This film is, in large part, homosexuality seen through a heterosexual male's lens. As a result, it fails at basic things. For instance, the blonde "protagonist" has a decent-looking male lover his age (who is regrettably unattractive in personality) but Fellini insists on having him desire a very homely-looking boy, one who also has an unappealing dully coquettish personality. Why? Obviously, this is to make a negative point about ancient Rome and homosexuality. "Ewww... how decadent, uncomfortable, and wrong it is!" That's apparently supposed to be the reaction. Fellini seems to conveniently exploit ignorance about homosexuality in his often drab little theatrical universe. The irony is probably that, given all of its varying settings and its "art is free!" mantra, the world itself is almost suffocatingly puny. There is a tremendous lack of vision in this film. I wonder if a man even needs to be gay to see how thin it is, just looking at the homosexuality angle. Even the superficially affirming scene with the minotaur may primarily be the sad "dominance" hypothesis reconstituted (where male homosexuality is not common at all in any animal species but is rather merely displays of dominance and submission - sexual aggression). Male lions, for instance, aren't allowed to enjoy sex according to humans. They simply must be aggressive rapists, or whatever.Fellini seems to enjoy the "freak show" - a carnival of second-rate wonders and horrors. A similar tack was taken with the Caligula film. "Oh, gee, those ancient Romans sure were gross, weren't they? Eww.. isn't homosexuality awful?" In that film it was even more pointed. The only homosexual sex act that occurred was between two very unattractive men in an extremely brief corridor scene, framed by Malcolm McDowell's ugly mug trying to look uglier than usual. Fisting is substituted for gay sex in that film in a totally brazen anti-gay schtick - where violence, pain, humiliation, and terribly subjugation are supposed to be the point of homosexual acts between men. Again, it's homosexuality through the prism of an ignorant heterosexual male point of view.While this film isn't as bad as that in some ways, as it's less simplistic in that regard, the casting of the pubescent boy is an obvious example of Fellini's refusal to present sex in a positive light. This can be seen in his film Cassanova very clearly, more so than in this film - which, at least, has two good-looking actors in it (despite their dishpan personalities). Cassanova has a scene where a stereotypically young gay man (hardly the apotheosis of gay male desire) appears, scantily clad, for a bit of dinner theater with a really ugly man. The grotesque and the camp seem to be the extent of Fellini's engagement with concepts of male homosexuality.I have read various opinions about what Fellini's point was... what themes he was trying to convey. Regardless, I can only say that nothing in this film was particularly thematically scintillating. The closest thing to interest was in the disconcerting nature of the radical setting/tone shifts, which, at least, distracted from the annoying "personalities" of the characters. If the idea was that the blonde couldn't find satisfaction then there is some coherence between the on-screen happenings to the character and the audience's frustration.The film felt like a demo rather than a finished production.

A series of disjointed mythical tales set in first century Rome.I have seen a handful of Fellini's work, certainly the better-known ones. And while I have not seen them all, I will go on record as of now (2015) and say this was his best work. The costumes, the use of color, the strange, exotic world of Rome where actors use flatulence for humor.This is unlike anything you have even seen. Not as colorful or exotics as "Donkeyskin" and not as depraved as "Caligula", this is still a Rome where debauchery reigns. Impressively, although homosexual acts and relationships play a central part, there is practically nothing explicit (male or female) in the film, and can easily pass as PG.

Although this is clearly not one of Fellini's best rated movies, "Satyricon" is a fantastic modern science-fiction drama that is certainly worth seeing. It is true that the story lacks a red line, a plot that clearly interconnects each scene or scenario. However, if one watches it carefully enough and with an open mind, there is a story-line and character development in it. It is the life passage of a young man (Encolpius) and his friend and antagonist (Ascyltus), former gladiators who were taken to a foreign island and undergo diverse colorful, partly erotic adventures in dream-like sequences and images. You will find action in each scene but, more than that, Fellini is probably the only director who has managed, with this film, to create an understanding of what life in ancient Rome MAY have been like for the lower and middle-class ordinary civilians. Far from the bombastic installations as we know them from DeMille's monumental films, this is an abstract piece of art that deserves to be called a masterpiece that leaves room for interpretation and speculation about Petronius' ancient novel.

My friends and I were high school juniors in 1970 on a school trip to Paris. We were abandoned (emancipated?) by our chaperon on the second day on the Left Bank, and left to our own devices. We went to see Fellini's Satyricon in the original Italian with French subtitles. The theater was sloped the opposite of American ones, and we could smoke. I remember that we had only a dim understanding of the plot, but the visuals were stunning. Even today, more than forty years later, I can still see the image of the hermaphroditic Demi-god, his chalk-white skin and feeble eyes. So, though my high school chaperon probably broke several laws by leaving his French honors students to fend for themselves in Paris, his decision altered my life and my appreciation for Fellini.