Wow. Terrific introduction to this filmmaker. Have only seen one of his films, Accattone, and like Shoot the Piano Player , I somehow wound up seeing it three or four times in a theater over the years. I remember very much enjoying it. Will tackle your 24 question poll tomorrow. Still thinking about it. Tough to decide on many. .
So excited to see you take on the legacy of Pasolini, a major figure in twentieth-century Italian culture and one of the most provocative as well as one of the most essential directors in world cinema. I sadly have not yet seen 'Accattone', but I love 'Mamma Roma', one of the great narrative features of the Sixties, due to Magnani's powerhouse performance, and my personal favorite among the eight Pasolini pictures I've so far experienced. I remember reading that Pasolini himself was equivocal about 'Mamma Roma', feeling he had essentially repeated himself in tackling a subject so similar to that of 'Accattone', and saw such repetition as a liability, but regardless of his demurral, he created a film that has enriched my life and my understanding of humanity. I wanted to observe that the figure represented on the church mural is actually Saint Felix of Cantalice (1515-1587; canonized in 1712), a Capuchin friar, a reform community within the Franciscan order. I didn't want to close without commenting that I have a different understanding of politics and its connection to art. One of Merriam-Webster's variant definitions of "politics" (fifth to be precise, in the edition I have at hand) is "the total complex of relations between people in society". This is pretty much my own sense of politics, which I broadly see as the negotiation of relationship between at least two human beings. Hence all human relations have an inherent political dimension, an assertion that has caused offense with at least one friend who read this once from me, apparently interpreting me to be saying that all human relationships are transactional, which I most certainly do not hold. Some relationships are transactional, while many, many others are not, but most if not indeed all relationships involve a dance around power, in many cases comprised of an authority and another individual or group subject to that authority. There can be instances when power is held equally by all participants (as in an ideal democracy, or in a truly equitable marriage), but there is still an ongoing dynamic tension of that power being negotiated, tested, and renegotiated. To me, this eternal dance is politics in a nutshell, and it is an unavoidable component of human existence. If everything human has a political dimension, as I submit, then it would follow that art too would be so. Indeed, most of the art that has been created over the millennia was made for the aggrandizement of princes, priests, or the state, a reflection and promotion of their authority. Even the art that falls outside such purview still involves the negotiation between individuals or groups of material resources and abstract values. It's hard to think of any creative endeavor that escapes these parameters (perhaps oral performance, such as storytelling or singing, might come closest). Lastly, I wanted to concur with you and the wise men and women before us, such as Pasolini, that we can and should recognize merit in the creations of individuals differing from us in opinion and orientation. As you say, art and creativity are tools that can unite us, at least in a bond of common humanity. If we circumscribe our repertoire of exposure to art based on personal and political biases, we inevitably impoverish ourselves in the process. We likewise do disservice to ourselves whenever a controversial artist is expunged from the record, rendered a nonperson due to fluctuating cultural values, as controversial works can and often do illuminate important truths of the human experience. Pasolini's legacy is an abiding illustration of this phenomenon, and I look forward to your continued survey of this heritage.
Thank you so much for this comment, Barry. I really appreciate the time you've taken to give such a full reply to a video which, to be honest, I was a bit worried about! These days, talking of politics and identity can get you into murky waters. Thanks also for correcting me about the church mural - shows my dunderheadedness in matters religious! I'll just add that I really love Mamma Roma too. I'm not sure that comes across in the video. I was so struck by Accattone this time around that I found I wanted to talk about it more. But Mamma Roma, and particularly Magnani's performance, are very special to me.
Never saw a Pasolini film until I put on Mamma Roma tonight-- and all due to this video. Absolutely wrenching film. Do you plan on continuing this retrospective soon?
Hi there. I'm really glad you enjoyed the film. I'm definitely going to continue the retrospective, but I've had to put the channel on hold recently because of...well, life stuff! Hoping to get back to publishing vids in late November.
