This film focuses on the events and the investigation after Pasolini's murder. Pier Paolo Pasolini was one of Italy's greatest and controversial poets. He was however not only known for his words, but also for his deeds, especially the sexual ones and mostly with younger boys. It is no secret that he often angered the leading Italian politicians of his time, which was a very troubled time in his country.
Pasolini, un delitto italiano (Pasolini, an Italian Crime), internationally released as Who Killed Pasolini?, is a 1995 Italian crime-drama film co-written and directed by Marco Tullio Giordana. It depicts the trial against Pino Pelosi, who was charged with the murder of artist and filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini.
In this way it's interesting to take a closer look at his murder, because there was obviously more to it than meets the eye. This film is a strong insight in the life of Pasolini. While focusing on the police investigation of his murder, we get to know more about his life. I didn't know Pasolini(or his work) very well, but after having seen this film I'm determined to learn more about him as soon as possible. However, don't expect to much of this little documentary/film either. It's not a great history lesson, but it offers bits and pieces of the life(and murder) of an interesting man. What one makes of it from there on is up to the viewer.
Certainly worth a look!
. Part of the book series (IIAS) Abstract Pier Paolo Pasolini was murdered on the night of November 1–2, 1975, in a dirt field by Via dell’Idroscalo, near Ostia, outside Rome. He was beaten with a wooden plank and then run over by his own car, his heart crushed. 1 Vivid and disturbing photographs of his maimed body appeared in newspapers and magazines in the following days. 2 A Roman youth called Giuseppe or “Pino” Pelosi, “La Rana” (The Frog), who was below the age of criminal majority, was stopped by police later that night while driving Pasolini’s car.
In a drawn-out legal process, he was later be tried and convicted of Pasolini’s murder. One level of court judged that he had not—as he claimed—acted alone in his assault, but rather in the company of “persons unknown.” 3.