Wednesday, 9 February 2011

Alright. The Films. Part One.

This will be the first of many, I'm sure, because I have many opinions regarding the film choices at this term's cinema screenings.

Today I'm going to make a quick point in reaction to something said by one of the tutors speaking before today's film about Fellini's Satyricon.

Lots of people walked out of that movie; I myself didn't watch, I wrote and listened to music instead. I was just about to leave when the curtain fell, so to speak, on our time slot at the cinema. I wish I had left earlier, just so I could have been one of the ones to make that point.

The tutors were apparently surprised by the reaction to the film, and also by the incredibly low turn-out the following week, which, if you ask me, was directly related to the Satyricon week.
    One said that the reason he didn't like, and the reason he thought most of us didn't like the Satyricon was the lack of narrative structure.

No.

Slacker had a complete lack of narrative structure, too, but you didn't see people walking out of that. falling asleep, maybe, but not walking out. I actuaaly really liked Slacker, in hindsight. While I was there, I found it relaxing, and many of the snippets were really interesting, even though its delivery was a little catatonic. But afterwards, I would definately enjoy seeing it again. The disjointedness of the plot really worked well and created an atmosphere that was both challenging and enjoyable.
     In marked contrast, Satyricon's lack of narractive was really not an issue with me. The film was a challenging watch, some might say, and it was definately not enjoyable. Hence I stopped watching and many walked out.
    Personally, I felt that the reason I didn't like Satyricon- wait, scratch that, HATED Satyricon was that it was offensive, crude and disgusting. And I know Fellini's 'reasons' behind it. I. Don't. Care. None of that mattered. I watched for the first ten minutes and I felt very much attacked and disgusted. It was a depraved and ghastly film that should be cut up into little pieces and disposed of along with waste and menstrual matter.

Except that would be a dishonor to the waste and menstruation.

Probably, fans of the noxious film will tell me 'that was the intention' and that 'my view clearly shows Fellini was successful'. I think filmmakers, artists and designers have a great responsibility. The human eye is a marvellous thing. Out of all our senses, sight is the fastest and most permanent way of engraving information ont the brain. Should the foul images from Satyricon (and remember, I only watched ten minutes) be engraved on our minds? They say it's an exploration of humanity and its boundaries, or of transcending those boundaries. Should such barriers be crossed? In my opinion, no. Humanity would fester and rot until we were all dead should people in reality cross such barriers. Of course, the vast majority of people aren't going to go out and directly copy the behaviour in Satyricon   (and I say that with a modicum of doubt; I have learned in my classical civilisation studies that once upon a time people actually did behave in that way), but I ask, is it worth it? Is it worth the death of humanity just to question what humanity is? We do not have to go to such offensive extremes to challenge such ideas.
    And, although I know many in my peer group may object to this, I really don't think it should have been selected to show to an audience of Foundation students. As a group, I'm sure most of us are not mature students, and even though we live in a cosmopolitan environment in 2011, we're by nature still impressionable. And I balk to think/say that, too, but I accept it as fact. Psychologically and biologically. The film should not have been shown. And today, we shouldn't have had other (I'm sure) similarly depraved and perverse  films recommended to us.
  
   In a world where perversion is generally shunned, why does the art community seek specifically to teach and indoctrinate us in perverse things, and why is perversion celebrated?

By the way, these are rhetorical questions; I feel there can be no justifiable answer by sane people.

   

After Madonna's first venture into film, with the universally slammed 'Filth and Wisdom', I remember reading in one review that cinema-goers left the cinema in a state of clinical shock. I laughed when I first read that, I hadn't heard much about the film, hadn't (and haven't)  seen it etc. And I felt quite sorry for Ms Ciccone. (Even though I'm sure she's fine, she's likely grown a very robust skin.)
       After seeing a portion of Satyricon, I now know what that critic felt like. I don't know so can't comment as to whether or not he was justified, but I know that I was disturbed after watching that. And not in any kind of arty, pretentious, 'it's-good-for-your-practice' way. In an actuallu clinically disturbing way. Afterwards, I had to go take myself to my favourite relaxing place in the city (Waterstones Piccadilly Circus) to calm my recently abused mind, soothe it, comfort it, and make it stop crying and shuddering in pain. I ended up spending £40 in there. Therapy.  I'm sure if I had watched the rest of the film, or even the rest of the bit they chose (drunkenly and blindly) to show us, I would be needing real therapy.

And rehabilitation.

No comments:

Post a Comment