The main problem faced by historic films, which tell a well known story, is that most people will already know how it turns out. Pasolini must have encountered this difficulty several times, as the latter stages of his career focused almost entirely on myths and early literature. The riches in his films, therefore, come from seeing exactly how he tells these stories, and the new meanings he tries to bring to them.
Unfortunately, as in my earlier review of 'The Canterbury Tales', I found that 'Oedipus Rex' had no contemporary relevance, despite a more explicit effort to equate it with a modern comparison. The film begins in pre-war Italy, in an army barracks, where is a new born baby is regarded with jealousy by his father. Suddenly we cut to ancient North Africa, where an abandoned baby is discovered and adopted by a king. He grows to become Oedipus (Franco Citti), who visits an oracle and learns that his fate is to kill his father and sleep with his mother. Apalled by this prophecy he blindly walks away from home, to escape his fate, but simultaneously abandoning himself to the Fates. There follows a series of abstract encounters and the random murder of a king and his guards. Eventually he comes upon the kingdom of Thebes, which is suffering at the hands of a strange beast, seemingly constructed of pure evil. Oedipus defeats it and is crowned king, marrying the Queen. Gradually, it unravels that the Queen was his true mother, and the King he killed, his father. When he discovers his mother, hanged by her own hand, he stabs out his eyes and wonders away with a messanger friend guiding him away. Then we jump back to contemporary times, where apparently the baby has grown up to become a man resembling Oedipus, who is blind and led around by a friend. I'm not entirely sure what the comparison was supposed to suggest, however, as there was no explicit statement made.
I struggled with this film. The abstract encounters were very abstract and without knowing too much about the actual Oedipus legend, I couldn't understand too much of these. Similarly his arbitrary murder of the king and his men. The ultimate frustration, however, comes when we know that he has married his mother and killed his father, HE knows the same, and most of his subjects also suspect. Instead we have to wait until everyone is entirely sure and he sufferes a little torment. For me, however, it simply dragged along and I almost dropped off.
The film was striking for the costumes and general set design, but I would doubt the historical accuracy of these. The camerawork was interesting too, with the low desert sun casting an interesting light on the scenes. In general, though, I was disappointed. I do still believe Pasolini is a worthy director to explore, but he was often abstract and impenetrable. His more philosophical films, such as 'Pigsty' or 'Sparrows and Hawks' are very difficult, and he's one of the only directors I have trouble staying awake for - and I pride myself on being able to watch any kind of film at any time of day!
I would say check out his early work, but only look at his later career if you're a real fan.
No comments:
Post a Comment