What struck me watching this film compared to recent Godard films is how good Pasolini is with drama, theme, and formal beauty. There’s not much plot here, but the drama is excellently done. The characters all make sense, even as they’re cut-outs—and it has a lot to do with the excellent performances, which is not to be taken for granted in the Euro arthouse. I imagine that Anne Wiazemsky was looking for a director who had a serious character for her, and an understanding of drama those French guys did not.
This movie benefits from its structure, which is really well chosen. It works for Pasolini the filmmaker, the dramaturg, and the cultural theorist to set up a compact set of systems. There’s the visual system (the different colour tones and camera setups), the dramatic system (the guy fucks everyone and they have religious experiences), and the thematic system. Religion, art, horror. It’s all very compact, economical, and synthesized well with the overall spare beauty of the image.
What I wonder about is Pasolini’s relevance. I am definitely conflating his general relevance, and his relevance for me. I think his centenary passed recently, so his films did pass through the circuit…but I’m not sure he has the relevance he did when I was coming up as a film snob.
This movie was very central to my picture of modernist cinema when I first saw it. I appreciate how excellently made this film is: it’s a tight package, like Terence Stamp’s ass. But I’m not sure I love it anymore.