Salo -or- The 120 Days Of Sodom (1975)

[Renn Brown]

I had been waiting to see this for some time and I finally saw it a few nights ago. I wrote a blog on my first impression, but I really need to talk this one out. Is it a masterpiece that I'm missing? Is it a piece of shit that I'm giving too much credit? At the moment at least, I really think that it's a decent, not brilliant movie that happens to be really fucking extreme in subject matter.

Criterion thinks it's a masterpiece (so what), and it is very interesting at the least, so I want to hear some other folks takes. I know very few have seen it as since it is so on-the-edge, and has been very difficult to find in the past (rarest/most expensive DVD ever?!), but this is CHUD so some of you depraved fucks had to have seen this!

[Patrick Ripoll]

According to my book "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die", it's a metaphor for facism and has various commentaries on Italian history.

In a particularly notorious scene, a naked young woman is forced to eat excrement, which Pasolini maintained was a metaphor for consumer capitalism and the production of junk food.

Sounds like a good date movie.

[Renn Brown]

Good date movie... or the best date movie?

[Patrick Ripoll]

After Cronenberg's Crash, my girl let me pick her scab and rub my flacid penis up against the blood and plasma. Nothing is gonna top that.

[Renn Brown]

Well this discussion is off to a roaring start!

[Electrichead]

I skimmed through this the other day. I want to make some time to sit down with it, but on the surface, it looks like one fucked up film. I'll see how it goes from there.

[Andre Dellamorte]

I appreciate what Passolini is saying, and how he amps up the inhumanity. Compared to Ilsa, or the numerous other Nazi-sex films, I think it does a good job of making the defilement of the characters not erotic, or obviously not for the audience's amusement. I found it fairly shocking and affecting when I saw it for the first time, when the new Criterion comes out I'll probably give it another go around, but it's not the sort of film you want to watch over and over. Nwever been a big Passolini guy, though I like his religious films. Visconti and Bertolucci are my faves of their respective generations.

[Johnny Depth]

Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte

when the new Criterion comes out I'll probably give it another go around.

Is this official, or is this one of those "if it ever happens" statements?

If Criterion does put another edition out, my morbid curiousity is going to have to blind buy this.

[Andre Dellamorte]

http://www.criterion.com/asp/coming_soon.asp

Check August titles.

[Spike Marshall]

For whatever bizarre reason I was shown this in a double bill with Belle Du Jour. Unfortunately Du Jour was shown first and as such Salo was just a complete and utter sucker punch, nothing like watching that excrement scene in a cinema next to your girlfriend and filled with middle class academics.

[Johnny Depth]

Thanks Andre. I'm going to go for the plunge.

[Sam Strange]

There was a time when my curiosity for this was very high. I think that time might have passed. I'm not sure I can take it these days.

[Spike Marshall]

It is a great interpretation of Sade, although I've had to warn a few people off of the film after they saw Quills (don't ask) and searched for adaptations of the good Marquis' work.

[Death Surge]

Andre's dead on that the film's biggest success is taking it's largely sexual content and driving it in a completely non-erotic way. There's a real unsettling sense of defilement that makes those acts seem akin to watching an Auschwitz documentary. While it's lost some of it's shock value in our day, it's still amazingly powerful, and should be on any horror fan's must-see list (with the likes of "Men Behind the Sun" and the "August Underground" series), despite being far removed from anything that could be considered a horror film.

Now as a sick and twisted individual, I wish the end maiming, torture and death sequences took up more of the film, but that's just me.

[cheftournel]

Saw this in a full theater 'bout ten years ago, at the end of the movie more than half of the crowd had left.
Back then of course it was the kind of dare/tall tale movies you'd be proud to claim you've seen, ànd as a bonus you could spout all the metaphor claims that are used to elevate it in intellectual status.

Nowadays I have zero inclination to see it ever again. It's nauseating at best, with neither entertainment nor much educational/intellectual value imho. While I agree that you don't watch certain movies for fun, I feel that after reaching a certain point of maturity (in the sense of 'been there, done that') there's no added value to this one.
(which, in another way, is why won't revisit either the original nor the remake of 'Funny Games'.)

[Death Surge]

Originally Posted by cheftournel

Back then of course it was the kind of dare/tall tale movies you'd be proud to claim you've seen, ànd as a bonus you could spout all the metaphor claims that are used to elevate it in intellectual status.

