Many of the reviews for this film are misleadingly similar, and seem to be copying one another while leaving out key details.** SPOILERS ** PLOT: A young man living entirely by himself in an abandoned church or monastery courts his pig, breeds with her, and then tries to care for the piglets. When they prove unruly at mealtime, he hangs them. The mother goes mad and drowns. In grief, the man buries himself alive with her, has a vision of himself, then returns to the monastery, where he seems to atone by eating nettles, and then eats and drinks his own waste. Finally, he hangs himself and seems to float in the air like a kite after his death.And yes, as one person says, there is bestiality and feces-eating--"it's called the pig-f*cking movie,"don't act astonished. :p If you want the director's opinion, here is his description, more or less: "A solitary man lives in an abandoned farm. Its territory: ground, water, air and fire. He loves a sow tenderly. Three piglets are born from their union. Family knittings, feeding-bottles and meals will have only a time. Death grinds: the sow commits suicide and the alchemist is made crucible." PROBLEMS WITH THESE DESCRIPTIONS: The young man is not necessarily a farmer. He's the only human, he has to get food somehow, but we never see any crops. Moreover, while the director describes the setting as an abandoned farm, it is clearly a monastery, abandoned church, or school, considering that the man regularly rings the bell. (So does the pig once.) This is one of the more intriguing gestures in the film--who is he trying to summon with the bell, or what memory is he replaying? A note: there has always been that bourgeois "disgust" with the goings-ons at places like farms, such as slaughtering chickens, boinking animals, the mere presence of manure, the violence and open sexuality of animals (birds in this case), the "grotesqueness" of actual birth, and the general "muckiness" of life. Criticizing the film for depicting these realities (of life itself) is as gratuitous as the film is said to be.More errors: the IMDb database says it is a continuity error that the man goes into the pig's grave with clothes on and emerges naked. This is clearly intentional on the director's part, as the man undergoes some kind of rebirth.It's also seems inadequate to describe the whole of the man's existence as "insane". He may be separated from people, but he is not alone. He doesn't even only have one choice of mate (there are female chickens and turkeys). The director states the alchemist becomes crucible after the sow's death—not even that has to be madness.This isn't to say I get all of the symbolism. It's unclear to me why he keeps a record of everything he kills in his glass jars (a record of death?), but it's clear that he gives that up for his final experiment, which is about transformation (the whistling teapot is the total synthesis of this symbol: air, water, fire, and "dirt" i.e., feces), overcoming death. That he eats the alchemical mess he makes is automatic. Eating is an ancient symbol for the alchemical process (it may even be the basis). He's seeking immortality, hence the celestial chorus music (not simply as a perverse counterpart to the action).Whether his experiment is successful is ambiguous. Does his vomiting indicate a rejection of the project, and so he hangs himself in despair (why does no one mention the very last, distant shot when he seems to be rising like a kite, higher and higher, as he swings), or is this a success, and he is simply being transported to another plane as it were? Maybe the earthy aspects of the film prevent you from bothering with this, but that doesn't mean the film does.With art films, the first image can often be very telling--maybe even the initial image that inspired the director. With Vase de Noces, we see the man's attempt to unite the human and avian, just as he later attempts to unite the human and porcine. The birds fly away, while the piglets show no such transcendence--so maybe that is why he kills them (or because death, as transformation, is fundamental to alchemy).No one talks about the birds in the film, but it is interesting to notice that the chickens are especially cruel, the turkeys are sexual and engage in what looks (or at least sounds) like a gang rape, and the ducks merely look on curiously, being neither cruel nor sexual. Maybe the man can't breed with them because they're avians (or, in the context of the film, can't fly). In any case, we are presented initial with an image of the unification of man and animal, which ends with him floating in the air like his bird-like (i.e., tethered kite), rising higher and higher.Make what you will about all of this, the movie's not just about sex with pigs and gobbling waste. If nothing else, the man may want transcendence from his condition (by extension, our condition) just as badly as you wish he'd transcend (i.e., leave) it.Lastly, I suggest if you find this movie boring, it's because you know there are scenes of pig-boinking and feces eating, and your impatience for the movie to get to that drives your sense of boredom with the rest of what is going on. That's not a good way to watch this movie. If gratuitous sensationalism is what you want to experience so you can brag to friends about how "out there" you are about movies, go watch something else.

