#123movies #fmovies #putlocker #gomovies #solarmovie #soap2day Watch Full Movie Online Free – Pasolini’s artistic, sometimes violent, always vividly cinematic retelling of some of Chaucer’s most erotic tales.
Plot: Glimpses of Chaucer penning his famous work are sprinkled through this re-enactment of several of his stories.
Smart Tags: #erotica #male_full_frontal_nudity #strong_sexual_content #devil #second_in_trilogy #female_full_frontal_nudity #surrealism #anal_sex #dante’s_inferno #hell #burned_alive #male_pubic_hair #male_rear_nudity #female_pubic_hair #softcore #french_sex_comedy #anthology #vomiting #violence #historical_event #priest_having_sex_with_a_woman
|6.5/10 Votes: 7,151|
|6.3 Votes: 137 Popularity: 8.016|
well put together
Making a film about the Canterbuy Tales, one that lasts one to two hours, presents one with the decision of how to go about it.
The logical approach would be to tell of the pilgrimage itself, and then splice 2 or 3 tales at a time, probably beginning with the joke tales, like the miller’s.
It would be doubtful that one could get all the stories in, and still have a pilgrimage tale.
Here, the pilgrimage is pretty much forgotten, just mentioned at the beginning.
The cuts between stories are sometimes straights cuts, and sometimes back to Chaucer writing the tale.
The bawdiness is kept, although it is done more Italian style than English. There is a mixture of the two cultures involved here.
The stories stay fairly true to form.
It would take a huge budget to include the squire’s story, and indeed, the squire’s story would take some interpretation to finish. Sadly, it is left out.
Which leaves the pardoner’s story as the “thriller” story. I was very much hoping this story, a natural finale, would be the climax.
I wasn’t disappointed. The pardoner’s tale is the masterpiece in terms of action and adventure. It isn’t exactly the very last tale, but close enough to serve as the climax, as there are two very brief joke tales that follow it.
Would I piece it together like this? Probably not. I think each person would direct this in a different way, with about a half dozen general methods.
However, I liked the way this film was done. It stayed very true to form, in my opinion. Most of the tales are “raunchy humor” tales, showing the mores of what one would expect to be puritan people, most of them professionals in religion. This was well done.
Colourful and bold, but that’s about it!
I realize that Pasolini is considered to be one of the great (albeit controversial) film-directors of the 20th century, so it feels a bit like sacrilege to criticize some of his movies. But in this case I cannot help it: his Canterbury Tales is in my view more an ego-trip in which the director lives out his personal fantasies than a coherent movie. Even taken into consideration the fact that the subject is a loose bundle of tales, one would expect a filmmaker to see this as a challenge and try to construe something of a general cohesive storyline. Instead we see here a succession of fragmented tits and bits, mostly without head nor tail, seamlessly flowing from one into the other, with at many times unfathomable meaning or served as overtures to an intended anecdotal tale but without anything like the expected punch. As objective audience, without knowing anything of Pasolini’s agenda on this movie, I would say that he put most, if not all of his efforts into the visual aspects and way too little into the writing.
It doesn’t help that the acting is mostly poor and amateurish, and everyone either rattles their extensive Italian lines (obviously dubbed, often in bad lip-sync) in high pitched and loud quarrelsome tones, or we see people for minutes in silent close-up or aimlessly running to and fro. And there is hardly any musical score in this movie, except for the occasional music-making as part of the background, many scenes take place in strange, almost alienating dead-silence.
So is there nothing to praise? Well, to me the enjoyment here lies mainly in the images, with extensive amounts of extras in an extravaganza of costumes, all filmed in dazzling colours. And in the boldness of the use of nudity and sex, in a movie from 1972 mind you, and Pasolini managed to get away with it, earning with it (although I cannot for the life of me fathom the motivation of the jury) the prestigious Golden Bear in Berlin.
But to me a sequence of colourful, sexually defiant but bad-acted and incoherent scenes doesn’t automatically stand for a good movie.
Original Language it
Runtime 1 hr 51 min (111 min), 1 hr 58 min (118 min) (France), 2 hr 20 min (140 min) (Berlin) (premiere) (West Germany)
Genre Comedy, Drama, History
Director Pier Paolo Pasolini
Writer Pier Paolo Pasolini, Geoffrey Chaucer
Actors Hugh Griffith, Laura Betti, Ninetto Davoli
Country Italy, France
Awards 1 win & 1 nomination
Production Company N/A
Sound Mix Mono
Aspect Ratio 1.85 : 1
Camera Arriflex Cameras
Film Length 3,057 m (1973) (Finland), 3,336 m (Berlin Film Festival) (1972)
Negative Format 35 mm
Cinematographic Process Spherical
Printed Film Format 35 mm