I found an old interview with Pier Giuseppe Murgia, where he talked at length about it. It was a fascinating piece.
The thing is, one can argue (perhaps legitimately) that this is simply wrong all the way around to make a film like this the way in which they made it (ie, using VERY young actors to enact this type of thing). This kind of film would never, ever be made this way today.
That obvious argument aside, people are usually so shocked by this film, and more so confused, because we are seeing it completely out of context.
We see a confusing, disturbing "coming of age" type of film. Thus, it immediately seems like soft core child porn.
Murgia actually intended the film as a HORROR film. But, one with political undertones relevant to his youth.
He said he was attempting a film in the vein of Pasolini's "Salo". Like "Salo", the film is meant to be a metaphorical mediation on fascism, and the corruption of the innocent.
It is not supposed to be a coming of age story. It is a dark fairy tale, set in an enchanted forest, wherein Lara Wendel represents the innocent, trusting, loving, caring socialist proletariat. Martin Loeb represents the "angry young man" who is actually of the working classes as well, but yearns for more. Eva represents the spoiled, bratty, wealthy, selfish, and cruel bourgeois class. The evil comes in pretty packaging, and lures the angry young man into the fold, into its servitude, through sex and materialism. The innocent is then stalked, preyed upon, bullied and tormented and exploited, raped literally and figuratively, by the minion on the cruel rich. Loeb smashes the rich family's window early on, but can't bring himself to later. He is now a collaborator. Loeb even terrorizes Lara with a German shepherd, reminiscent of the Nazi's dogs. Only when truly put under duress does the cruel rich girl crack, and show herself to be weak and cowardly. By the time the angry young man rebels and kills the corrupt leader, he has already doomed himself through his collaboration. The innocent, but now wiser girl escapes to regain her dignity.
THIS is what Murgia intended. No one of today "gets this".
We just say, this is sick.
Perhaps it is. But Murgia was definitely thinking he was doing something revolutionary at the time.
reply
share
Falconeer
8 years ago
Wow! This is fascinating, and now that I read it, it makes perfect sense. I don't know why I didn't pick up on the political subtext on my own, because it was obvious to me when I saw "Salo'" Of course that film spelled it out; the fascists were actual fascists, and here it's a little blonde girl. But yes, Sylvia is a complete fascist, complete with the blonde hair. And Fabrizio is so obviously an unspoiled, working class kid with a LOT of anger inside him. And Laura seems to care nothing about fancy clothing or trying to look glamorous. I think that people can't get around the shocking nature of the movie to really analyze it correctly. Well I thought it was a fine film before, now I am even more impressed with this bizarre movie. I still think of "Maladolescenza" as the most controversial film ever made, and I have seen a lot. Thanks for the informative post.
Fabio Testi is GOD
reply
share
kibagami_genjurooo
8 years ago
He is totally wrong. The blonde one was baited into their group. So that ruins that whole theory.
Now I remember seeing 1 cvasi-pedo-drama (Leon) and 4 pedo-dramas: Pretty Baby, Lolita (1997), Little Lips and Maladolescenza and I don't like the exploitation. I mean not that I'm prude or something, but the last 2 would have been much better without the awkward nudity/sex. They could have inferred the sex and such.
And almost every sexploitation movie that I've seen (not as many as Falconeer) would have been much better without the sexploitation being so obvious. Some of them are really interesting dramas (like The Night Porter).
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
reply
share
Falconeer
8 years ago
I don't really see what difference it makes whether the blonde girl was lured into the situation or not. And in fact it seems that the boy was lured in to her world, by her beauty, and also by her wealth. The working class boy was fascinated by her beautiful house before he even saw the girl. Anyway the director himself explained the political meaning behind this film, so it isn't a theory. Also i love the films "Pretty Baby," and "Lolita;" they are both gorgeous aesthetically. I've never heard of "Little Lips.."
Fabio Testi is GOD
reply
share
kibagami_genjurooo
8 years ago
The action didn't happen in her medium (house, environment), but in his. She was lured with intent. Beauty and wealth of a child aren't intentional. And even if they were, justifying for example rape if you're longing to someone's beauty is wrong or theft if you're longing to something the victim has or destroying someone's property because jealousy. I don't buy moral relativism.
The director could have said that just to bull$h|t people, but at the same time maybe what he stated was his intent and failed to make it true.
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
reply
share
Falconeer
8 years ago
I guess different people perceive things in different ways. Sylvia, (the blonde) wasn't weak or naive enough to be "lured" anywhere. From the very beginning, the girl was in absolute control of that situation. She was well aware of her power, and she made that boy grovel at her feet, like a dog begging for a bone. Of course he had the desire to destroy expensive, beautiful things; the working class typically resent the wealthy, and vandalize and rob them out of frustration. And while he might have forced himself on the dark haired girl (Laura), he most definitely didn't force himself on Sylvia; he wouldn't have dared. She used her sexuality to control him, by first offering herself, and then later rejecting him. She basically destroyed his self confidence, which drove the boy to murder. Whateever this film might be, from Greek tragedy, to political allegory, I just think there is a lot more beneath the surface.
Fabio Testi is GOD
reply
share
kibagami_genjurooo
8 years ago
Oh, no, when I did speak about rape and property destruction and such I was taking some steps ahead in connection with "lured to her world by beauty and wealth". Meaning that even if it was that case of him being lured (which I say it's not, at least not with intent), I don't see any of the severe bad $h|t associated with some kind of "taking a stand" in that situation as justifiable (and those bad stand takin' actions I identify with rape, theft, property destruction and should have added murder to those).
Yeah she was pretty damn strong-minded, yet again she was the one invited to that group, not the other way around. And in the end she was the victim of murder.
I don't see anywhere as much depth that at least 2 of you see in this flick. And I tend to believe the director was full of $h|t stating the political commentary thing, cause even at the end Sylvia shows she's scared some time before and the boy still longs for her all that time. The movie is a drama about kid's cruelty, jealousy, domination and submission, desire and more than anything is about attachment.
In fact, coming back to the political commentary thingy, I think the movie would have been much worse if it had that much political subtext (beside the boy just breaking a window).
God promises eternal life, we deliver it.
How I rose from the dead in my spare time so can YOU.
reply
share