ironhorse_iv If you ever, wonder what 1996's 'Babe' would be like, if it was directed by an insane art house Belgium director, named Thierry Zéno, then here you go. 'Wedding Trough' AKA 'Vase de noces' is a 1970s art house silence film, about a crazy disturb nameless farmer, (Dominique Garny) who falls in love with his pig, which leads to first bestiality, rape, and then, murder, when the relationship to him, has turned soured. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, this film is clumsy as a hog on ice. It really tries hard to be, a smart avant-garde, but it come across as more dull & pretentious, than ever. As one scholar puts it, people all over the world have made swine stand for "extremes of human joy or fear, celebration, ridicule, and repulsion." Sadly, this film fails to show much of that. Its content is as a dead pig in the sunshine. Very offensive, rather than beautiful. The film does really does pushes the boundaries of what is accepted. Yet. I'll, at least, try to understand this film on its own terms. For this reason, everything in it is left to interpretation. Synonymous with negative attributes, especially greed, gluttony, and uncleanliness, and these ascribed attributes have often led to critical comparisons between pigs and humans. In the film, they try to show this, by having the farmer father pig mutant babies, however, since the movie had no funds to make convincing half-human pig children. They just used regular piglets to show the farmer, humanity side. The farmer, at first, tries hard to teach and treat the animals as if they were human beings. He allows them to share the dinner table, his clothes, his bed, and his house. This is foreshadowed by the man putting a doll head on a pigeon. However, he gets frustration, due to their lack of manners and their instinct animalistic behavior. In the end, he is the one that degenerate, the furthest, showing how beastly, human being can become; which is foreshadowed, by the cutting of the head of the hen, in the beginning of the film. If you look further, into the black and white film, it seem to me, that the man is a condemned soul that living in what looks like, a post Rapture world, as there is nobody else, around, besides him and Beelzebub (AKA the Pig). Because of this, the man feels like he is dirty, thus he act like an animal. He's mentally disturbed. However, I don't feel, he's autism, like the filmmakers would love to claim. Being autism, doesn't cause people to eat their own feces. No, this type of a behavior has to come, with the setting, in which, he lives. Without mankind to judge him; it allows the beast inside the man to do, whatever, he wants. Typically, the film works the same way, as if allows the audience to watch it, without being judge. Yet, I have a feeling, the majority of people that, somehow like, this film, has that same disturb mental mindset. In my opinion, I think all these scenes, where he demonstrates bizarre behavior is not right. I don't like this movie, at all, not only, due to the large amount of animal cruelty, but badly paced, it is. The scene of him eating his feces lasts for almost half an hour, nearly a third of the movie. It really badly edited. Not only that, but the film is way too repetitive. In short, the film seem, least than an art house film, and more like weird fetish porno. It even has that weird techno mixed with classical music soundtrack to add to the pain. It seem like it was made for the purpose of sexual arousal. After all, some cultures believe that the pig represent the symbol of virility, strength, and fertility and no amount of disagreement against Kafkaesque and Freudian theories on human automata can delay that. While this film never held a theatrical release, it did have a limited festival run, building its notoriety around the world. One such, screening was at the Perth International Film Festival of 1975, in which, upset, the audiences, so much, that it was latter essentially ban in Australia and New Zealand, where it remained largely unchanged since then, due to in part that the film still violates Australian obscenity laws. Its controversial subject and explicit execution continue to create chaos, in other countries as, others refused to show it as the claims that all of the pig sex scenes were simulated, might not be, true. In the end, "Vase de noces" has become one of the rarest films that isn't a "lost film", because of that. It wasn't until 2009, when the German distributor Camera Obscura and the Swedish company Njuta Films released Region 2 copies of the movie, that the film found its way on video and the dark places of the internet. There is also a documentary, about the making of the film, out there, but I have yet, to watch it. Overall: I really couldn't tolerate, watching this explicit movie at all, even with my weird sense of morbid curiously. The reason, why, I watch it, in the first place, was, because I foolish, mistook it, for the 1981's comedy, 'Porky' at the time. In the end, I really can't recommended, watching this sadistically evil film. Like the Jewish, & Muslims cultures, it just better to stay away from this pig. Indeed, this movie indeed shows, that you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Like the Great Porky Pigs says, 'That's all, folks'.

talastra 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.

