Koch Lorber: Teorema

[solent]

I emailed Kcoh Lorber to ask if the subs will be removable on the upcoming TEOREMA DVD and the reply was "yes." This is a good thing since this is one of those films which doesn't need too much translation. Of all of Pasolini's works this film has the least dialogue.

[Lino]

[FilmFanSea]

Slant Magazine has taken the first swipe at Koch Lorber's Teorema. A sample:

As a movie, Teorema is overrated and idiotic. As high-class arty wank-off material for Stamp fans, it can't be beat... This is a serviceable disc. Though the image has lots of vertical lines and various scratches, the sound comes through just fine.

The only bonus feature, a 2005 documentary called Pasolini and Death: A Purely Intellectual Thriller is curiously dubbed into English, and is described by the reviewer as "repetitive and exasperating, with lots of windy quotes from PPP."

When the newly-formed Koch Lorber announced itself in a press release in 2003, some of us wondered if the company might prove to be good competition for Criterion. I think that question has been answered over the last year with a resounding "NOT EVEN CLOSE."

[richast2]

at least it can't be as bad as the Waterbearer DVDs, though. Right?

[solent]

The TEOREMA DVD is quite good compared to most 60s releases. The colours are strong and the artifacts down to a minimum. Compared to the BFI VHS version it comes up trumps. The only difference which I find surprising is the placement of the black and white sequence. On the UK version it comes before Stamp's first appearance (when Odetta says "A Boy") in the Koch version it occurs after this party scene (and before the lawn-mowing scene). This transposes the chronology of Stamp's arrival having the the postboy's telegram coming after he has acually arrived. I'm not sure which version is correct. Has anyone seen the Italian version to confirm this little nitpicking problem of mine?

P.s. The documentary has its protagonist claiming that Pasolini intended to die on that fateful November day. Is he advocating suicide? Like most 'intellectual' Italians he seems vague and pretentious in his reasoning.

[zedz]

My memory of the film is rather rusty, but I do recall the scenes of the family going about their 'normal' activities before Terence fucks with them. My recollection - which may be way off - was that these were like 'silent' sepia-toned vignettes (I'm even thinking there was a misty 'frame' around the images, for some reason!). Maybe they were just black and white. If this sequence is strongly differentiated from what surrounds it (as it is in my memory), then it still makes sense if it postdates the intro of TS, standing as a kind of flashback. (Let's not forget that, after the prologue, most of the film is already a flashback.)

If the film tests the theorem that f(x) = y, where f stands for Terence Stamp / sex, then I saw that this sequence established the initial values of the film's bourgeois xes; the series of seductions applies that function to the xes; and the rest of the film, after Terence's departure, shows us the different ys that result (which I guess established that function Terence produces strong but unpredictable results).

I didn't remember two appearances by Ninetto, but there may well have been - there was definitely something that provided a transition from the vignettes to the seductions.

Damn, the more I think about this the more I think I can remember two Ninetto appearances after all. David, when he delivers the telegram in your SBS cut do we learn the content of the telegram? I can now recall a cryptic message (something like "Arriving tomorrow"). Or maybe I'm just really suggestible.

[solent]

I saw TEOREMA in an arthouse cinema in Adelaide in 1982 and the B & W sequence was definitely there. When I saw the film later on SBS I thought I must have imagined it since it was excised. [The main image which stuck in my mind was of the son wearing a friend's overcoat over his head and acting silly.] I could have sworn something was missing but time plays tricks.

As I said in my last post the insertion of this sequnce in the PAL VHS version is more logically correct as compared to the NTSC DVD. The (B & W) messenger/angel [= Angelino] should preceded the arrival of the "boy." The DVD has it coming after.

What I want to know is what the NTSC VHS version shows. Anyone got it?

As far as quality is concerned the DVD is much cleaner with much stonger colours than the VHS version. It also has a little more image. The UK video suffered from many annoying artifacts. I wonder who will release it in the UK.

[Fellini-Hexed]

I've got both the Koch Lorber DVD, and a pirated (please keep this hush-hush) NTSC version from years back; can't remember the company that released it, though someone else can, I'm sure.