Good to see your enthusiasm on the director. The information you said was waffle, I don't think it is waffle - but I think if you placed the analysis after your discussion about Pasolini, then I think viewers would draw into your retrospection more easily. At the moment, you suddenly hit with the questions, and viewers who are interested may feel that your questions are coming out of nowhere - there's nothing to link / associate with what you are talking about - Start off with something connective to the viewers first - this could be a short story, memory or setup from a film, and then from that, draw your questions. You are currently speaking the waffle at the start -as if it were a continuation of a lecture people already understand. That would be fine IF it was the case, but when people are given your film as a suggestion by TH-cam, and click on it - the speed of deep analysis suddenly hits them in the first few minutes. There is nothing wrong with your interest to drive viewers with such questions, but if you suddenly make it the first thing, you are potentially assuming that everyone is on the same level of interest the first time they click on your film. I would suggest to ease with a kind of intro that can familiarise the viewers first, with something that is lighter - and then go deeper into questions. Alternatively, if you want to start your deep questions, then add some pictures or a scene, and do it as a voiceover - that relates to what you are saying. People get tired of seeing a presenter's presence, if it's dry talk, in the beginning. Your verbal information will become more engaging with a pacing of intermittent pictures or scenes. If you had the same information written in a book - it would be engaging, because the relationship of focus is between a single person wishing to investigate - and the person has chosen, but you are on a platform where people of any level of interest will click on your channel - so keep that in mind. Other than that, not bad. Keep up the good work because your knowledge and introspection is unique and worth knowing about.
Thanks, Karl. I appreciate your comments and advice. I must admit, I think I made a mistake with this vid. I should have separated the intro off into its own video. I think I might do that at some later stage - remove this one from public view and edit it into two parts. Ah, well, you live and learn.
"centre-right" 😮!?! .... I'm unsubscribing 😂 ...but then again, you do a good Tom Baker! Thanks Mike for another fascinating video discussion. I've only seen one Pasolini (Mamma Roma) and I never got the Mary/Jesus symbolism when I watched it. A lot of this video went over my head too. I think cinema is a very political artform but I just liked Anna Magnani and Ettore Garofolo on that bike. 😄
Ha, ha! Thanks, Steve! You jest, but I bet I'll lose a few subs over this vid. (That's if anyone watches it!) That scene on the bike is fab, innit? Ah, Anna Magnani...
I've recently seen il Vangelo Secondo Matteo for the first time and I was blown away by its beauty and poetry.
Thanks, Giovanni. Really looking forward to re-watching it for the next part of this retrospective.
Wow. Terrific introduction to this filmmaker. Have only seen one of his films, Accattone, and like Shoot the Piano Player , I somehow wound up seeing it three or four times in a theater over the years. I remember very much enjoying it.
Will tackle your 24 question poll tomorrow. Still thinking about it. Tough to decide on many. .
Thanks, Willie! Glad you enjoyed the vid. Accattone merits several viewings, I reckon.
So excited to see you take on the legacy of Pasolini, a major figure in twentieth-century Italian culture and one of the most provocative as well as one of the most essential directors in world cinema. I sadly have not yet seen 'Accattone', but I love 'Mamma Roma', one of the great narrative features of the Sixties, due to Magnani's powerhouse performance, and my personal favorite among the eight Pasolini pictures I've so far experienced. I remember reading that Pasolini himself was equivocal about 'Mamma Roma', feeling he had essentially repeated himself in tackling a subject so similar to that of 'Accattone', and saw such repetition as a liability, but regardless of his demurral, he created a film that has enriched my life and my understanding of humanity.
I wanted to observe that the figure represented on the church mural is actually Saint Felix of Cantalice (1515-1587; canonized in 1712), a Capuchin friar, a reform community within the Franciscan order.
I didn't want to close without commenting that I have a different understanding of politics and its connection to art. One of Merriam-Webster's variant definitions of "politics" (fifth to be precise, in the edition I have at hand) is "the total complex of relations between people in society". This is pretty much my own sense of politics, which I broadly see as the negotiation of relationship between at least two human beings. Hence all human relations have an inherent political dimension, an assertion that has caused offense with at least one friend who read this once from me, apparently interpreting me to be saying that all human relationships are transactional, which I most certainly do not hold. Some relationships are transactional, while many, many others are not, but most if not indeed all relationships involve a dance around power, in many cases comprised of an authority and another individual or group subject to that authority. There can be instances when power is held equally by all participants (as in an ideal democracy, or in a truly equitable marriage), but there is still an ongoing dynamic tension of that power being negotiated, tested, and renegotiated. To me, this eternal dance is politics in a nutshell, and it is an unavoidable component of human existence.
