Decameron, Il - 1971
Director(s)
Pier Paolo Pasolini
Writer(s)
Giovanni Boccaccio novel Decameron (as G. Boccaccio)
Pier Paolo Pasolini
Producer(s)
Alberto Grimaldi producer
Franco Rossellini executive producer
Cast
Franco Citti - Ciappelletto
Ninetto Davoli - Andreuccio da Perugia
Jovan Jovanovic - Rustico
Vincenzo Amato - Masetto da Lamporecchio
Angela Luce - Peronella
Giuseppe Zigaina - Frate confessore
Gabriella Frankel -
Vincenzo Cristo -
Pier Paolo Pasolini - Allievo di Giotto (as P.P. Pasolini)
Giorgio Iovine -
Salvatore Bilardo -
Vincenzo Ferrigno - Giannello
Luigi Seraponte -
Antonio Diddio -
Mirella Catanesi -
Vincenzo De Luca -
Erminio Nazzaro -
Giovanni Filidoro - (as Giovanni Filadoro)
Lino Crispo -
Alfredo Sivoli -
Guido Alberti - Rich market vendor
Giacomo Rizzo -
E. Jannotta Carrino -
Vittorio Vittori - Don Giovanni
Gianni Rizzo - Il padre superiore
Adriana Donnorso -
E. Maria De Juliis -
Patrizia De Clara - Suora
Guido Mannari -
Michele Di Matteo -
Giani Esposito - (as Giovanni Esposito)
Giovanni Scagliola -
Giovanni Davoli -
Monique van Vooren - (as Monique Van Voren)
Enzo Spitaleri - Frate
Luciano Telli -
Annie Marguerite Latroye -
Gerhard Exel -
Wolfgang Hillinger -
Franco Marletta -
Vittorio Fanfoni -
Detlef Uhle - (as Uhle Detlef Gerd)
Lucio Amatelli - (uncredited)
Patrizia Capparelli - Alibech (uncredited)
Giuliano Fratello - (uncredited)
Elisabetta Genovese - Caterina (uncredited)
Silvana Mangano - Madonna (uncredited)
Review by Gary F Taylor
Decameron, Il (1971)
Badly Made; Incredibly Pretentious,
Although I am generally a proponent of the well-made film, I do not limit myself to films which escape those boundaries, and more often than not I do enjoy and admire films that successfully "break the rules." And it is quite true that director Pasolini breaks the rules of established cinema. But it is also my opinion that he does not break them successfully or to any actual point.
Pasolini's work is visually jarring, but this is less a matter of what is actually on the screen than how it is filmed, and the jumpiness of his films seem less a matter of artistic choice than the result of amateur cinematography. This is true of DECAMERON. Pasolini often preferred to use non-actors, and while many directors have done so with remarkable result, under Pasolini's direction his non-actors tend to remain non-actors. This is also true of DECAMERON. Pasolini quite often includes images designed to shock, offend, or otherwise disconcert the audience. Such elements can often be used with startling effect, but in Pasolini's hands such elements seldom seem to actually contribute anything to the film. This is also true of DECAMERON.
I have been given to understand there are many people who like, even admire Pasolini's films. Even so, I have never actually met any of them, and I have never been able to read anything about Pasolini or his works that made the reason for such liking or admiration comprehensible to me. Judging him from his works alone, I am of the opinion that he was essentially an amateurish director who did not "break the rules" so much by choice as by lack of skill--and who was initially applauded by the intelligentsia of his day for " existential boldness," thereby simply confirming him in bad habits as a film maker. I find his work tedious, unimpressive, and pretentious. And this, too, is true of DECAMERON. It is also, sadly, true of virtually every Pasolini film it has been my misfortune to endure.
Decameron, Il (1971)
Review by Wayne Malin
Interesting but no masterpiece,
Director Pasolini films nine tales from the Decameron. Most deal with sex (very explicitly) but almost all show a very ribald sense of humor. Easily the director's most cheerful film--it's best described as "earthy".
I liked it but I didn't love it. Some sequences are better than others and the film does drag in places. Also it has some really mean swipes at the Catholic Church. Most surprising is the film's original X rating here in America was lowered to an R in 1991. I'm not complaining but I'm really surprised (and pleased) that the ratings board did that. It (obviously) got the X for the frequent nudity--both male and female--including one shot with a man at "full attention". But the nudity is treated casually and in a wholesome sort of way--not as something dirty or to be ashamed of. It's not exploitive in any way. Still, this isn't for children.
So, pretty good and worth seeing at least once. A hundred times better than his dreadful "Salo".
|