The sequences of events proceed thusly:

on VHS:

1. 'faux' doc footage
2. credits
(music, no dialogue for following)
3. colour shots of desert
4. black and white shots of factory
5. black and white family vignettes (including the son wearing the coat, etc.)
6. arrival of Angelioni w/news that Stamp is ARRIVING TOMORROW. This scene has sync sound and dialogue.
7. party scene: intro of Stamp, etc.
8. garden scene, first seduction, etc.

Now, on the Koch Lorber, events occur somewhat differently, as noted by Solent and DavidHare, with some differences from both, I believe:

1. faux doc footage (not positive, but I believe that this scene is longer on the Koch Lorber DVD than on the VHS version I have)
2. credits
3. desert shots in colour
4. party scene with Stamp already there, flashing his package
5. black and white pans with (I'm much more sure of this) extended family vignettes which flash back and forth between family and factory and desert shots
6. Angelioni enters, black and white, with music, but no sync sound
7. garden scene

Now, how all of this relates to screened prints of the film, I have no idea. But it makes little narrative sense to announce Stamp's impending arrival if he's already on the scene, especially since the story otherwise proceeds in a fairly linear fashion. I could be wrong, of course; perhaps Koch Lorber has discovered a print closer to Pasolini's intentions, but somehow I doubt this. Having said that, the film looks pretty damn good, otherwise.

The interview with one of Pasolini's collaborators (his name escapes at the moment, sorry), is astonishing, I thought. The fingernails-on-a-chalkboard effect of the dubbing quickly fades after listening to this man's thesis on Pasolini's death, which is essentially that Pasolini conspired in his own murder. Essentially, the interviewee claims that PPP did so in order to fulfill the prophetic announcements about his own death made in his poems and films; Pasolini wanted, or needed, to complete his aesthetic destiny by creating his own death. Now, I haven't read Siciliano's biography, only about a quarter of Pasolini Requiem (author name misplaced, again), but the theory did not sound entirely new when I heard it, although this gentleman goes into much detail to point out references to his death in PPP's works. The final moments of the interview are chilling, if not absurd. If you can handle the dubbing, the interview is a classic (if only it had been subtitled!).

The reviewer at Slant Magazine obviously has little time for poetry in his or her cinema, and is, therefore, a boob.

Koch Lorber are no Criterion, they're not even an HVE (god bless'em and r.i.p.), but they do bring out some damn good films.

Even though I haven't seen the film as many times as other posters in this thread, I have great affection and admiration for Pasolini's works in cinema and poetry, and think very highly of this film. It's something of a manifesto for the anarchic power of art, and the disruptive, necessary spirit of alien, murderous influences (murderous of ease, comfort, and yes, bourgeois expectations) as personified in Stamp (a devil announced by an Angel, no less).

[Fellini-Hexed]

The VHS version I used was distributed by Film Forum, although I know that Janus films released it under the Conneisseur Video Collection banner.

For those of you who first noticed this discrepancy between the Koch Lorber and the theatrical versions, what do you think accounts for this? Has Koch Lorber simply fudged Pasolini's work? Or were the original theatrical versions invasive 'corrections' by producer or distribution company to Pasolini's own idiosyncratic sequencing of the film's events? The latter seems less likely, of course. Just wondering.

[Tommaso]

To restart this old thread (sorry, have only now watched the film):

For those of you who first noticed this discrepancy between the Koch Lorber and the theatrical versions, what do you think accounts for this? Has Koch Lorber simply fudged Pasolini's work? Or were the original theatrical versions invasive 'corrections' by producer or distribution company to Pasolini's own idiosyncratic sequencing of the film's events? The latter seems less likely, of course. Just wondering.

Having the party scene before the arrival would simply explain WHY the family lets the visitor enter their house at all. Actually, they already know him (or, better, THINK they know him), and that is why they accept the message of the telegram. Then in a scene just before Stamp's departure, the father says to him something to the effect of: 'Well, you know, you are NOT that-and-that person" (can't remember the name now), which would indicate that a) the visitor looks like the other guy they already know but is not the same person or b) the same person curiously changed now (which would underline the Jesus analogy of the Stamp character). A third possibility would be that the Stamp character somehow got to the party in order to observe them first before he starts his work on them.

