Pierre Paolo Pasolini, The Rage of Instinct (Part 6)
“Pigs” is one of the strangest tapes of Pasolini, its deliberate rudeness and outrageous alienated more than one hundred spectators. The parallel montage of two plot-related stories, one of which is verbally redundant, the second unfolds in complete silence (with the exception of the final words of the hero Clementi), allowed the director to oppose the rebellion imaginary and real, to speak paradoxically, but extremely convincingly about the youth movement of the 1960s. It is no coincidence that he invited Leo and Vyazemsky to the main roles, two years before that charismatically shone with Godard in “The Chinese”, and the main role in the prehistoric episode of Pierre Clementi, who played a year before in Bertolucci’s reflection on the late 60s “Partner” and took personal part in youth protests, the director already marks the boundaries of his statement with this choice of actors.
The Pig is a conceptually narrow political film, not so much symbolic, but rather allegorical: the bourgeois are pigs who do not hide their continuity with the Nazi past (the famous Hitler Klotz mustache). The conflict of fathers and children for Pasolini is not as clear as one might understand at first glance: it is not for nothing that in one of his poems dedicated to May 68, he called the police in the conflict with the youth “children of workers”, and the young rebels themselves “sons of the bourgeoisie”. So in the modern line, the revolt of the heroes of Wyazemski and Leo is institutionalized and inscribed in their bourgeois life: they are, of course, rebels not only in words but also in deeds, but at the same time remain the children of their bourgeois fathers.
With the same inalienability from the bourgeois environment and origin associated with the symbolism of pigs (heroes constantly talk about pigs and compare themselves with them), as something dirty, selfish and fiercely greedy. Therefore, the intimate “secret” of the hero Leo, which is not directly mentioned by the characters because of bourgeois hypocrisy, becomes the key to understanding the whole symbolism of the picture: he is a pig himself, which is why he is attracted to pigs. As for the prehistoric episodes and their conceptual connection with modern scenes, then the viewer has to scratch his head: the cannibal rebellion is a fierce violation of the taboo of civilization, for which they are punished, this is not a toy, cardboard protest of the heroes of Vyazemsky and Leo, but a real challenge.
The scenes of eating by dogs and pigs in the finale are Pasolini’s necessary symmetry, rhyming the two stories. In general, as for semiotic significance, “Pigs” with its killer frame geometry leaves far behind even such a structured film as “Theorem”. Another thing is that the Pig is richer than the Theorem and less ambiguous. Built on the alternation of almost only close-ups, “Pigs” offers us a certain iconic trap, so that the viewer can be carried away by studying the meaning of a particular close-up, the meaning of the game of a particular artist (here, as in “Theorem”, mainly professionals are involved, Tognazzi and Ferreri are especially remembered, denoting the animal symbolism of the picture at the level of acting existence), however, the allegorism of the tape can escape it.
However, it is difficult to imagine a cinephile who is more or less familiar with the views of Pasolini, who would not be able to unravel the meaning of this frontal, even poster film. This film shows that the entire bourgeois world is a pigsty, moreover, a Nazi pigsty, greedy and dirty, in which anyone who dares to deny the accepted taboos is punished. As in the Theorem, here the beginning is the key to the finale: at the beginning of the Theorem, the workers discuss why the bourgeois gives them the factory, and at the beginning of the Pigmania it is said that “we have decided to eat you because of your disobedience.” This was Pasolini’s view of the conflict between fathers and children in the late 1960s: the bourgeois in spirit of this confrontation sometimes violated the accepted taboos, which was why it drowned in the rising tide of punitive measures. Thus, “Pigs” – although a curious political parable, semiotically and syntactically verified, but still completely devoid of mystery “Theorems”.
In all reviews, it is written that there are two unrelated lines in the film: a cannibal from the old past and a pig-loving pervert. I don't think the film is so meaningless.
