I'm a visual young man, and this personality trait leads me to focus on the aesthetics of an artwork first. That doesn't mean that I pay more attention to the cinematographic quality of a film. That doesn't mean that I consider aesthetics more important than thematic content either. It simply means that I am a visual man, both in life and in cinema, and what strikes me the most is the seemingly effortless achievement Pasolini made while making his transition from Neorealism (1961-1964) to arthouse (1967-onwards). In this transition, the shift towards the more carnal aspect inherent in the sinful state of humanity is exploited transgressively and theatrically.

Back on thematics, Edipo Re (1967) reflected the latter trend, and here, the emphasis is on a balance between both. However, at the same time, where many don't see a common denominator between both stories, both refer to the animalistic tendencies of mankind: one appeals to primal instincts of survival, and the other appeals to primal instincts of political and ideological supremacy. Both are vile and disgusting ,and seek to devour men. One is wordless, and yet morally empty; the other one is "intellectually" verboise and ultimately absurd and irrational (I would label that part as comedy, to be frank). One is atemporal, and the other one takes place in 1967 (appealing the present-day perspective of the auteur) to mock the authenticity of war and racist trends elegantly disguised with elegant uniforms and polished sentences. And the sole fact that the latter had the hysterical participation of director Marco Ferreri made it all the more glorious.

I would normally rate this film higher given its astonishing impressionistic scope both to create otherworldly scenarios and comedic absurdity (traces of Tarantino's WWII parody can be seen countless times going way beyond the Hitler parody), but it is just that Pasolini has done better and, frankly, this borrowed itself for potential longer heights and ambitions: more verboise and visual explosition to explore more irrationalities, especially the religious aspect that the auteur seems to imply here but leave half-cooked, not unlike the ignorant hypocrite that Buñuel turned out to be that same year. Yet, don't mind the pace: explore your ideas as passionately as you'd like.

Well, so he did. Pasolini was getting closer to finding his signature arthouse pinnacle with his Trilogy of Life, for finally culminating with one of the most infamous masterpieces in cinema history.

Finally, to dismiss the cameo of cinema legend Marco Ferreri would pretty much leave any review meaningless in my eyes! I was shocked out of my seat!

86/100