As to the strange bonus documentary/interview: the man suffers desperately from some sort of a conspiracy theory complex, but he nicely highlights the mythic aspects of both Pasolini's films and the way that he tried to incorporate them in his life. I do not believe in his theory that Pasolini staged his own death, but he points to qualities of Pasolini's work that are sometimes overlooked if he is only discussed in the anti-bourgeois/Christian context . This mythical dimension is obvious in "Medea" and most of his later works, of course, but it seems it can already be found in some of his early writings. A hardgoing extra, certainly, but I'm quite happy that I did not give up on it after the first 10 mins...

[Tommaso]

Bunuel's "Exterminating Angel" has been at work on this print as well!

Which may well be the case. However, this - like most other post-WaterBearer Pasolini releases worldwide - seems to have been taken from a restored/new print, possibly provided directly by the Pasolini Foundation. Either they indeed messed it up, or it was exactly as Pasolini intended. Another case where an audio commentary might have elucidated matters. If I remember correctly, there is also a book version of "Teorema" (which might simply be the script published), so does anyone have this and can tell something about how it's done there?

As to the film itself: this was the first Pasolini I ever saw some twenty years ago, and now re-watching it was quite an experience. Firstly, I had forgotten how little dialogue was in there (which I find quite striking and effective). Secondly, I thought it was better than I find it now. The film suffers terribly from being over-intellectualized, it is indeed rather an idea, a theorem illustrated. I quite like the experimental approach, and some of the visuals are stunning as ever, but as a whole it seems he rather tries to drive a point home than making a film in its own right.

So the question is: what is the point? It's obvious that the film is about the effects of the 'divine' changing the life directions of those who encounter it, but is this change 'successful'? The mother's new-found sexual liberty does not seem to bring her fulfillment, the daughter becomes a clinical case of catatonia, the son tries to become an artist but his monologue reveals his (self-)deception in that he says no-one is to see that he is not a genius and so on (clearly the opposite of Pasolini's own idea about the identity of life and art). The housekeeper becomes a saint, obviously, but even she does not reach the spiritual 'desert' that is hinted at several times before but has to imitate it by her self-burial. Only the father seems to make it, but the final cry is rather one of desperation than of fulfillment. Pasolini seems to say that people simply cannot cope with such a reversal of their daily life by a divine force, and in this respect the film is just another illustration of his political and spiritual hopelessness which a few years later would result in the shock treatment of "Salo".

[zedz]

As to the film itself: this was the first Pasolini I ever saw some twenty years ago, and now re-watching it was quite an experience. Firstly, I had forgotten how little dialogue was in there (which I find quite striking and effective). Secondly, I thought it was better than I find it now.

I have a similar relationship with several Pasolini films (at least, with those I've been fortunate enough to be able to revisit) - they seem to be far more volatile cinematic 'objects' than most other films, and my response to a given film will vary considerably when I see it again.

When I first saw Teorema (also about 20 years ago) I was completely overwhelmed and wildly impressed, but seeing it again a few years back it all seemed less successful, if still ferociously ambitious and generally impressive. Medea, on the other hand, which had initially seemed visually fascinating but muddled, seems to gain in power every time I see it.

So now I'm somewhat trepidatious about revisiting Porcile, probably my current favourite Pasolini based on a single viewing in the late 80s.

[Fellini-Hexed]

Porcile is still compelling...and we all need to have another look at Edipo Re.

I remember Porcile as excruciatingly discomfitting, but beautiful. Been ages, though.

Edipo Re is a more successful film than Teorema, I think. Franco Citti is more force of nature than actor; absolutely mesmerizing to watch. I love Pasolini as a poet, and think of him primarily as a poet in cinema as well (which is a pretty run of the mill consideration of the man's work, I admit), which may be why his many adaptations are more successful than the idea-heavy (as you noted, Tomasso) experiment, Theorem.

I regard Theorem's many conclusions to all be Platonic: each of the character's leaves the corporeal element behind after fucking Stamp, whom I consider less divine and more diabolic (la diablo!), which is simply the destructive flip side of a creative God, yes? There's an Afterword in McAfee's translation of the Selected Poems from an earlier Pasolini book where he confesses great glee at rereading Plato while convalescing between Hawks and the Sparrows and Edipe Re (I think). So, through the agency of sex, the characters leave the body for: sainthood, catatonia, art, and goddam it I forget what happens to Pop. Ah yes, he runs naked into the desert which has appears and reappeared, possibly filling in for soul? A precious thought . Perhaps Dad's final moments disrupt my thesis on Theorem. Hmmm.

