Mariam Mansuryan It really helps when you know the myth of Oedipus. You understand the story much better and can more easily follow the stages of madness of Oedipus.For Greeks, it was not a dishonor to make fun of their Gods, as many did in comedies. But it certainly was a dishonor not to recognize their power. The Gods were so powerful for the Greeks that they could tell you their horrific prophecies and you would still have the same fate despite this. I think the work really encapsulated all of Greek theatre in it. There were people in masks and crowds representing the chorus that in a hidden way was the protagonist narrator of the story back BC. There was a protagonist in his hero's journey and the story was practically the same.One difference was how Pasolini blended the modern times with the antiquity of Greece. Truly amazing how the film starts and end by the same sequence: spinning around, looking up at the treetops, and end with the finite horizon of the green valley. This shows that even though the times have changed and now instead of carriages people travel in cars, and even though Oedipus is not truly blind, nothing has really changed. It's the same journey in the hero's head.This also very strongly links with Pasolini's Porcile (Pigsty) for me. The same combination of modernity and antiquity to begin with, however there, the world is parallel. I would even go as far as to say that Julian was none else but Oedipus. He says he killed his father, ate human flesh and is still full of joy. So was Oedipus. He was full of joy at the end, when he was blind, couldn't see anything and wanted to hear nothing, he didn't belong in this world.Another striking similarity is the carriage that appears in both these films. There is a certain irony in that too because in Porcile there are three women following the carriage instead of men, but still, nothing is different. And Julian still kills his father, that is what his modern self is referring to. And when I was reviewing Porcile, I wasn't sure what the pigs represented. But now I think I know. The pigs are the chorus, the Gods or the society. The pigs are the silent narrators of the story yet again.The portrayal of modern man in both those films is very similar too. He's lost, as if he lives in the past reality and is consumed by the business of the modern world. Deep inside he is still the same man, the same hero undergoing the same journey. The boy is not actually eaten by pigs, but rather hung from the cross in Porcile. And Oedipus truly does lose his sight despite having eyes. There is even a certain feeling that fate is truly predisposed before a child is even born.Another motif in both those films was the musical instrument. In Procile, father of Julian plays the harp that seems to be controlling the world with his Nazi German magic wand. In Rex, Oedipus plays the reedpipe, and I noticed that the sound of this reedpipe recurs through the entire movie many times. It's like all those people are music that a god or gods control, and they don't even know about it.Overall a really cool film, I liked most of the things about it.

tomgillespie2002 Pier Paolo Pasolini's Oedipus Rex is a relatively faithful adaptation of Sophocles' Greek tragedy Oedipus the King. Beginning in 1920's Italy, a baby boy is born and is instantly envied by the displaced father. The setting then changes to ancient times, where a baby boy is being carried out into the desert by a servant to be left out to die from exposure. He is eventually picked up by a shepherd, who takes him back to the King and Queen of Corinth, who adopt the youngster and love him like one of their own. The child grows up to be Edipo (Pasolini's frequent collaborator Franco Citti), an arrogant youth who wishes to see the world for himself. And so he set out on the road to Thebes, the place of his birth.Plagued by a prophecy that dictates he is destined to murder his father and marry his mother, Edipo is a tortured but intuitive soul. He murders a rich man and his guards after they demand he clear a path for them on the road, and later frees a town from the clutches of a Sphinx by solving its riddle. Staying true to his own recognisable style, Pasolini tells the story of Oedipus not with a sweeping narrative, but through a collection of comedic, violent and often surreal vignettes, the most bizarre and ultimately thrilling being the scene in which Edipo murders the guards. He runs away from them as they chase him, before charging at them one by one and cutting them down. It's a moment without any real motivational insight, offering but a glimpse into Edipo's damaged psyche.Post-Freud, the story of Oedipus cannot be experienced without reading into the incestuous and patricidal undertones. But these themes are less explored by Pasolini than the idea of Edipo being ultimately responsible for his own downfall. Rather than the inevitability of fate, Edipo creates his own path, committing murder on a whim and marrying while blinded by ambition. For a bulk of the film, Pasolini keeps the audience at arm's length, favouring his own brushes of surrealism over a traditional narrative. While this may be occasionally frustrating - the pre-war scenes than book-end the film seem out of place and confusing - Citti's wide-eyed performance is a fantastic distraction, and the Moroccan scenery helps provide a ghostly, Biblical atmosphere as well as a beautiful backdrop.

Magicnet2 I believe this movie, Edipo Re, to be the worst movie Pasolini ever made. I kind of like his other films, but this one is unbelievable. As already said, the characters speak their lines as if they were on a stage, trying to give it too much of a feeling and effect, making the dialogues and Oedipus' monologues especially, very annoying to me. Sometimes the actors tried too hard and sometimes they seemed as if they were just cold machines with no feelings at all. And the fact, that half of the time someone, but mostly Oedipus is screaming as if they would torture him, was extremely disturbing me. Actually the first time I watched it, I had to stop it somewhere in the half of the movie. I finished it only a bit later. The actors' performances were under my opinion weak. It may surprise you all, but I give it just 2 stars meaning "very weak" and that only because it carries the name Pier Paolo Pasolini. If it would be someone else's movie and if it would be possible on this site I'd give it a straight 0, what would mean "totally dreadful".

butterfinger Oedipus Rex: Oedipus Rex is a haunting experience. The final scene on the city streets is enchanting. The scene in which Oedipus kills three Roman guards is one of the finest tapestries of tension and viscera in cinema. The acting isn't worth mentioning; this film is Pasolini's triumph. It is mainly a triumph of striking and occasionally nauseating imagery. The shifts in time periods are rather tacky and simplistic in retrospect; they are done so gracefully though. The conclusion is pulled together with beautifully written dialogue that only Paolo Pasolini could deliver. The film is not one that is easily forgotten and is sure to be remembered for a long time.