MovieChat Forums > Medea (1970) Discussion > doesnt live up to it's promise because ....

doesnt live up to it's promise because ... (spoiler)

posted 20 years ago by jocheml
18 replies | jump to latest

I like the opening scenes with the centaur.
I like the way it's filmed visually.
Maria Callas is a pretty sight, she probably can act but
her role is rather 1-dimensional.

But further than that .. it's quite a useless boring film.
Maybe it's the spoiler that was on the back of the VHS-case
(how bad can it get) ..
But there's absolutely nothing original going on.
Except maybe that the focus is on Medea instead of Jason's obstacles and quest.
As I said, visually it's nice but not surprising (as for example Fellini)
The 'mountain-caves' where Colchis is situated are nice, visually, tho
probably historically incorrect.
The caves, I think are in Anatolia, Turkey, below the caucasus thought Colchis is usually is (correct me if I'm wrong) imagined above the caucasus (Georgia).
Some of the habitants of the country look like Mexicans which is strange
(I think they should be white..) But maybe I'm too critical.

ADVICE:

If you wanna see some Pasolini, watch Theorema!
It definitely rocks!

[–] drift_in_the_dark 18 years ago

Yeah I agree, it was pretty *beep* wern't it mate.

[–] rcpropes 18 years ago

If you think the caves settings were cheesy, what about his using the baptistry at Pisa for Jason's palace?? It is only about 2000 years out of date as an anachronistic set. Pasolini is probably the most flawed of all brilliant film directors.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tenordan 17 years ago

I just watched it this evening, and I wonder if I saw the same movie as the rest of you. I don't care if the locations were authentic- they were stunning! Maria Callas was so magnetic. She made the movie for me. So far my favorite Pasolini film is Decameron, with this running a close second. I can't stop thinking about it.

She's a mother. It's a sick, sick bond. Think of yours; think of mine. It's unwholesome.

[–] fx_rousselot 17 years ago

Do agree with U. A magnetic film.

[–] zurichpoet 15 years ago

You bet he is flawed.

But the Greeks are always treated with too much reverence.
And in most cases the filmmaker is trying to hide their lack of talent behind the prestige notion of I’m Doing Greek Drama.

Anne Carson’s, a great poet, recent translation of Euripides is amazing.
Cuts out all the bunk, all the fluff, and goes right to the heart of that great tragedian.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grybop 14 years ago

Not to mention the fact that the Golden Fleece was kept inside what seemed to be the ruins of a proto-christian temple. I'm sure Pasolini's anachronisms were deliberate - but what he meant by them went completely off my head. In no way are they off-putting though.

[–] ThreeSadTigers 9 years ago

I'm sure Pasolini's anachronisms were deliberate - but what he meant by them went completely off my head.

It seems intended to show that the past and present are always existing analogous to one another; that the same stories are told (and told again) throughout history, in different guises, different contexts.

He's presenting his Medea, not just as a story of ancient Greece, but a story that exists in all of these different places. It's a story that exists and still exists and so cannot be confined to one particular period, or location. It's suggests that the story is timeless and as such universal.

Pasolini began playing with anachronism with Hawks and Sparrows, where he contrasts a modern story with a historical fable. In later films, like Oedipus Rex and Pigsty, the anachronisms would become more disruptive, but in each of the films, the juxtapositions between time and space were intended to contrast the past with the present, or the myth with the reality.

Pasolini is essentially taking ancient stories and presenting them in a modern (or even post-modern) way.

[–] Tchoutoye 16 years ago

I can't help thinking that this film was yet another excuse for Pasolini to have lots of half naked boys running around on film for almost two hours. Alejandro Jodorowsky or Sergey Paradjanov would have done a much better job at handling this theme.

[–] temps_perdu 16 years ago

Parajanov in particular would have just as many naked boys running around and doing somersaults xD
I love your idea, it's a good enough reason for any great artist with joy in his or her heart to do a piece of art, but it's not all. I totally disagree with all of you. The 'incoherence' of the Colhis palace (Pisa) is because it represents the newest of times and cultures. The whole film is a journey from the most ancient times, when man was half animal (the centaur) to the more modern (the renaissance) when the man becomes a complete individualist, selfish and able to forsake everything - children and love - for his own instant gratification. This man is portrayed in Jason. Medea, on the other hand, is the ancient woman, the land, which starts off as magical and powerful and ends as merely the ground one has to push himself off in order to reach new lands, new worlds, new heights. And then she has her revenge by murdering her offspring and returning to reinvent herself, as is the woman's nature. That's why I also found the film to be very modern and topical even today.

[–] grybop 14 years ago

Funny, I drew some Jodorowsky parallels in my head as I was watching this as well.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

Whilst I don't share your opinion of the film, which I enjoyed immensely, I'm struck by the mentions of Jodorowksy and Paradjanov as I thought of both of them whilst watching Medea. The Colour of Pomegranates was most reminded to me by Medea but some of the scenes in Medea reminded me of Jodorowsky and Mexico!

Movement ends, intent continues;
Intent ends, spirit continues

[–] Kinematico 16 years ago

Sorry to disagree but it's kinda ridiculous to blame this movie because of its "lack of authenticity" when it's based on a MYTH first and secondly on a play (a work of fiction).

I mean centaurs doesn't exist in reality, then why don't you complain about that? Nonsense!

BTW How the hell looks a "mexican". I am one of them but whenever I travel to USA they always thinks I am from any other place but not from México because I don't fit the stupid stereotype: I am not brown-skinned but quite pale, like many other mexicans, which is kinda an inconvenience living in such a sunny country.
Seriously you need to travel in order to realize that mexicans comes in every shape and color, from blondes (yes, believe it or not there are blondes in México, one of them my sister) to black and everything in between. What an ignorant comment!

About Paradjanov... he hadn't half the talent of Pasolini. Jodorowsky? well I love his movies but I don't see him making a movie like "Medea", albeit "Fando y Lis" (Jodorowsky's first feature film) resembles a little bit the relationship between Jason and Medea and Jason's voyage.

Finally IMO Teorema is the most overrated work by Pasolini. I'd pick Accatone, Mamma Roma, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, The Hawks and The Sparrows, Oedipus Rex and even Medea or Salo over Teorema any given day.

[–] whalleywhat 8 years ago

Paradjanov is many times Pasolini's superior; an immense talent who makes films that are poetic and dreamlike, yet remain gripping and stimulating, which a tedious, lead paced film like Medea (or Teorema, for that matter) certainly doesn't. Even Pasolini's Oedipus Rex, which treads very similar ground to this, is much better, and inspires thoughts other than "We also have silly hats!"

Pasolini is at his best when he is not self-serious, mixing ample humor with his surreality, which is to his benefit, as his attempts to make grand statements often come off as simple minded. This is why The Hawks and Sparrows is easily my favourite of his films that I've seen.

[–] TemporaryOne-1 15 years ago

The film transcends the play and the myth, and to correct other people on this thread, the film is a direct adaptation of the play, and the film also includes the backdrop of the myth and of Jason and Medea's relationship. Pasolini added context that Euripides omitted, and he also directly adapted the play (last 45 minutes). The added mythology parallels and foreshadows Euripides' popularized chopped version of the myth. When the denouément occurs, it has greater depth because of the earlier parallel events. The film is epical, and it's emotionally and visually exhilarating.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

I thought the film exceeded its promise. It was beautiful and savage, epic and detailed and passionate yet cold.

Movement ends, intent continues;
Intent ends, spirit continues