pseudo-analytic rambings on pasolini
watched most of pasolini's mama roma last night.
afterwards, i started reading about some of his films online, especially salo: (120 days of sodom), and got to thinking. hasn't anyone drawn a parallel between salo and the work of the viennese actionists? they seem to be reacting to the same themes (facism, capitalism, commercialism) in almost the exact same way (excrement, sodomy).
all i seemed to find linking the two were a series of profiles on myspace of people who (unsurprisingly) liked both. i did find another film with similarities, sweet movie, by Makavejev, made around the same time as pasolini's, which apparently features the viennese actionists in it directly. i find all of it vaguely intriguing.
i do believe some of these concepts are lost on us unless you understand the role fascism played in the context in which these reactions or pieces of 'art' where created. i personally, haven't read enough or tried to grasp enough about fascism and it's effect on postwar europe to really have much sympathy perhaps, for what these people were trying to convey. not having seen salo, i can't really comment, but i know i disagreed wholeheartedly with the aesthetics of the viennese actionists and found it ineffective, ultimately in getting a deeper socio-political point across. i probably would feel the same about pasolini's work, in salo.
perhaps i am just a more metaphorical person (which is ironic, because they would argue all of the horror on the screen is metaphor, while i feel it becomes literal horror and loses it's metaphorical impact; it renders the viewer incapable of searching for more beyond the literal in their work).
i suspect most people who can understand metaphor, could have simply gathered the point had it been presented with a less offensive aesthetic, and those who don't understand won't anyway, and will simply see it on a 'shock value' level. i don't know. i would like pasolini to convince me otherwise.
i really enjoyed aspects of the aesthetic in mama roma, because in the midst of the ugliness and grittiness it retained some aesthetic of beauty; the stunning long, desolate, backwards-moving shots, the crucifixion imagery (especially at the end). i fully appreciated the directness of the dialogue and social commentary. i loved her dialogue questioning the fault in being born into a hopeless social class, and the whole film's stance of focusing completely on a social set so low and unexplored (every character is either a prostitute, john, thief; even the good characters do stereotypically bad things; there is no good and bad, just people, as often is the case in life.)
there is the concept of people making the best of their situation. when that situation is so stagnant and bad, is doing a bad thing to improve really a 'bad' thing? and the 'good' people- would they do the same if they hadn't the luxury of simply not having to?
anyways. i wonder if morrissey has definitely seen salo, and what his view is on it. i have always felt my idea on aesthetics very much matched that of the the smiths, the beauty amongst the grit, as it were. i mean even the rejection of the factory aesthetic, flowers etc. i don't really see how you can be a dandy and value this form of aesthetic dually.
afterwards, i started reading about some of his films online, especially salo: (120 days of sodom), and got to thinking. hasn't anyone drawn a parallel between salo and the work of the viennese actionists? they seem to be reacting to the same themes (facism, capitalism, commercialism) in almost the exact same way (excrement, sodomy).
all i seemed to find linking the two were a series of profiles on myspace of people who (unsurprisingly) liked both. i did find another film with similarities, sweet movie, by Makavejev, made around the same time as pasolini's, which apparently features the viennese actionists in it directly. i find all of it vaguely intriguing.
i do believe some of these concepts are lost on us unless you understand the role fascism played in the context in which these reactions or pieces of 'art' where created. i personally, haven't read enough or tried to grasp enough about fascism and it's effect on postwar europe to really have much sympathy perhaps, for what these people were trying to convey. not having seen salo, i can't really comment, but i know i disagreed wholeheartedly with the aesthetics of the viennese actionists and found it ineffective, ultimately in getting a deeper socio-political point across. i probably would feel the same about pasolini's work, in salo.
perhaps i am just a more metaphorical person (which is ironic, because they would argue all of the horror on the screen is metaphor, while i feel it becomes literal horror and loses it's metaphorical impact; it renders the viewer incapable of searching for more beyond the literal in their work).
i suspect most people who can understand metaphor, could have simply gathered the point had it been presented with a less offensive aesthetic, and those who don't understand won't anyway, and will simply see it on a 'shock value' level. i don't know. i would like pasolini to convince me otherwise.
i really enjoyed aspects of the aesthetic in mama roma, because in the midst of the ugliness and grittiness it retained some aesthetic of beauty; the stunning long, desolate, backwards-moving shots, the crucifixion imagery (especially at the end). i fully appreciated the directness of the dialogue and social commentary. i loved her dialogue questioning the fault in being born into a hopeless social class, and the whole film's stance of focusing completely on a social set so low and unexplored (every character is either a prostitute, john, thief; even the good characters do stereotypically bad things; there is no good and bad, just people, as often is the case in life.)
there is the concept of people making the best of their situation. when that situation is so stagnant and bad, is doing a bad thing to improve really a 'bad' thing? and the 'good' people- would they do the same if they hadn't the luxury of simply not having to?
anyways. i wonder if morrissey has definitely seen salo, and what his view is on it. i have always felt my idea on aesthetics very much matched that of the the smiths, the beauty amongst the grit, as it were. i mean even the rejection of the factory aesthetic, flowers etc. i don't really see how you can be a dandy and value this form of aesthetic dually.