THE CANTERBURY TALES
Italy, 1971, 109 minutes, Colour.
Pier Paolo Pasolini, Laura Betti, Ninetto Davoli, Franco Citti, Hugh Griffith, Josephine Chaplin.
Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini.
Pasolini films as if Chaucer's Tales were the same as Decameron, only in the English countryside. Some tales are similarly presented and as well as in the other film - plus an inventive picture of the Cook's Tales as a medieval equivalent of Charlie Chaplin and the Keystone Cops, and a sombre tale about homosexuals and injustice. But there is a coarseness in some of the tales, grosser than before, lacking the genuine good-humour of Chaucer (despite Pasolini himself appearing and smiling about it all for us). The finale, with Pasolini's scatological inferno, takes up medieval caustic comment on clergy and visualises them in all their crudity.
1. Did this seem an adaptation of Chaucer? Did it seem English? Medieval?
2. Comment on Pasolini's use of settings - the countryside, costumes, his choice of faces and profiles?
3. How much like Boccaccio were these Canterbury Tales? Were they really Italian? How much were they Pasolini's tales instead of Chaucer? Did he establish convincingly the pilgrimage setting of the Canterbury Tales? Did he follow this up very much? How was Pasolini! a Chaucer? In observation of people? In enjoying telling the stories? The significance of his final smile and writing Amen?
4. What was being satirised in the first story - the old man and his wedding? Infidelity? The effect of having Pan and the nymph in the garden?
5. How strongly made was the point about homosexuals? Was this an effective story? What did it say about class differences and morality? About spying? About reporting to Police for gain? Of paying off officials? of the poor man unable to pay off officials? The actual scene of the burning?
6. Was the story of the seminarian and the wife humorous or disgusting? His gulling of the husband to go into the ark? The sequences in the bedroom and the bedroom window?
7. The story of the cook: how amusing was this in itself? The personality of the cook? The visual style of the filming - making the cook a little man, Charlie Chaplin style of person? The speeding up of the filming? The police like the Keystone Cops? The comedy similar to Mack Sennett comedies? Was this in place in the film? Was it Chaucer? Did this matter?
8. The sequence of the brothel - how disgusting was this? Was it meant to be disgusting? What did it reveal about human behaviour?
9. The story of the two going for the hay - Boccaccio-like, a story of behaviour and immorality and fidelity? A story of mistakes and gulling people? Of fools? Was this merely the point of the story or was there something more?
10. The murder story: insights into greed, suspicions, cruelty?
11. The sequences of hell - in the line of medieval paintings, of grotesque art, the point of the story, the Friars and the devils? How disgusting was this-in itself? Visually? Was the point a legitimate one of satire? What impression did this give of the whole film? And of Pasolini's smile at the end of it?
12. How good a film was this in terms of ordinary standards and taste? Could it be defended that it had its own standards and taste? or is this too much justifying it?
