This movie leaves you very confused. The cult of a sect, obsessed with hygiene (hence the references to the goddess Hygieia) and controlled by a psychopathic leader, Fust, is established on an island. The command of the sect and the fate of every single member is in Fust's hands because of his economic power. In fact, alongside the pseudo-religious events, the production of soap, made from pig fat, is also carried on.
There already is so much information that it's not clear what kind of interpretation is more appropriate. For example, considering a socio-economic approach, references to class struggles, to the brazen laxity of the wealthy and to the manipulation exercised over the poor and ignorant masses are easily noticed. Or, considering a generational conflict, we can observe how children are relegated to the humblest jobs, how they are called garbage, how they fight against the pre-established order. Instead, if we choose a psychoanalytical approach, we can consider the character of Fust alone and the relationship with his parents (especially with his mother) in order to understand his behaviour.
As you can see, the interpretations listed above don't show any conceptual framework that leads the way to further the analysis. The movie's concern is to add multiple layers of information without worrying about offering any deeper material. We remain, therefore, stuck on a superficial level of analysis, banal and simplistic.
In a nutshell, I personally think the movie can be summarized in this way: a rich psychopath realizes that he can no longer carry on his narcissistic dream and decides to kill everyone (something goes wrong).
Some ideas leave a lot to be desired, especially because they are genuinely ridiculous, such as the scene with Sigfrid, Irina and the vision of Elysion between her legs or the final scene, where the surviving children observe a stripper on the stage while Irina, for a few moments, imagine that Fust himself is dancing.
A movie that offers food for thought is often exalted and appreciated, but thanks to a conceptual depth that, unfortunately, is bleakly lacking here. The confusion and disturbance after watching this movie are not due to the huge amounts of connections and possible parallels, but to the lack of a reference point, a compass to indicate the direction of the work.
There already is so much information that it's not clear what kind of interpretation is more appropriate. For example, considering a socio-economic approach, references to class struggles, to the brazen laxity of the wealthy and to the manipulation exercised over the poor and ignorant masses are easily noticed. Or, considering a generational conflict, we can observe how children are relegated to the humblest jobs, how they are called garbage, how they fight against the pre-established order. Instead, if we choose a psychoanalytical approach, we can consider the character of Fust alone and the relationship with his parents (especially with his mother) in order to understand his behaviour.
As you can see, the interpretations listed above don't show any conceptual framework that leads the way to further the analysis. The movie's concern is to add multiple layers of information without worrying about offering any deeper material. We remain, therefore, stuck on a superficial level of analysis, banal and simplistic.
In a nutshell, I personally think the movie can be summarized in this way: a rich psychopath realizes that he can no longer carry on his narcissistic dream and decides to kill everyone (something goes wrong).
Some ideas leave a lot to be desired, especially because they are genuinely ridiculous, such as the scene with Sigfrid, Irina and the vision of Elysion between her legs or the final scene, where the surviving children observe a stripper on the stage while Irina, for a few moments, imagine that Fust himself is dancing.
A movie that offers food for thought is often exalted and appreciated, but thanks to a conceptual depth that, unfortunately, is bleakly lacking here. The confusion and disturbance after watching this movie are not due to the huge amounts of connections and possible parallels, but to the lack of a reference point, a compass to indicate the direction of the work.
