This is the movie that took Fellini into the next, most contraversial phase of his carrer. His admirers of this period say that Fellini created some of the personal of all films, and that his visual style is beyond compare. His detractors say that his later films are self-indulgent, plotless and, to a degree, pointless. I agree with both sides.
There is no other film quite like Satyricon (it got it's title from a typographical error committed on advertising for this the movie, the poster was a originally supposed to read "Fellini's Satyricon"). Although it takes place in ancient Rome, it's really set in a nightmare world of the mind. Almost every horror imaginable is shown in the picture. To give you an idea, the movie begins with a monolouge by Encolpio (Martin Potter), complaning that his beloved child prostitute has been stolen away be his best friend. Yes, the main character of the movie is a pedophile. Throughout the rest of the plotless film Encolpio wanders around from orgy to orgy, he is captured as a slave, made to fight others, and so on. Although Kristen was afraid I would be offended by the movie I wasn't- Fellini clearly shows the activties in the movie to be grotesque and scary.
Adding to the bizzare quality of the film is the sumptious color photography and impressive production design. Fellini said that it's really science-fiction and I see what he means, if you expected to see anything resembling a historically accurate look at ancient Rome you are going to be dissapointed.
I think that perhaps best comparison for the film is that it's like A Clockwork Orange without the depth. Kubrick made a disturbing and visually stunning masterpiece that delt with some serious human issues, Fellini made a disturbing and visually stunning that film that doesn't seem to say much at all, except may be that hedonism is wrong, which is an awfully simple message to sustain for more than two hours. The movie worked with me up until around the halfway point, but after that I got desensitized to the debauchy and got bored. The movie is always has some dynamac photography, but it's seriously structurally flawed.
When the movie was realeased, it sharply deviding the critics (some called an instant masterpiece while others walked out of the premier). The movie is so visually innovative that I must reccomend it, but with the caveat that the viewer knows that they are not going to see anything resembling a traditional film with a plot. Sometimes, this is not a problem (Fantasia) but I wanted one here. Although I ironicaly share the sentiments of those who both love and hate the movie, I find I lack either groups passion for it. It is a strange thing- after one hour of seeing things beautifully shot but horrible sights I'd never seen before, I decided that I'd rather not see them again.
Fellini Satyricon (1969)