If everything human has a political dimension, as I submit, then it would follow that art too would be so. Indeed, most of the art that has been created over the millennia was made for the aggrandizement of princes, priests, or the state, a reflection and promotion of their authority. Even the art that falls outside such purview still involves the negotiation between individuals or groups of material resources and abstract values. It's hard to think of any creative endeavor that escapes these parameters (perhaps oral performance, such as storytelling or singing, might come closest).
Lastly, I wanted to concur with you and the wise men and women before us, such as Pasolini, that we can and should recognize merit in the creations of individuals differing from us in opinion and orientation. As you say, art and creativity are tools that can unite us, at least in a bond of common humanity. If we circumscribe our repertoire of exposure to art based on personal and political biases, we inevitably impoverish ourselves in the process. We likewise do disservice to ourselves whenever a controversial artist is expunged from the record, rendered a nonperson due to fluctuating cultural values, as controversial works can and often do illuminate important truths of the human experience. Pasolini's legacy is an abiding illustration of this phenomenon, and I look forward to your continued survey of this heritage.
Thank you so much for this comment, Barry. I really appreciate the time you've taken to give such a full reply to a video which, to be honest, I was a bit worried about! These days, talking of politics and identity can get you into murky waters. Thanks also for correcting me about the church mural - shows my dunderheadedness in matters religious! I'll just add that I really love Mamma Roma too. I'm not sure that comes across in the video. I was so struck by Accattone this time around that I found I wanted to talk about it more. But Mamma Roma, and particularly Magnani's performance, are very special to me.
Really super interesting. Thanks!
You're welcome, Jamie!
Never saw a Pasolini film until I put on Mamma Roma tonight-- and all due to this video. Absolutely wrenching film. Do you plan on continuing this retrospective soon?
Hi there. I'm really glad you enjoyed the film. I'm definitely going to continue the retrospective, but I've had to put the channel on hold recently because of...well, life stuff! Hoping to get back to publishing vids in late November.
@@michaelbartlettfilm I totally understand! Life stuff has put my videos on hold too. Have a good day!
Good to see your enthusiasm on the director. The information you said was waffle, I don't think it is waffle - but I think if you placed the analysis after your discussion about Pasolini, then I think viewers would draw into your retrospection more easily. At the moment, you suddenly hit with the questions, and viewers who are interested may feel that your questions are coming out of nowhere - there's nothing to link / associate with what you are talking about - Start off with something connective to the viewers first - this could be a short story, memory or setup from a film, and then from that, draw your questions.
You are currently speaking the waffle at the start -as if it were a continuation of a lecture people already understand. That would be fine IF it was the case, but when people are given your film as a suggestion by TH-cam, and click on it - the speed of deep analysis suddenly hits them in the first few minutes. There is nothing wrong with your interest to drive viewers with such questions, but if you suddenly make it the first thing, you are potentially assuming that everyone is on the same level of interest the first time they click on your film.
I would suggest to ease with a kind of intro that can familiarise the viewers first, with something that is lighter - and then go deeper into questions.
Alternatively, if you want to start your deep questions, then add some pictures or a scene, and do it as a voiceover - that relates to what you are saying. People get tired of seeing a presenter's presence, if it's dry talk, in the beginning. Your verbal information will become more engaging with a pacing of intermittent pictures or scenes.
If you had the same information written in a book - it would be engaging, because the relationship of focus is between a single person wishing to investigate - and the person has chosen, but you are on a platform where people of any level of interest will click on your channel - so keep that in mind.
Other than that, not bad. Keep up the good work because your knowledge and introspection is unique and worth knowing about.
Thanks, Karl. I appreciate your comments and advice. I must admit, I think I made a mistake with this vid. I should have separated the intro off into its own video. I think I might do that at some later stage - remove this one from public view and edit it into two parts. Ah, well, you live and learn.
@@michaelbartlettfilm - fan of your work!
"centre-right" 😮!?! .... I'm unsubscribing 😂 ...but then again, you do a good Tom Baker!
Thanks Mike for another fascinating video discussion. I've only seen one Pasolini (Mamma Roma) and I never got the Mary/Jesus symbolism when I watched it. A lot of this video went over my head too. I think cinema is a very political artform but I just liked Anna Magnani and Ettore Garofolo on that bike. 😄
Ha, ha! Thanks, Steve! You jest, but I bet I'll lose a few subs over this vid. (That's if anyone watches it!) That scene on the bike is fab, innit? Ah, Anna Magnani...