First of all, these lines are connected. Secondly, it is strange that there is no interpretation of the metaphor with a cannibal. With the pervert, it is more or less clear that this is the degenerative line of degenerate bourgeois: a lonely, corrupted by luxury, weak-willed young man burdened by heredity in the form of shameful fascism. The other is a cannibal starving man with no past and no morals, who assembles a gang of proletarians in the course of the film.
The director himself gave an explanation of cannibalism in an interview about the film “Birds Big and Small”: “They perform an act of cannibalism, what Catholics call communion: they swallow the body of Togliatti (or Marxists) and absorb it; after eating it, they continue to walk along the road, despite the fact that they do not know where this road leads, and it is obvious that they have absorbed Marxism.”
Pasolini’s cannibalism is a metaphor for Marxism. For all its shocking and revolutionary nature, Pasolini in his understanding of Marxism did not advance beyond the gastronomical and physiological level, which is characteristic of the bourgeois. Those whom Marxism has led to victories know that this is not about the stomach, it is about the soul. But the bourgeois does not understand this.
Two lines of the film are strongly deformed by the author’s perception, but still lines of historical development: fascism and communism. And they are bound by what is irreconcilably hostile. Communism is the historical victor of fascism. It is clear from the film that neither Pasolini nor Pasolini is entitled to the future. Fascism is relatively recently condemned by mankind and shut up under the bench, and communism sentenced Pasolini himself.
Intrigue can only be in who the director positions himself. Although the movie world calls Pasolini a Marxist, I wouldn’t rush to do so. All he struggles with is his guilt complex for his father’s sin. Being a descendant of a fascist is heavy karma. It cannot be overcome without abandoning the bourgeois worldview, without killing the bourgeois in himself. Pasolini cannot do this, his Marxism is a dull depressive forgery, and therefore doomed.
And this is very sad, because when communism is presented as cannibalism, fascism becomes the immediate future. There is no other enemy of fascism.
3 out of 10
If you’re looking for a weird movie to watch, you can’t go wrong with Pigman.
A brilliant creation, like everything in Pasolini. The film “Pigs” gives the feeling of not even a separate work, but a separate art form.
He is surreal, frightening, sad, peculiarly aesthetic and rude (the latter only adds to his charm). Although this film is a striking metaphor for humanity and the reasons for its downfall (such as Salo or 120 Days of Sodom), it is not the smoothest of Pasolini’s films, as it includes a complex subtext.
Yet this grotesque and provocative parable, filled with horror and serene beauty, resonates on many intellectual levels. It intertwines two seemingly incoherent stories: one about a young man involved in survival through cannibalism in a fabulous medieval Wasteland, the second about the mysterious offspring of a former Nazi and now a major industrialist in modern Germany. Both of them, a cannibal and a young German, more attached to pigs than to his beautiful bride, fall victim to their societies.
“Pigs” presents the viewer his own beliefs about fascism, the bourgeoisie and demoralization.
The sixties of the last century were the most fruitful in the work of the Italian director, screenwriter, writer and poet Pier Paolo Pasolini - one of the symbols of the representatives of art of his time, whose influence can be considered to this day. In his ideological views, Pasolini was an ardent champion of communist ideals, which made many enemies (his murder, unsolved until now, is attributed by many to neo-fascists, among whom there were many descendants of the ruling elite in Italy). And in 1968, Pasolini’s poem “The Communist Party is Youth!” was released and he instantly became a mouthpiece for the growing socialist views in society. Against this background, Pasolini, without pressure from opponents, with the support of the people, one by one releases his films, which are weightily quoted in critical circles. His caustic satire on the bourgeoisie, metaphorism, allusivity, references to mythological legends emphasize the individuality of Pasolini. And just during this period, he shoots the drama Pig.
