Was the particular reason Fellini went to great lengths to exaggerate the decadence and decay of social life for the Roman upper class was to take a stab at capitalism in 1969? Perhaps his own view of consumerism, the sexual revolution, gluttonous drug use and the like might be reflected through the parallels with Roman debauchery and how it helped bring the mighty empire down. Anyone else see this as a powerful expression of socialist though?
shareThat's quite a smart view... Didn't cross my head, but now that you mention it, it sounds makes sense.
Probably that's why he called it "Satyricon". A satire, defined by a dictionary is:
"A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit".
Fellini puts himself as the observer of all that happens throught the film. He just shows us what happened, probably exaggerating it in a really provocative & beautiful way, because those were, somehow, hidden necessities or values of the Roman society: beauty, eroticism & power.
Each face in the movie speaks for itself on every of those characteristics. And the 60's just bring that up again, that decayness of society, but it's attractive. That's my thought.
[deleted]
That's quite a smart view... Didn't cross my head, but now that you mention it, it sounds makes sense.
Probably that's why he called it "Satyricon". A satire, defined by a dictionary is:
by - cinephila_7 on Sun Aug 26 2007 23:46:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugh ---- Why are people always so willing to say such instinctive, wrong, dumb things? Fellini didn't name it Satyricon. Petronius in Rome did.
A satyr is a stage character know for his enormous phallus.
The figure was used in comedies.
Exactly!!!
This is the same kind of protracted BS I hated listening to, as well as being forced to agree with, back in school.
Fellini made this film for two reasons and two reasons only!
(1) He had a profound like or a profound dislike of the original text and wanted to share the story in his own way.
(2) He thought the finished product would make money.
This, inevitably, is why ALL films are made!
Was the particular reason Fellini went to great lengths to exaggerate the decadence and decay of social life for the Roman upper class was to take a stab at capitalism in 1969?Very unlikely. First, it was not Fellini's choice to make Petronius' novel-fragment into a film, but the idea of the producer. Second, the same idea for a "Satyricon"-film had already occurred to another producer years before (in 1962), but hadn't been realized, due to the lack of an (interested? appropriate?) director until Fellini's film was announced (that's how the rivalling film of Polidoro was shot all in a hurry). So - two producers wanting a "Satyricon" film doesn't sound particularly anti-capitalistic to me. Third, if you read for instance Suetonius' biographies of Roman emperors, the question arises of how exaggerated Fellini's film really is. And fourth: I think the film was made because Petronius' novel is an important piece of writing in the literaray tradition of Italy, and other milestones of it were filmed in the 60s (for instance by Pasolini: "Decamerone", and producers nagged Fellini to also make a film about "The Divine Comedy" which he thought unrealizable). In the 60s these works which for centuries had been surrounded by secrecy and rumors of daringness because of the way they dealt with erotic matters were rediscovered as what they are: important literary testimonies of their times and not disreputable pornography.
[deleted]
In the 60s these works which for centuries had been surrounded by secrecy and rumors of daringness because of the way they dealt with erotic matters were rediscovered as what they are: important literary testimonies of their times and not disreputable pornography.Hi Ganymed,
But were they? It seem s obvious to me the Petronius is treating sex in a comic fashion, in the manner of a ribald novel which perhaps reflects his own predilections. I suspect strongly it is Petronius who is "of pathic lust"
[deleted]
No social/politcal/religious intentions. IMOWe agree on this, Ganymed, but why I mentioned Suetonius was because he has this breath-taking (for modern readers) biography of Nero, and Nero and Petronius being contemporaries, Petronius' own writing is in parts regarded as very probably parodying Nero's writing (let's not forget Nero thought of himself as a great artist) and not so much his private phantasies; though certainly written to amuse himself and a few friends, they may have gotten much more fun out of it than just a bit of titillation, being able to identify the allusions. Besides, Suetonius was another source in making the film, a side issue, yes, but all the same inspiring the script and decorations. That's why I wouldn't call the film only a dream like fantasy of Fellini, although doubtless it has elements of this, too; already in the approach of presenting a very strange past in the way of a sci-fi film.
[deleted]
Looks like you've unearthed some rare stuff there, Ganymed. I've never heard that the "Ephebe of Pergamum" episode of the "Satyricon" was illustrated by some Gaston Goor; don't know who he is, and there's not much info about him on the web except that he lived from 1902-1977 and also illustrated Diderot, but I couldn't find any examples of his illustrations online.
The only thing you can do to find out more seems to be buying the book! :)
Regards, Rosabel