Product Description

Pier Paolo Pasolini's (Decameron) startling candor and ribald humor illuminate these classic tales of romance, deception, murder and lust. A host of passionate lovers unite for a glorious, sometimes unexpected journey through Chaucer's medieval England.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #137457 in DVD
• Released on: 1998-11-17
• Rating: NC-17
• Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
• Formats: Color, DVD, Letterboxed, Widescreen, NTSC
• Original language: English
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 111 minutes

Customer Reviews

Pasolini on Chaucer
I was fortunate enough to purchase this DVD when originally issued, not so with Pasolini's other films. I had seen this film almost a year before buying it, and while it's not a GREAT movie it is still better than some. First off, the picture quality is not great, due to the museum conditions the print seems to have been stored under. This leads one to believe that not many prints survived. Using a mostly British cast adds as much realism to the film as can be mustered. The humour is typically bawdy and quite perverse at times (as in Satan farting out the monks ). I am quite sure that Chaucer would have been proud of this film of his work. The only problem i have with the picture is the uneven cinematography. Tonino Delli Colli's work has greatly improved since, but in this film is either over-saturated with light or is too dark. His ultimate camera work is in Leone's ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, but apart from the inconsistancies with lighting he is a quite capable cameraman. One wonders what use Pasolini could have made with Giuseppe Rotunno or Luciano Tovoli. Other people might have a problem with Pasolini's inclusion of homosexual love scenes, but they are quite subdued from being actual pornography. And although Pasolini was himself homosexual, he doesn't throw it the viewer's face as being all-important. All in all, the film is quite deserving of the NC-17 rating which my DVD copy carries. Too bad the United Artists logo doesn't appear at the beginning since they distributed the film in the early 70's

Chaucer's Tales Brought to Life
Writer and director Pasolini presents a selection of Chaucer's stories, most notably The Wife of Bath and The Miller's Tale. The Canterbury Tales is not without its weaknesses. The quality of the acting is variable (the dubbing doesn't help), and the editing is rough. Some stories end/start so abruptly that it takes you by surprise. However, I can forgive this film almost anything. For me, the atmosphere and feel it conveys far outweigh any faults it may have. Pasolini has recreated Chaucer's lusty medieval world with an earthy realism, exuberance, and zest for life in a way that few other directors could have managed. People who are easily shocked should beware. Pasolini has concentrated on the bawdier aspects of the tales, and added few of his own for good measure. It all combines to give The Canterbury Tales a wonderful hedonistic quality. The finale, a vivid depiction of Hell, makes for a superbly appropriate ending.

Some Fun, but Too Raw and Unfocused
I've read the Canterbury Tales, so I was expecting lots of toilet humor (nakedness, fart jokes, etc.), but this film seems to take it too far. Their were bits that got a chuckle out of me (the Devil's fart, for example) but altogether they Pasolini seems to have enjoyed putting raunchiness in for its own sake, rather then to further the film.

There was a few good actors, but too many were horrible. They seemed as though they were reading off cue cards, and were not involved in the scene at all.

The screenplay didn't help matters. It was a shoddy adaptation with wooden, unmotivated dialogue. Only a few stories were truly based on Chaucer, others were supposedly juxtaposing several stories into one, it didn't work. Pasolini also threw in some Chaucer but at uneven moments only to have the actors butcher the verse.

Their was some nice cinematography, as far as filming the landscapes, but other then that, relatively insignificant.

Not being aware of Pasolini's reputation before seeing this film (though I have seen 'Il Decameron', which I enjoyed more) allowed me to view the work from one of two ways, either unschooled in his style, or open to making observations without being influenced by his fame.

Either way, I was unimpressed.