gunslinger861 I remember being 15 and discovering a website called video mayhem of Florida. I remember it was a vast oasis of wonderfully obscure and violent films,most of which i never dreamed i thought id'e see. To my luck i have though. One title in particular stood out to me as something i never in my wildest dreams thought id'e get a chance at. The film was vase de noces,also known as The wedding trough,and the much cruder title The pig fornicating film. The basic story is of a lonely farmer who may or may not be the last man on earth,although i think the idea of the last man on earth is a much more disturbing plot point. Anyway through his loneliness and isolation he from s bond with a large sow pig. As the film progresses we see a bizarre courtship between man and animal culminating in a very graphic scene of bestiality. Strangely enough the sow becomes pregnant and gives birth to three little piglets in a graphic birthing scene. We watch as the farmer tries in vain to raise the quote unquote children but fails as they prefer there mother to him.In a fit of desperation he hangs all the piglets. This being seen by the mother pig,she runs into a mud pit and drowns.To the farmers despair he hauls his beloved out of the pit and attempts to bury her with himself. Now in complete state of hopelessness he goes on a spree of eating both animal and human feces until he grows violently ill and hangs himself. The last image is of his swinging corpse.Now before i actually watched this film i can not tell you how many negative reviews i read about this film. When i finally got down to watch it i was surprisingly entertained. The film plays out like tragedy. I was not so much disturbed by the content as i was by the themes of this film. At first glance one would pass this film off as nothing but zoophelic garbage passed of as an art film,and it would be hard to argue that.however to quote shrek this film is like an onion,it has layers. And the deeper you go into this film the harder it is to take. Once you get past the ideas of bestiality you realise that there are themes of isolation,madness,loneliness,the trials frustrations of parenting,and even forbidden love to a strange extent. I do not condone this film for the fact that the idea of platonic love between a man and an animal not only disturbs me but i also find it reprehensible. I can though and I'm not trying to sound contradictory understand the fact that the single true character in this film deals with true mental illness and one has to understand that in that state of mind one can be capable of some truly vile acts.To me this film is a showcase of a directors demons and personal woes although i can not say if bestiality is his true focus. Maybe the aforementioned issues above...who knows. As a film vase de noces surpasses any art film i have seen with the exception of begotten. Really as an experiment more then anything, for that alone i give this film a higher then usual rating. However be warned this film is greatly troubling whether its the content or the themes you may not walk away from this film with the same outlook for a while.

Helltopay27 Wedding Trough is a sick piece of garbage that no human being should ever be subjected to ever knowing about, let alone viewing. Despite being an art-house film obscurity with some of the most surrealistic images ever captured on film, it's still one of the most repugnant, upsetting, and disturbing films ever made, and is no different than any other exploitation sleaze made during this period. It's sheer ability to bore and disgust is incredible beyond belief, with displays so nauseating that I had to turn away from the screen several times. I can honestly say it's the only movie that almost set off my gag reflex. Surrealism is supposed to be the interpretation and display of the artist's unconscious mind. If this is true, then director Thierry Zéno must be a latent zoophiliac who likes to subject people to the most insanely strange and disgusting series of events that will make you think the human race is doomed if even one more person remotely similar to this man exists (and there is: "star" Dominique Garny). What makes it worse is that it wasn't a painting that he used to express his warped mind, but had it actually acted out with real creatures.It's hard to examine this movie chronologically, because there essentially is no plot to speak of. More, it's the time and trials of a perverse and morally depraved farmer and his hubby, the pig. You'd almost have to describe every random and outright bizarre scene one by one in order. It opens with the farmer trying to fasten doll heads onto pigeons, and after doing this for a few minutes, he decides to go grope his pig. The movie is full of random displays of a man and his pig "bonding," such as both of them sitting and rolling in a giant pile of manure. Anyway, he decides to get naked around his pig a couple of times, then chases it around, and finally commits the deed. If you thought it might happen off screen or in the shadows, you're dead wrong. He screws his pig in full daylight with thrusts so graphic that it actually seems like he's having sex with it. When the piglets are finally born (with the births shown in their full "glory"), he tries to bond with his children, but they don't like him too much. So, he hangs them all. The sow freaks out, runs off, and drowns in a mud hole. Now that the love of his life is gone, he tries burying himself alive (which doesn't work out too well), so he spends the last ten minutes of the movie eating his own liquidated crap until he mercifully hangs himself for his sake and ours.Specifically, the stomach-churning scenes throughout are too many to count. Most notably are obviously the seriously disturbing shows of loving animals way too much (though it's no different than what you would see at a PETA compound). Other completely random and disturbing acts are animals copulating constantly, scenes of the farmer collecting strange materials and mixtures in jars, and the most vomit-worthy of all, the ten minutes of already eaten smörgåsbord, which I can say in all honesty was the most disgusting thing I've ever seen in my life. I was also surprised to see that some animals were also actually killed in the movie. Early on, a chicken has its head cut off with a straight razor, and the farmer puts the body in a cage while it runs around decapitated for about a minute before it dies. The sow and piglets also seem to have really been killed. But shocking and nauseating displays aren't the only things going against this movie. The film is downright boring. It crawls at a pace so slow that it makes Atom Age Vampire look like Terminator 2. Scenes are drawn out way too long, some that involve the farmer walking around doing nothing, others just show close ups of animals (again, often having sex), and they often last over ten minutes! The strange acts don't hold your attention for more than a few minutes, and when the scene changes, it's another chance for you to test your constitution and think, "Oh boy, here we go again!"Because I don't enjoy the inner-mechanisms of a perverse psycho's mind doesn't mean that I can't interpret art. Rather, I think this is the farthest thing you can get from art, because scenes are set up in such a way that it seems that this is simply trying to be nauseating exploitation (the coprophagia scenes, for example). As a result, any underlying messages that may be present are lost in the barrage of filth coming from the screen. Surely there are other horrifyingly grotesque films out there as art (notably Jörg Buttgereit's works), but at least those films can be found somewhat tragic and even beautiful as they deal with human feelings and sadness. This, however, is a freak show meant only to push the limits of surrealism to include perversity beyond the realm of the imagination. Its only intention in art is to hope someone who views it is naive enough to think that any bizarre images caught on a visual medium automatically makes something surrealistic art (surreal, yes; art, no). I seriously suggest that anyone curious beyond belief to see this should skip it. It's better to be driven mad by curiosity than to be stuck with these images trapped in your head for the rest of your life.