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.
** 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.