Mariam Mansuryan The music... same as in the other two titles of Pasolini that I have seen. There was a boy playing an instrument all through the film. And this music ended the movie, with Medea going crazy.Something of the camerawork I remember is faces that were out of focus, sometimes men's faces would be blurred in the eyes of Medea. This can show a perspective, how she didn't see Jason clearly for who he was.The killing of children, although implied, wasn't shown. I think that makes it even more powerful, because in the last scene Medea, reversely, caresses her children, lovingly.We see a sense of loss of her identity, first of all, because Medea doesn't even seem to realize how she kills her children. If we truly are put in her head, than everything is very chaotic, all over the place, all over the time. Guided by the strange music that a boy with her sons plays. Sometimes Medea will drift off, and then as she wakes up, we find out she has done something horrible, but not us, nor Medea, had any idea.When the maids undress her from the black clothes and put white gown on her instead, making Medea look like them, there is a sense of repression. Now that I think about it, this sense of repression is present in other Pasolini films too.It is also about how the repression breaks into a revolt. In Porcile, the boy is eaten by pigs, a repression replaced with extreme violence. Something similar in Oedipus Rex, where Oedipus destroys his eyes with metal sticks. As if throwing all anger and fear into one final move of hands. And the same happens here. The entire town is burning, the children are dead, and Medea is in the middle of all this with a black dress. Her repressed self has come through.

Tyson Hunsaker Medea feels like one of Pier Pasolini's more obscure and lesser known works. Being overshadowed by some of his heavyweights and more controversial films, Medea can be easily forgotten and tossed aside. This is unfortunate seeing how unique this film feels. What feels riveting about Medea is one: our lead's performance is outstanding. She plays Medea with utmost confidence and terror that paints a memorable portrait of a character that's unforgettable. Two: while camera work seems to break necessary rules, the audience feels unusually drawn to what's inflame due to great locations, excellent production design for its time, and it's dramatic dialogue. Unfortunately the dialogue does feel too good on paper and nowhere else which can take the viewer out of the experience. Like something written as a novel first which wasn't meant to be adapted in the first place. The film explores fascinating themes like jealousy, betrayal, relationships, etc. The story explores feminism in a way that could be beneficial to see. The viewer sees this in a strong and empowering way and also in extreme and harmful ways. Medea has both good and not so good examples of women's liberation. While Medea represents a strong genuinely fierce woman who is a force to be reckoned with. She comes across distant from other characters who she should be closer with; like other members of her family. Medea's passion and determination to achieve her goal I can imagine is refreshing to see when many female characters are portrayed as supporting and passive ones. Especially for a 1969 audience (which is the film I saw of the story), seeing a woman with that much drive and ability to excel probably felt invigorating. In fact, much of her character feels threatening almost to her counter male characters who don't see her for what she would like to be seen as. Unfortunately since most of the characters don't provide the "respect" she feels and frankly, we feel she might deserve, she's given less. Much less. I think this is where the story flips when this unfair misunderstanding makes things too unbearable for Medea. As she is tossed aside for another wife for Jason, she's seen as a tool or a means to an end and this is where I think, she takes it too far and removes herself from the title of "heroin."Her almost ruthless nature unravels when she kills her own children which is not only extreme but there is fundamentally something psychopathic when we imagine a mother killing her own child for selfish reasons. Arguably the most genuine and strongest bond we can imagine in human relationships is between a mother and her child. I think this is when her character changes in the viewer's eyes. We don't sympathize with her anymore and really question her sanity. She murdered her own children out of spite for her husband!I've wondered why Pasolini chose to write such a story and I think I have two theories: One, I think he might've been thinking about the innate power and determination women actually have. Perhaps it was a cautionary tale essentially saying "Don't mess with the women, they can actual tear you apart." Maybe he foresaw a time where women would strike back due to oppression and unequal treatment. My second theory is that maybe he's not very sympathetic to the female sex at all. Maybe he was attempting to suggest women will be the death of us if they are not "kept in check." Honestly I would like to think the first option but knowing Pasolini's other works and his seeming disregard for many good qualities of humanity in his films, I don't know how much I'd bet on it. Ultimately I wouldn't recommend it to examine female liberation but it is worth checking into for a discussion anyway.For film buffs, this one is checking out but maybe won't be the best example to examine closely. Technically and structurally there are moment-ruining flaws that are difficult to get over and with he exception of our lead, performances aren't extremely impressive. Definitely not for everyone.

Kirpianuscus in time. in space. to origins. to old rituals and sacrifices and definition of purpose of life. an experience. beyond words. before myths. and an unique Medea. the Pasolini style. it is the easy verdict. the only role in a film of Maria Callas. the corruption of Euripides text . natural observations. but each becomes, scene by scene, wrong. because it is only a travel. the voices, the gestures, the sacrifices, the thought who becomes deed - as the great surprise/confusion source for the viewer - the lights and buildings and costumes and air almost material are shadows of steps. the revenge . and the end of circle. it is not Edipo re . it is Medea. and this fact is remind in every moment. because it is an emotion more than a show. because it is a lesson about fertility and love and magic and jealousy and survive who has not need of explanations. only need of silence. and science to discover the embroidery of light and shadow in each scene. as the experiences of travel.

TheVid Maria Callas is both stoic and expressive as Pasolini's Medea, while Jason is depicted as playfully self-obsessed. This is a prehistoric view of Euripides and quite accessible. There's a pretentious touch of modernity, but the striking opening ceremony vividly sets the mood of the piece and the double-dose finale is effective. The evocative music sounds like judgement day!