Pasolini segue em "Mil e uma noites" uma proposta de ficção que se aproxima do filme etnográfico - que já deixou à vista com "Medéia" e "Decameron". Os cenários áridos e coloridos do oriente distante acrescidos da presença de 'atores naturais', uma marca do cinema Neorealista italiano, convergem para uma história que se abre em várias outras, criando um panorama intrigante e envolvente de um mundo sensual e antigo.
Beautiful and luxurious, the second best of the trilogy, still weaker than THE DECAMERON due to some illogical, albeit romantic, sequences. I love the non-narrative of every film in the trilogy, where linear story is less important than expressing the milleu of the setting (Italy, Britain, Arabia) circa the Middle Ages, and reclaiming the era from cliches about it being a time of religious-oriented purity. Grade: B-.
I'm going to have to admit that I just didn't understand this movie. With a production this ambitious, it's difficult to dismiss the awkwardness of the storytelling and stilted performances as shoddy filmmaking, but whatever Pasolini was going for, it was lost on me. Interesting to no end, but I can't say I found out satisfyingly compelling as a film.
The camera as the lens of an ancient folktale, dreamlike, full of mal-logic, endearingly clumsy.
Pasolini is always difficult so I was surprised to find this movie so easy to watch, François Ozon is hooked...
Picturesque for certain, but ultimately rather dull variations on a couple of themes: all-too-easy acquiescence and ugly lechery punished. Bodies are little more than passive chattel, shunted between dusty coupling to dusty coupling with relatively little to say about sexual desire, let alone eroticism. Pasolini’s usually hawkish eye is largely absent.
Great Pasolini's Great film. You can smell the erotic 'Arabian Nights' right away from the beginning.
Criterion is supposed to be releasing the entire Trilogy of Life. Does anyone know when this is going to happen?