Nowadays I have zero inclination to see it ever again. It's nauseating at best, with neither entertainment nor much educational/intellectual value imho. While I agree that you don't watch certain movies for fun, I feel that after reaching a certain point of maturity (in the sense of 'been there, done that') there's no added value to this one.
(which, in another way, is why won't revisit either the original nor the remake of 'Funny Games'.)

This seems to imply that there's a immature aspect to enjoying films that contain shocking/horrific content, essentially grouping films like "Salo" with 80's teen slashers or having once liked "The Goonies" . If you don't enjoy film that contains this type of content, that's fine, but please don't try to sell "maturity" as the explanation of why you've come to that conclusion.

And stating there's no educational/Intellectual value to this film is either a glaring reflection of your distaste for shocking content, or indicative that you have a minimal understanding of cinema in general.

[Andre Dellamorte]

It would make a good double feature with either version of Funny Games.

[Renn Brown]

Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte

It would make a good double feature with either version of Funny Games.

Funny you mention that, because that's exactly what we did (with the US version).

[Nicholas]

I'm guessing I'm not alone in wanting to see this yet still a bit hesitant. One of these days I'll come across it and view it but I still haven't read anything that will make me actively seek it out.
But I'm still curious on everyone's thoughts on the differences between Pasolini and his crew and the events he was reenacting. Is it a difference of intensity and realism? Where does the line between recreating and repeating terrible events lie, and does Pasolini cross it?

[Renn Brown]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

I'm guessing I'm not alone in wanting to see this yet still a bit hesitant. One of these days I'll come across it and view it but I still haven't read anything that will make me actively seek it out.
But I'm still curious on everyone's thoughts on the differences between Pasolini and his crew and the events he was reenacting. Is it a difference of intensity and realism? Where does the line between recreating and repeating terrible events lie, and does Pasolini cross it?

I don't believe he crosses any lines, because even if the actors were a touch under-age, it was all consensual. He had a controllable number of actors, any of whom could have left if they wanted.

Something like Farewell Uncle Tom raises the question you mention worse, since that involved thousands of poverty-stricken Haitians being manipulated into acting as slaves in terrible conditions. This also included babies and very very young children (some of which are put into some pretty despicable situations).

Salo is a bit dubious, enough to make you look at it a bit cock-eyed, but it is nothing compared to something like that.

[Erix]

This is one of those films... I respect it more than like it. It's impossible to "enjoy" on a traditional level. But Pasolini had no interest in that of course.

It's the kind of film you have to see with an informed audience because there is no way to take it literally, as Pasolini uses Brechtian detachment to tell the story and expects the audience to interpret his symbolisms. So, if watched with the wrong people, you get a lot of "Why is that crazy Italian lady telling those stupid stories and singing?" or "Why aren't they projectile vomiting when they're eating that shit?" The events are not depicted realistically. They are presented as "markers" meant to represent different aspects of our culture.

I think he has a lot to say about society becoming desensitized to its own ills. Your interpretation of this through the way the fascists become progressively more passive with their atrocities is spot on. What he has to say about matrimony is, in my opinion, quite well-depicted in the forced marriage of the two youths.

We, as a society, have come to view matrimony as the holy union of two beings and it is the only way to have a conventional union and feel that it is "good" and "right." But, the truth is, Matrimony just is. Period. It shouldn't be the only sacred catalyst for two people to express their love to each other freely. The fascists marry the two youths and then rape them individually. They violate the union because, point of fact, it is meaningless to them. They are hypocrites. We place a lot of value on the importance of marriage... But people still get divorced left and right... We don't honestly value anything about it. It's just a symbol - and a meaningless one at that.

Whether you like the movie or not, it's clear Pasolini knew what he was doing. He really wanted to get a rise out of his audience and make them feel very uncomfortable in their own skin. Because it hurts to look at yourself in the mirror of truth. There's an eerie resonance to all of this when you consider that Pasolini was brutally murdered shortly after the film's release.

Powerful stuff and I admire his intentions. But it's not something I look forward to re-visiting too often.

[Andrew Eaton]

Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte

I found it fairly shocking and affecting when I saw it for the first time, when the new Criterion comes out I'll probably give it another go around, but it's not the sort of film you want to watch over and over.

