Decameron, Il – 1971
Director
Pier Paolo Pasolini

Writers
Giovanni Boccaccio novel Decameron (as G. Boccaccio)
Pier Paolo Pasolini

Producers
Alberto Grimaldi producer
Franco Rossellini executive producer

Cast
Franco Citti – Ciappelletto
Ninetto Davoli – Andreuccio da Perugia
Jovan Jovanovic – Rustico
Vincenzo Amato – Masetto da Lamporecchio
Angela Luce – Peronella
Giuseppe Zigaina – Frate confessore
Gabriella Frankel –
Vincenzo Cristo
Pier Paolo Pasolini – Allievo di Giotto (as P.P. Pasolini)
Giorgio Iovine
Salvatore Bilardo
Vincenzo Ferrigno – Giannello
Luigi Seraponte
Antonio Diddio
Mirella Catanesi
Vincenzo De Luca
Erminio Nazzaro
Giovanni Filidoro – (as Giovanni Filadoro)
Lino Crispo
Alfredo Sivoli
Guido Alberti – Rich market vendor
Giacomo Rizzo
E. Jannotta Carrino
Vittorio Vittori – Don Giovanni
Gianni Rizzo – Il padre superiore
Adriana Donnorso
E. Maria De Juliis
Patrizia De Clara – Suora
Guido Mannari
Michele Di Matteo
Giani Esposito – (as Giovanni Esposito)
Giovanni Scagliola
Giovanni Davoli
Monique van Vooren – (as Monique Van Voren)
Enzo Spitaleri – Frate
Luciano Telli
Annie Marguerite Latroye
Gerhard Exel
Wolfgang Hillinger
Franco Marletta
Vittorio Fanfoni
Detlef Uhle – (as Uhle Detlef Gerd)
Lucio Amatelli – (uncredited)
Patrizia Capparelli – Alibech (uncredited)
Giuliano Fratello – (uncredited)
Elisabetta Genovese – Caterina (uncredited)
Silvana Mangano – Madonna (uncredited)

Review by Gary F Taylor

Decameron, Il (1971)

Badly Made; Incredibly Pretentious,
Although I am generally a proponent of the well-made film, I do not limit myself to films which escape those boundaries, and more often than not I do enjoy and admire films that successfully “break the rules.” And it is quite true that director Pasolini breaks the rules of established cinema. But it is also my opinion that he does not break them successfully or to any actual point.

Pasolini’s work is visually jarring, but this is less a matter of what is actually on the screen than how it is filmed, and the jumpiness of his films seem less a matter of artistic choice than the result of amateur cinematography. This is true of DECAMERON. Pasolini often preferred to use non-actors, and while many directors have done so with remarkable result, under Pasolini’s direction his non-actors tend to remain non-actors. This is also true of DECAMERON. Pasolini quite often includes images designed to shock, offend, or otherwise disconcert the audience. Such elements can often be used with startling effect, but in Pasolini’s hands such elements seldom seem to actually contribute anything to the film. This is also true of DECAMERON.

I have been given to understand there are many people who like, even admire Pasolini’s films. Even so, I have never actually met any of them, and I have never been able to read anything about Pasolini or his works that made the reason for such liking or admiration comprehensible to me. Judging him from his works alone, I am of the opinion that he was essentially an amateurish director who did not “break the rules” so much by choice as by lack of skill–and who was initially applauded by the intelligentsia of his day for ” existential boldness,” thereby simply confirming him in bad habits as a film maker. I find his work tedious, unimpressive, and pretentious. And this, too, is true of DECAMERON. It is also, sadly, true of virtually every Pasolini film it has been my misfortune to endure.

Decameron, Il (1971)

Review by Wayne Malin

Interesting but no masterpiece,
Director Pasolini films nine tales from the Decameron. Most deal with sex (very explicitly) but almost all show a very ribald sense of humor. Easily the director’s most cheerful film–it’s best described as “earthy”.

I liked it but I didn’t love it. Some sequences are better than others and the film does drag in places. Also it has some really mean swipes at the Catholic Church. Most surprising is the film’s original X rating here in America was lowered to an R in 1991. I’m not complaining but I’m really surprised (and pleased) that the ratings board did that. It (obviously) got the X for the frequent nudity–both male and female–including one shot with a man at “full attention”. But the nudity is treated casually and in a wholesome sort of way–not as something dirty or to be ashamed of. It’s not exploitive in any way. Still, this isn’t for children.

So, pretty good and worth seeing at least once. A hundred times better than his dreadful “Salo”.

Decameron, Il – 1971

Review by Zetes

A great masterpiece,

Pier Paolo Pasolini might be the most underrated director of all time. You hear almost nothing about him nowadays, except how disgusting Salo was. But, in my mind, Pasolini ranks evenly with the other great masters, Fellini, Visconti, De Sica, Antonioni, and Rosselini, perhaps better than them. Pasolini is probably the most humane of all of them (even when considering Salo).

The Decameron is a perfect representation of Medieval European humor. Perhaps those unfamiliar with Medieval literature should avoid it, but all Medievalists must see it at some point. The stories are hilarious, and the human stories are beautiful. Just take a look at any face in the film.

Pasolini is such a great lover of beautiful faces. Not that all the faces represent the standard concept of beauty, but the ones that might be considered ugly are exceedingly beautiful.