here, but dignity.
The sexual and other visual images of the film are very Dali--and if you love Dali, you'll love the movie. If you're uncomfortable about sex, you won't like this picture. Every form of sex & fetish runs throughout SATYRICON. Nudity is rampant! However, here too Fellini shows his humanity. No matter how bizarre the situation (or position) not one character is portrayed as degrading or demeaning. SATYRICON is a Celebration of Life, a fusion art form the almost quietly invokes an age old expression of joy.
It is as if we were being ever so gently reminded that our life is all we have, and unfortunately, it just can't last forever.
As a matter of fact, it has a tendency to end all too soon.
This was certainly the Pagan outlook.
La Strada - Criterion Collection
La Strada - Criterion Collection
Fellini's Roma
Juliet Of The Spirits - Criterion Collection
Exploring reality through drug-induced fantasy 2007-11-05
As much as I enjoy Roman epics like Kubrick's Spartacus - Criterion Collection, it is undeniable that these tend to either whitewash the more bizarre aspects of Roman life or turn said aspects into a freak show (Caligula (Three-Disc Imperial Edition), Gladiator (Widescreen Edition)). What sets Fellini's film apart is that he does not try to make any connections to our present (except that he and his version of the Romans apparently shared a penchant for hallucinogenic drugs). His vision of the Roman world is confusing like some sort of endless carnival, alien to us in a way a Far-Eastern culture might be. In many ways it seems a bit overdone, until you realize that e.g. Roman food was indeed quite strange (read Apicius). And yes, the Roman women put lead makeup on their faces. I bet that was healthy!
But the real star of the film is the production design and the cinematography by Giuseppe Rotunno. Not to mention the delicious overacting and the deliberately out-of-sync dialogue (there is a book about the making of the film in which Fellini explains his vision). Many movies have stolen a few ideas here, for example Lychias's ship somehow seems to have influenced Waterworld and other post-apocalyptic movies. I guess it is no coincidence that Fellini called this his "science-fiction film of the past". Also, Pasolini's "Trilogy of Life" with its episodic structure and carefree sexuality is deeply indebted to this film.
The work on which the movie is based, the The Satyricon (Oxford World's Classics) by Petronius Arbiter, might perhaps be called the birth of the anti-hero novel, where three misfits -- students who dabble a bit in murder, theft, and prostitution on the side -- stumble from one ribald adventure into the next and where the reader can never decide if he should laugh with the "heroes" or at them. So, does Petronius intend to satirize the "haves" (like Trimalchio) or the "have-nots" (like Eumolpius) -- or simply everybody? And what does Fellini want to say with this film? Maybe just to sit back and enjoy the visual feast he offers.
Fellini OutFellini's Fellini 2007-10-03
Fellini was not a man of half-measures. He was his own greatest challenger. With great challenges comes the risk for great failure. Satyricon is a disjointed mess, albeit a very pretty disjointed mess. Most of Fellini's movies don't have much in the way of plots so that doesn't bother me. What makes Satyricon unsuccessful is the lack of insight and challenging questions that make most of Fellini's other works so fascinating and challenging for the viewer. Here, it seems as if Fellini makes his point early then spends the rest of the movie beating around the bush. He tries so hard to offend it eventually seems silly and contrived and, ultimately, boring.
Empty, loud, and shallow illustration to an ancient book 2007-04-26
"Satyricon" studies ancient Rome of the first century, and is virtually plot less; images drive the movie, not the story and characters, and the movie is essentially a montage of unrelated scenes. Cinematography and art direction are wonderful and the film is truly the feast for eyes. Its beauty comes from El Fayum portraits, wall paintings (frescos) and mosaics from Rome and Pompeii. The problem with Satyricon is that IMO Fellini himself did not like it very much. He seems to be a remote observer in that gorgeous but empty, soulless, decadence world of Nero's Rome. The shocking and appalling scenes of violence and sex leave me indifferent after a while. Two main characters that connect unrelated events are so insignificant, dull, and futile that they only take a screen time from the magnificent images which are the main attractions of "Satyricon". Even those images cannot safe Satyricon from being just a glorious illustration to an ancient book.
"Satyricon" feels empty, loud, and shallow. I rather read Petronius's book or watch the immortal, impressive, and full of character El Fayum portraits.
I prefer more "Fellini's Roma" - as beautiful as "Satyricon", it is much more enjoyable, has a subtle message and a lot of heart. The magnificent Eternal City is deservingly the main character of the very personal film for its creator, Maestro Fellini.