I'll echo Dre here. I do like his Jesus film though. It's head and shoulders above the rest of the Christ-bios, with Last Temptation at a close second for me.

[Renn Brown]

Originally Posted by Erix

I think he has a lot to say about society becoming desensitized to its own ills. Your interpretation of this through the way the fascists become progressively more passive with their atrocities is spot on. What he has to say about matrimony is, in my opinion, quite well-depicted in the forced marriage of the two youths.

See, that makes more sense. When I was pondering his ideas on marriage, oddly enough I wasn't even thinking about the forced marriage. I was really looking at the two contradicting marriages at the beginning and towards the end of the four masters. You have the heterosexual aristocratic type arranged marriage thing, then the strangely proceeded homosexual marriage later on. Taking in to account that the director was a homosexual (and apparently a fan of the younger set) I just get a little more confused.

Thinking on what you said, I can wrap my head around it a little bit more.

[Erix]

Originally Posted by Renn Brown

I was really looking at the two contradicting marriages at the beginning and towards the end of the four masters. You have the heterosexual aristocratic type arranged marriage thing, then the strangely proceeded homosexual marriage later on. Taking in to account that the director was a homosexual (and apparently a fan of the younger set) I just get a little more confused.

Thinking on what you said, I can wrap my head around it a little bit more.

Glad I could help out a little. Keep in mind, it is just my interpretation. But if you think it holds water, that's fine by me. There is a general systematic view of marriage throughout the whole thing. Given that Pasolini was a homosexual and this was years before people were even TALKING about same sex marriages, it is not surprising that he seemed to have a generally cynical view of the whole institution of marriage as being a "flaw" in society's system.

I'd be curious to see other people's take on this. I never thought I would participate in a message board discussion of Salo. Thanx for bringing it up. You're almost making me want to watch it again.

...Almost

[Renn Brown]

I'm just glad a few people have seen it and are willing to talk about it. I was wondering if I was going to get any response or if I was going to have to wait until August. I do hope some folks around here pick it up then and we can have some big dialogues on it.

It's funny, immediately after it finished I though Salo would be perfect for Devin to resurrect his CHUDsploitation column, but now... not so much. It's not nearly base enough.

[Patrick Ripoll]

If rape is an act of violence and not a sexual act, this must be the ultimate rape movie. Because the sexuality is far gone from the sadism. It's all about the exercise of power, and it's this that makes it work well as a metaphor for fascism as opposed to just a series of unpleasant events. I think the repeated use of doorways and hallways to frame establishing shots also does a lot to add to the oppressive feeling of the film. Even in the large ballroom where the prostitute spins her increasingly perverse and darkly comedic tales, the atmosphere is utterly oppressing.

[Pvt. Spunkmeyer]

I started this up last night and unfortunately couldn't make it past the Circle of Shit segment. I can stomach theatrical depictions of just about any act - except the consumption of excrement. I tried to keep watching, but once the feast of feces entered the picture I really felt nauseous, so I shut it off.

I do plan on finishing it this evening, however. Since I don't have much knowledge of Italian history and most of the metaphors fly right over my head, I'm viewing the movie to simply see if I can withstand it. In that instance I liken it to watching one of Lynch's oddities - I may not understand what is going on, but I appreciate the craft and the way the film elicits a visceral emotional (and in this case physical) response.

[JacknifeJohnny]

I watched this weeks go (after years of waiting for a decently priced DVD) and meant to start a thread on it, but whatever. When I first read de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom I described it as a book that read like exactly what it was, a work written by a man with a lot of time on his hands. I didn't find it particularly disturbing because the setup (such as it is) quickly devolves into an unwieldy (and frankly boring) encyclopedia of sexual atrocities. I never fully appreciated its satirical qualities because midway through the piece becomes such a fucking labor to get through. It's alternate title should be: "120 Ways To Say Eat My Fuck".

Salo is difficult to get through as well, but in a far more substantive way. I own "120 Days" (and "Justine"), but since I've not read it in 8 or 9 years, maybe I'm being a bit unfair when I say that Salo's success as an adaptation is actually less abstract than 120 Days' success as an original work. This is likely due to Pasolini's very smart and far more relatable quasi-historical setting of the film. His queer aesthetic sort of lightens things a bit, at least for me, so it just barely escapes being two hours of pure, immutably oppressive degradation, but just barely.