"Satyricon" studies ancient Rome of the first century, and is virtually plot less. The images drive the movie, not the story and characters, and the movie is essentially a montage of unrelated scenes. Cinematography and art direction are wonderful and the film is truly the feast for eyes. Its beauty comes from El Fayum portraits, wall paintings (frescos) and mosaics from Rome and Pompeii. The problem with Satyricon is that IMO Fellini himself did not like it very much. He seems to be a remote observer in that gorgeous but empty, soulless, decadence world of Nero's Rome. Two main characters that connect unrelated events are so insignificant, dull, and futile that they only take a screen time from the magnificent images which are the main attractions of "Satyricon". Even those images cannot safe Satyricon from being just a glorious illustration to an ancient book.
"Satyricon" feels empty, loud, and shallow. I rather read Petronius's book or watch the immortal, impressive, and full of character El Fayum portraits.
I prefer more " Fellini's Roma" as beautiful as "Satyricon", it is much more enjoyable, has a subtle message and a lot of heart and magnificent Eternal City is deservingly the only main character of Maestro Fellini's very personal film.
"Satyricon" feels empty, loud, and shallow. I rather read Petronius's book or watch the immortal, impressive, and full of character El Fayum portraits.
I prefer more " Fellini's Roma" as beautiful as "Satyricon", it is much more enjoyable, has a subtle message and a lot of heart and magnificent Eternal City is deservingly the only main character of Maestro Fellini's very personal film.