Decades on from its release, and featuring an all-star cast that includes Jean-Pierre Léaud, Anne Wiazemsky, Franco Citti, Pierre Clémenti, and Marco Ferreri, Pigsty [Porcile] remains one of Pier Paolo Pasolini’s most controversial and wilfully provocative works – a deranged parody of cinema as revolutionary act.
It comprises parallel stories: (1) Clémenti and Citti as cannibalistic savages who rampage a world outside of any distinct time or place, and who push against the boundaries of human morality; (2) Godard-regulars Léaud and Wiazemsky as a romantically engaged couple in a contemporary Germany painted as a morass of industrialisation, fascist impulse, and bestial instincts.
Rivalled only by the director’s Salò in its obsession with the politics of bourgeois degradation, Pigsty continues to challenge and enlarge the notions of what makes for “a political film” and what is meant by “a Pasolini film”. —Eureka Entertainment
Born in Bologna in 1922, Pier Paolo Pasolini left behind a searing legacy that haunts contemporary Italy more than thirty years after his death. More than anyone, Pasolini gazed deeply into Italy’s role in the spread of Fascism and, more controversially, the continuing influence of its ideas in post-war Europe. For him, this was a matter of great personal significance; his father was a soldier in the Fascist Army (he had once protected Mussolini from an assassination attempt) while his brother joined the resistance only to be murdered in an ambush. This personal trauma coincided with a period of intellectual development as Pasolini engaged with Marxist philosophy; especially the works of Antonio Gramsci, the founder of Italy’s Communist Party (PCI). His relationship with the PCI, however, was tense. As a poet and intellectual, Pasolini scrutinized his fellow Communists as critically as he did bourgeois society. His enemies retaliated by targeting his personal life; the first instance… read more
Pier Paolo Pasolini’s “Pigpen/Pigsty/La Porcile” is a detailed politico-philosophical statement in visual images about the sad state of what could be a moral evolution of the human specie. The film consists of two parts echoing one another. One depicts the destiny of a group of young cannibals surviving on the periphery of medieval country life, while the other (connected with the first through parallel montage) represents the life of a wealthy family in post-WWII Germany. Pasolini compares the ordeals of the medieval bums mad from hunger, with that of the son of a leading German corporate profit-maker, and his fiancée. His juxtaposition of the two historical periods produces astonishing results. The young leader of the local cannibals and son of the wealthy businessman, appear like brothers, even like twins by destiny. With unique images Pasolini sculpts the very logic of his medieval and modern young heroes’ intuitive perception of the reality, and explains how cannibalism (in the medieval part of the film), and bestiality of the son of the modern financial magnate come into existence. The director depicts these deviations not as “naturalistic” phenomena for the technicians of psychiatric diagnosis to brood about, but as a result of attempts by these two major characters to make sense of the world that surrounds them – each spontaneously metaphorizes his understanding of the reality, one into his cannibalism and the other into his bestiality correspondingly. In other words, their perversions are not reflection of their psychology as such or their “genes” but are results of their intellectual function that makes metaphors of their world (instead of just imitating it/adapting to it) by their very behavior. Pasolini’s representation of two types of grand-scale businessmen – the more traditional (trying to take into consideration the human and natural environment of their entrepreneurship), and the purely instrumental (oriented only on profit by any price), is shocking in its clairvoyance – by having predicted what we today observe in Europe and US: the morbid growth of profit-making practices neglecting concern for its social and environmental consequences. Director’s comparison of how differently language was used in medieval Europe and today is informing and stimulating. The exceptional performances of Pierre Clementi, Jean-Pierre Leaud, Anne Wiazemsky, Ugo Tognazzi, Ninetto Davoli and Alberto Lionello are character-, not circumstance-oriented. This style of acting is not suitable for passive/immediate identification of the audience with the personages that usually gives viewers a lot of easy, cheap and empty pleasure. The actors of “Pigpen”, on the other hand, discover their characters’ unique reactions even on seemingly trivial impressions. By Victor Enyutin Please, visit: www.actingoutpolitics.com to read an essay on Pasolini’s film with analysis of shots.
Strange, poetic, symmetrically obsessed, heavy on the symbolism yet totally brilliant.
Pier Paolo Pasolini’s “Pigpen/Pigsty/La Porcile” is a detailed politico-philosophical statement in visual images about the sad state of what could be a moral evolution of the human specie. The film consists of two parts echoing one another. One depicts the destiny of a group of young cannibals surviving on the periphery of medieval country life, while the other (connected with the first through parallel montage) represents the life of a wealthy family in post-WWII Germany. Pasolini compares the ordeals of the medieval bums mad from hunger, with that of the son of a leading German corporate profit-maker, and his fiancée. His juxtaposition of the two historical periods produces astonishing results. The young leader of the local cannibals and son of the wealthy businessman, appear like brothers, even like twins by destiny. With unique images Pasolini sculpts the very logic of his medieval and modern young heroes’ intuitive perception of the reality, and explains how cannibalism (in the medieval part of the film), and bestiality of the son of the modern financial magnate come into existence. The director depicts these deviations not as “naturalistic” phenomena for the technicians of psychiatric diagnosis to brood about, but as a result of attempts by these two major characters to make sense of the world that surrounds them – each spontaneously metaphorizes his understanding of the reality, one into his cannibalism and the other into his bestiality correspondingly. In other words, their perversions are not reflection of their psychology as such or their “genes” but are results of their intellectual function that makes metaphors of their world (instead of just imitating it/adapting to it) by their very behavior. Pasolini’s representation of two types of grand-scale businessmen – the more traditional (trying to take into consideration the human and natural environment of their entrepreneurship), and the purely instrumental (oriented only on profit by any price), is shocking in its clairvoyance – by having predicted what we today observe in Europe and US: the morbid growth of profit-making practices neglecting concern for its social and environmental consequences. Director’s comparison of how differently language was used in medieval Europe and today is informing and stimulating. The exceptional performances of Pierre Clementi, Jean-Pierre Leaud, Anne Wiazemsky, Ugo Tognazzi, Ninetto Davoli and Alberto Lionello are character-, not circumstance-oriented. This style of acting is not suitable for passive/immediate identification of the audience with the personages that usually gives viewers a lot of easy, cheap and empty pleasure. The actors of “Pigpen”, on the other hand, discover their characters’ unique reactions even on seemingly trivial impressions. By Victor Enyutin Please, visit: www.actingoutpolitics.com to read an essay on Pasolini’s film with analysis of shots.