One little thing I noticed about Pasolini's Oedipus (which has probably been discussed elsewhere, but...): Fellini stole blatantly from it for his Satyricon. There's a scene where Oedipus wanders into a small village, and is goaded into a labyrinth, at the centre of which is a beautiful, half-naked gal in hides. The music which introduces this scene is the EXACT same as that used by Fellini in HIS labyrinth scene in Satyricon, where Encolpio tumbles down a hillside surrounded with people, on his way to battle the Minotaur (I'm sure that there are Forum members who know the name and origin of the piece of music I'm mentioning here). I think the correspondences are more than coincidental, and if you watch the scenes back to back, it looks pretty much like thievery. Of course, I love Fellini, and have no problem with that kind of theft, but some might. Anyway. Pasolini's connections with Fellini go waaaay back, which makes the thievery a little more interesting, I think.

Yes, Tomasso, the interviewee in the doc on Teorema is perhaps a little whacked, but he does zero in, albeit hyperactively, on Pasolini's fascination with the connection between death and eros. When the interviewee claims that he would have gladly plunged the knife into Pasolini's body had he been asked to do so, I couldn't help but be impressed with his dedication! I have no problem delving further into this idea, that Pasolini actually brought his poetry to fruition through action, and that that action necessitated his own death. He was rather obsessed with Christ, and anti-Christ figures. Not that that's anything close to empirical evidence, but still fun ideas to toss around, at least.

[Tommaso]

I would also say that both "Edipo Re" and "Medea" are much better than "Teorema", simply because in both films he represents the myth rather than heavy-handedly rationalizing about it. I've never seen "Porcile", though, and would want to abstain from that apparently really horrible WaterBearer release.
So, does anyone know about any other dvd version of it which has either English or French subs? There is a Spanish version out there, but this only bears Spanish subs. There's also an Italian version, but I wasn't able to find out whether this carries subs in any other language.

[zedz]

Porcile is still compelling...and we all need to have another look at Edipo Re.

I remember Porcile as excruciatingly discomfitting, but beautiful. Been ages, though.

My recollections of it revolve around its formal precision and the pungent dialectic it sets up between the two stories: the modern tale, obsessively symmetrical (but with a queasy imprecision about every meticulous composition - or maybe I just saw it really badly masked!) and logorrhoeic (all of the action is reported action, so the visual symmetry is narratively sterile); the ancient tale, obsessively asymmetrical (figures are almost never in the centre of the frame), visually dynamic and practically wordless (apart from that climactic, shattering confession). And in between, that impressively intertwined array of ideas (consumption, cannibalism, family, authority, fascism) bouncing ominously back and forth.

Edipo Re is a more successful film than Teorema, I think. Franco Citti is more force of nature than actor; absolutely mesmerizing to watch.

I agree. He's a very stylised performer, but he's just perfect for the roles Pasolini gives him. Even The Canterbury Tales, which is in so many respects a disastrous misfire, suddenly springs to life for his episode. Actually, the demonic Citti in that film and the demonic Stamp in Teorema would probably make for a worthwhile comparison.

[rohmerin]

is the R1 DVD a cut or uncut version?

[solent]

Compared to various versions I have seen the R1 - which I have - appears to be uncut. I assume you have read the earlier posts here to find that the discussion on the KL version hinges on the misplacement [?] of the B & W footage (it should come before the colour introduction of Stamp). It is a minor point nevertheless. I am happy with the DVD but I would suggest you avoid the doco included as it is quite subjective and full of flights of fancy - it is also boring.

[rohmerin]

Sorry, I did not read exactly ALL about the changes between two versions. I did read it now.
By the way, I own the DVD released in Spain, so, I'll check it next week and may be we'll find out more about this strange replace case.

No extras in Spanish dvd. ¡Joder! I wanted that documentary about Pasolini and you say it's boring and ¡¡¡¡ OVERDUBBED !!!! into English. Fuck ! I can understand Italian better than propper English.

Saludos.