So we all agree, then? This is infuriatingly opaque, turgid, smutty stodge. Speaking as someone who hasn't read Chaucer, half the time I found it hard to tell what was going on (or maybe I was merely unable to work out why it was going on), although I did detect a couple of bawdy jokes that failed to work visually and would better be told with words. (Many film-makers engage in this kind of losing battle; the Farrelly brothers tend to emerge with more credit than Pasolini does here, which isn't saying much.)
There seems to be no point to the whole other than, in Inspector Clouseau's words, "It's all part of Life's rich pageant," which means that Pasolini's film does poorly what more other films do well than any other film I can name. Both "A Canterbury Tale" (1944) and "A Knight's Tale" (2001) are better films which make direct reference to Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (the former being much better than the latter, of course). They're also, I must confess, the only other such films I've seen.
There seems to be no point to the whole other than, in Inspector Clouseau's words, "It's all part of Life's rich pageant," which means that Pasolini's film does poorly what more other films do well than any other film I can name. Both "A Canterbury Tale" (1944) and "A Knight's Tale" (2001) are better films which make direct reference to Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (the former being much better than the latter, of course). They're also, I must confess, the only other such films I've seen.