A REALLY BAD BAD MOVIE …
-
amominak — 20 years ago(February 05, 2006 03:58 AM)
Amen! I felt truly lost at the end of this movie. I guess I'd better not see any more Passolini. I only saw it because a book I recently read kept referring to this movie. Hmmmm.. as a sidenote, I thought it appeared to have been filmed in english and dubbed over in italian..maybe just me but, it sure looked that way.
-
trickyhappyelf — 19 years ago(November 13, 2006 11:06 PM)
nope it wasn't. Almost All Italian films of this time were dubbed over in post-production. Therefore the actors that spoke english in real life, spoke english when fiming, others spoke italian, others just counted to ten over and over. Lots of times the script wasn't even finished when directors shot the movie
-
sessoconkafka — 20 years ago(March 10, 2006 04:12 PM)
"Teorema" is not an ordinary movie. It conveys a pretty deep message that's not so easy to understand (especially if you haven't been living in Italy in the late sixties). It works on complex metaphors that are not exhaustively explained. Yet its poignancy should not be denied. Not bad at all: Just different.
P -
squelcho — 19 years ago(April 28, 2006 02:31 PM)
It's said that Takashi Miike based Visitor Q loosely on Teorema.
I can see the resemblance, but Miike's humour is a welcome antidote to the stiff artiness of Pasolini's film.
I appreciate that it's from a different era, with different situationist goals, but purely as a movie, it failed to hold my interest with its clumsy symbolism.
Bunuel did it more humourously, Fellini did it more subtly, and Pasolini's finest moments were definitely elsewhere.
No doubt the intrinsic iconoclasm was very daring for its day, but Pasolini's deconstruction of church and state makes for a somewhat bland and predictable outcome.
I certainly don't agree with the OP, but neither do I think it's a masterpiece.
To my mind, it's an enigmatic footnote in the career of a director with much bigger fish to fry. Ditto Terence Stamp. -
cinesimonj — 12 years ago(July 23, 2013 09:06 AM)
That would be a relevant question if everyone understood things the same way, and found understanding things exactly as easy as each other.
For the life of me, I'll never fathom how people can think that 'good' or in this case 'well made' means 'don't have to think'.
I guess you also think that every painting or book you don't understand automatically makes it a bad book or painting. -
loufster — 19 years ago(May 06, 2006 03:02 PM)
Erm it's 'You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think'. If you're going to mock someone for their lack of sophistication, you should at least get your quote straight.
I don't think you need to restate the 'horse' part either. Kind of ruins the joke. Sorry, was just passing, and couldn't help noticing -
ChoirBoyOC — 19 years ago(January 08, 2007 10:26 AM)
Late to the party, I realize, but you've both got the quote wrong. The story is that Dorothy Parker was asked to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence, and came up with the pun:
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." -
cliffdwellersociety — 19 years ago(October 15, 2006 07:27 PM)
what do those of you who think this is offensive think of pasolini's Gospel According to Saint Matthew? it was also considered blasphemous when released, but personally it's the only movie about the bible i would ever claim to like, let alone love (which i think i do). see it, if you haven't. i'm not being perverse; you get the sermon on the mount verbatim (in translation), and yet a far more radical picture of your jesus than even the last temptation of christ (!, i'm told). i wonder.
-
smith-684 — 19 years ago(October 23, 2006 05:01 PM)
One of my film instructors told us that if we don't get a movie or don't like it we should examine why we feel that way. Think about the films you didn't care for on first viewing and trying watching a few of them again and see if you change your mind. I have done this several times and, with few exceptions, realized that watching a film in a different setting, on a different day, a different season of the year perhaps, changed my perspective drastically.
-
Kinematico — 18 years ago(February 15, 2008 01:59 PM)
"Teorema" is the first and only movie by Pasolini that have left me totally cold, so far.
I've immensly enjoyed some of his movies such as "Accatone" or "Mamma Roma", or I felt intrigued, puzzled, disgusted, pushed, angry, etc at some other of his movies, (which was Pasolini's intention IMO) like "Sal" or "Porcile".
But "Teorema" has nothing in it!, nothing! I have seen it not one nor two times but three times in the last 15 years, being the last one just one week ago. Everytime the result was the same: emptiness. The movie is about some almost speechless people who after the arriving (and further departure) of a stranger (A sort of Jesus Christ? perhaps?) turns upside down their lives in a nonsensical way.
I know that NOT every movie must make sense, I know that NOT every movie must have a "meaning". At least not an obvious one. But IMHO any movie at least must try to express something!
That's why I've enjoyed such radical films like "Un chien andalou" "Naked Lunch", "L'ge d'or", "Eraserhead", "Persona", etc.
That is not the case with "Teorema".
Either its a masterpiece that only a few illuminated ones can fully understand and appreciate, or it's just an empty piece of filmmaking.
So unless "Teorema" is an exercise about "emptiness" on filmmaking (In which case it's a complete success), the movie IMO is over-pretentious and vacuous.
Ohh well, Pasolini was human as well
PS: Having said ALL THAT, I still prefer to see "Teorema" once again than to see "High School Musical" and crap like that. c ya! -
TemporaryOne — 17 years ago(June 14, 2008 03:58 PM)
But "Teorema" has nothing in it!, nothing!
Au Contraire!
A documentary opening sequence depicting a factory being given to the people (Bourgeoisie giving ownership to proletariat), which signifies the dissolution of revolution (take it, now we are equal, revolution is over, class identities abolished, we are all the same, what else is there?)
A desert wasteland - a metonymy for inner emptiness, a world pre-industry/consumerism, a world post-industry/post-consumerism
Jarring black and white scenes introducing the family members, a messenger of G-d delivering a telegram to the family announcing the arrival of an unknown visitor
A visitor engaging in metaphorical sexual romps with the family
Ecstasy opens eyes of family members
The stranger tells them he must leave
The experience leaves them stripped of their identifies and behaviours, and they tell him of their transformation
Their reason is eclipsed, and their daily routines are shattered, their lives and thoughts and actions become increasingly opaque and ambiguous and nebulous
This may be Pasolini's interpretation of what occurs when people accept Jesus as their L-rd and Saviour (represented by the family accepting the stranger's divine sexual offerings) - once they accept him, they no longer have a need to seek answers to life's mysteries, the search for G-d is over, the search for being divinely touched is over
Or Pasolini is saying that once a person is divinely touched and/or accepts Jesus, new unanswerable questions bloom, new haunting questions with no answers that consume people to death
They have been given what they have been seeking (like the workers being given the factory), does the Knowledge end their quest (which leads to self-destruction) or expand the quest beyond unfathomable borders, engulfing them to death?
Except for the maid (the worker), the family members (the materialistic Bourgeoisie) mentally self-destruct, unable to cope with being spiritually/divinely touched
Enlightenment - what they have been searching for - consumes them.
Be careful what you wish for, yes?
Back to Emilia, the worker owning nothing except the dirt of the earth - she leaves the family, realizes she possess powers, performs miracles, then decides to give herself up to humankind (like Jesus)
I wrote on another thread - She knows she has transcended humankind, she wants to be buried, not to die, but to weep, to weep life-essence into the soil to rejuvenate humankind, to allow her hope and faith and life to nourish the earth and mankind, to invest the earth (and thus people) with faith to Believe
The worker enriches the earth with life source, the wealthy classes self-destruct, the father enters the volcanic desert wasteland, fleeing everything, running towards he knows not what, animalistic, a cry of desperation escaping him, as he likely seeks to find answers