Pasolini in this film uses the already tried method, where the development goes on a parallel course and only time layers separate them (this was already in the film “King Oedipus” (1967)). The original and probably the main plot thread is the story of a young man named Julian (Jean-Pierre Leo), the son of a wealthy industrialist, who by about eighteen years has formed a very specific view of life. Without scandal to hoarseness, he finds out a relationship with his girlfriend Ida (Anne Wyazemsky). With their own originality on morality, attitude to unrest in the student environment and sexual preferences, they seem to be on opposite sides, which is clearly reflected in the scene - the viewer subconsciously feels that young people are standing opposite each other, but on different bridges and can not shout to the interlocutor. This clearly expresses the individuality and author's handwriting of Pasolini. And the words of Julian immediately set the viewer negatively towards him, but Ida with her sublime speeches and inviolable faith in ideals causes respect. Here you can immediately note that Pasolini’s paintings are not devoid of a political canvas.
In general, character, moral foundations, moral education - all this is not what discourages Julian, but rather even shocks. In addition, when the Pig is already talking about Julian’s father, Mr. Klotz, and about his visitor, it is almost openly talking about Julian’s sexual deviations. And this is where it gets really sick. Of course, Pasolini unambiguously portrayed his attitude towards the bourgeoisie and the big magnates who spit on other people, towards those who achieve their goal (wisdom - power and enrichment) by even the most contradictory and sometimes deeply repulsive methods. And in this painting Pasolini can somewhat allegorically add the saying that the pig devours a pig, and who is here in the image of a pig, I think, no longer need to explain. By the way, Pasolini also managed to openly expose those who at one time collaborated with the fascists, those who understand how hard they got fabulous fortunes. A man like Julian is a punishment for his past sins. It seems that Pasolini wanted to use the Pigman to become the forerunner of the struggle against all those whom he considered criminals and that communist retribution will surely overtake them. Pasolini was not a predictor.
It is necessary to remember about the second, so to speak, auxiliary storyline, which transports the viewer to ancient dense times, where a cannibal wanders through the desert, meeting different people who often clutch at weapons, but what they are fighting for is not particularly clear to the viewer, here, perhaps, it is necessary for any thinking person to find Pasolini’s thought himself. Much has been written about the meaning of this desert in the Pigs, it has a deep but very specific philosophy (although philosophy seems to be different). Therefore, it must be emphasized that Pasolini’s work is a complex material containing many allusions and metaphors, which are sometimes very difficult to understand, if not impossible, each viewer can independently form an opinion about all Pasolini’s research and these opinions can differ dramatically between two viewers. “Pigs” is a canvas where the artist repeatedly applies new brushstrokes, while coloring the previously applied, that is, “Pigs” is also a multilayer overlay.
And the verdict to everything seen in the "Pigs" can be one expression: "This is a film by Pier Paolo Pasolini and this is all said."
I will leave this work outside the estimates, as it is extremely difficult to assess.
P.S. In this film again starred Ninetto Davoli, whom our viewer remembers and loves the cult comedy Eldar Ryazanov “Incredible Adventures of Italians in Russia”. Davoli and Pasolini had a very unusual relationship, which can come as a shock to the domestic public, because Pasolini never hid his addiction to people of the same sex. .
Having exhausted the dick in life, We overthrew the ancestors, the light, the history, the creator! Now, all we can do is feel. Born of pure art.
It is interesting to note in what cultural and social atmosphere this film Pasolini originated. May 1968. The student uprising in Paris is sweeping across Europe, demonstrations against the bourgeois government escalate into outright violent rallies, and the protest march becomes a revolutionary clash with the police. An educated student wants to... What? Truth and justice? Legality? The truth? Not at all. Her goals are far more prosaic. The core of the insurgents, the bourgeoisie and the middle class, fear becoming the proletariat and are simply fighting for their place in the sun. Pasolini, acutely feeling all the contradictions of his time, immediately enters into an open polemic with the “pseudo-revolutionaries”, where he asserts that his sympathies are on the side of the police (", these pure children of peasants), while the “oppressed” do not even have a class consciousness and a clear goal. But let us not forget that Pasolini is also an ardent communist and a fighter against the bourgeoisie, capitalism and consumer society. Only here are his methods of struggle, through art and liberation of consciousness, much more productive.