this movie is a perfect example of how a work of art can be misunderstood. when I read all the comments about 'Vase de noces', I was shocked. how can something so beautiful as this movie be misinterpreted? because that's all it is: interpretations. this movie is, because it has got no dialog, one big interpretation. so let's give mine by repeating it's only my interpretation: this movie is about homophobia, even though I only understood its message at the end of the picture. everything became clear to me: obviously, the protagonist is a farmer boy with mental problems, probably caused by something like, perhaps, childhood terrorism, it isn't mentioned in the movie (no dialog, remember?), but it's clear to say this teenage boy has got real problems. because he lives all alone in a farm with his animals, nobody helps him to fur fill his needs. and he has got some weird needs, but only (I interpret) because he lives alone, he's homosexual and no man in around (and no woman either) to help him get off his sexual desires. luckily for the poor kid, there are his animals. they help him go on with his life, by giving free sexual encounters and giving him the possibility to kill whenever he's upset. please, do not forget, I do not give away anything about this movie, there are shocks with thousands in this one I won't tell a thing about. but what I found so interesting, is that the boy has got some issues, he's a bit like the Amon Goeth character in 'Schindler's List', very interesting. he hurts himself, he loves himself, he wants to do good, he fails by being the opposite. how will this character study develop? to know this, you must see this art house movie, pure genius. and the thing about it all, is its hidden message, which I thought was that we must stop hating homosexuals and welcome them in society to avoid situations like the one portrayed in 'Vase de noces', one of the best films I've ever seen.

I have nonetheless given this piece an 8, if only to raise its profile. Many have compared this to Lynch's feature-length debut Eraserhead (which Vase De Noces predates by three years). Although I see some similarities - how males deal with childbirth, the heaving black and white cinematography, the eclectic soundtrack - I am loath to compare the two myself. Whereas Eraserhead is renowned for being the archetypal "midnight movie", it is umpteen times more accessible than Vase De Noces.What drove me to watch this film? As with everyone else, curiosity. I had heard about the infamous moments in the film and thought that nobody would dare commit them to celluloid. When Wikipedia advertised it as a "lost film", a trigger flipped in my head and I had to find it. That the only copy available is a shaky nth-generation VHS lends the film the appropriate integrity for its infamy. While even the original may have been tough to sit through, the constant crackling and pitch-bending of the soundtrack makes it infinitely harder to watch, and the picture quality is so inconsistent that it can take a minute to work out what is being shown on screen (of course, once you have worked it out, you'll wish you hadn't).On to the "plot". A Belgian farmer falls for a sow and engages in several sex acts with her. As a result, she falls pregnant and bears a litter of pig-children (supposedly mutants - it isn't instantly clear). When the pig-children favour their mother for affection, the farmer is devastated and hangs them all. The sow, on discovering this, drowns herself in mud. Remorseful, the farmer hangs himself, feeling he has nothing to live for. The end. No, really.Many suggest that this is set in the future and that our protagonist is the last remaining human on Earth. While this could be true, I personally believe that it is a timeless piece, with very little to imply the time period (when were jars invented?). What matters is that this man is incredibly isolated and is, perhaps as a result, chronically depressed (this may explain his romance with the pig, and the coprophagia). Throughout the film, we see clips of him forcing dolls' heads on pigeons and arranging various foul substances in jars, maybe to pass the time, maybe as an obsessive mania, nothing is for certain. What is certain is that this man is a sad case (the actor too if some of the more unsavoury moments are played out for real), and we as viewers have a disturbing experience intruding on his life. In conclusion, this is a thoroughly difficult film to watch and, although I have a weakness for such experiences, you will need a strong stomach and a lot of patience. In no way is this film rewarding or enjoyable; nonetheless it stays with you and I will defend it on the basis that it is not exclusively exploitative and that there will never have to be another film like it.

Can you think of anything more interesting than seeing a demented farmer walk around his farm for 80 minutes, occasionally playing dress-up with his birds, beheading his chickens, and having steamy sex with his wife, who happens to be a pig? I know I can. Which is quite sad, because the description on IMDb really made this seem like a movie worth seeing, if only for its originality and absurdity. Unfortunately, everything negative that has been said about this movie is true: it moves at a snail's pace, it's uninteresting, very disgusting, and ultimately not worth seeing. I fail to see the deeper meaning of a man running around naked in the mud chasing a sow, but then again, I never was that good at reading between the lines. What do I know? Maybe this is the epitome of genius, but I found it to be a waste of time and chances are that so will you. Don't see this movie.But any advice that I give you is not going to matter anyway, is it? You're probably going to see the film out of sheer morbid curiosity anyway. After all, how could any fan of obscure film pass up the chance to see something called "The Pig F----ng Movie"? You just decide for yourself how much time you really want to waste on this... um... "film". Don't say I didn't warn you!