The crusade against bourgeoisism, begun in The Theorem, is continued in the film Pigman. But if in the first picture the decaying capitalist life appeared through the religious and esoteric vision of the situation of the phenomenon of a miracle (either an angel, or a demon?), then in Pigs history is much more clear and unambiguous (and noticeably coarser and heavier).
The story unfolds in two time planes. Today, a major industrialist (clearly despotic and authoritarian) is trying to pull off a major financial deal. At this time, his son (clearly lyrical and speculative) tries to understand his own soul, in his relationship with his father and the world. Being an extremely wealthy man, he is also far from the reality and practice of this life with its duties and cares. The “hero” is absolutely helpless (the metaphor is a rebellious intelligentsia) and is not capable of opposing anything to his bourgeois ancestor (the metaphor to the authorities). In the end, a seed of dirty love for pigs ripens in his soul (the metaphor of Christianity is pigs as a demonic and evil principle in man), which will prove fatal for him. In parallel, another story from primitive times develops. There, the same young man is already much more freedom-loving and resolute (the metaphor is rebel nationalists). First of all, he eats his father (the metaphor is ideology, history, culture, was used by the director earlier in the film “Birds big and small”), and then goes to wander around the world without a purpose or direction. But, according to Pasolini, with one violence in the complete absence of culture, it also does not last long. In the end, you will be consumed by the chaos of “cruel life”.
The plot is the intersection of several different discourses. There was a place for psychoanalysis with its Oedipus complex, and the political life of Italy of the 60s (characterized by the growth of abundance – see “Sweet Life” by Pasolini’s friend and colleague), and a subtle irony over intellectual cinema (Leo, Clemente – icons of the films of Truffaut and Godard). But the main thing is that the film (as always with Pierre Paolo) crosses a narrow socio-historical framework and becomes a parable of Man and Mankind. About the loss, fear and “unhappiness” of the soul in the modern world (so the wild period seems much more alive and healthy). How can we overcome this “spirit of gravity”? Of course, humor!
Therefore, the films in question and all subsequent films (with the exception of the suicide) will be increasingly imbued with irony, fun, sexual and spiritual freedom, pure, innocent joy of body and soul. In this picture (to enhance the effect) was invited a friend of Pasolini, the same great erotomaniac, Marco Ferreri, later also turned in his work to sexuality (unlike the homosexual Pasolini, female) and the freedom of the “self” as the only true and sacred reality. Can a difficult and hopeless political situation resolve itself as soon as a person turns to himself and his soul? As one famous saying goes, “Devastation does not exist in closets, but in heads.”
After the Theorem, Pasolini could take on any plot. Even if he did something like The Man of Rio, enthusiastic audiences would likely see it as “new trends in authorial cinema.” The Maestro had the right to make a mistake. He used it to make a bizarre parable.
The viewer is told two unequal and completely unrelated stories. In one, we go to an ancient desert. There will be a lot of things going on there, a great reminiscent of "King Oedipus." But basically, we're going to face a young man who's going to rebel. Rebellion at its worst. It is no longer a question of murder, rape or disrespect. It's a question of cannibalism. In the end, the heroes of Pierre Clementi and Frank Chitty are real murderers from the great road, who forgot about all moral guidelines.
The second story is about love for pigs. And notice, there is nothing surprising, because this passionate love is experienced by the heir of a very rich family. Wealth is rooted in the gas chambers of concentration camps.
Thus, in each of the two stories, we get radically opposite decisions, leading to a sad outcome. Murder and rebellion, expressing non-conflict, in the end, no less terrible than the refusal to fight and excitement from the pigsty.
These metaphors didn’t seem too deep to me. But the author was very consistent in his reasoning and visually expressive. Again, Pasolini used the potential of the desert one hundred percent. The topic of neo-fascism is very well played. Hugo Tognazzi’s charm is as sinister as Colonel Landa’s from The Bastards.
8 out of 10