Saló o los 120 días de Sodoma

disturbing. this is the basic conclusion about the last film by Pasolini. denunciation of fascism and bourgeoisie. a masterpiece. last fight of Pasolini against his demons. disgusting. a trash. demonstration of madness. chaotic and boring and scatological. for me, it is only the end of a way. a kind of verdict. after a career in search of truth and beauty and the measure. Salo is a social and political manifesto. attack against hypocrisy and denunciation of the traces of fascism. a film as a form of exorcism. cruel and honest and hopeless. but, after 40 years, it is perceived in different manner. its message is suffocated by the violence of images. the temptation to discover it as portrait of consumerism is covered by the forms of eroticism. and about the waves of prejudices. it is a Pasolini. the last. this is only important thing. the rest - manifestation of personal perceptions.

Pier Paolo Pasolini, as is well known, was murdered not long after he finished work on this, his most audacious and confrontational film, yet even the most casual viewing of SALO begs the question - had he not been murdered, would he have taken his own life anyway? Every sequence, every shot and practically every moment of this film is so burdened with despair, barely concealed rage and a towering disgust with the human race, one gets the impression that Pasolini was barely hanging onto life - and any attendant shreds of hope - by his fingernails. Although ostensibly an adaptation of one of DeSade's most depraved works channeled through the horrifying excesses of the Second World War with the Fascist ruling classes as its (authentically vile) villains, SALO also contains a lot of contemporary criticism - Pasolini hated the modern world, and explained the stomach-churning 'banquet of s**t' as a none-too-subtle attack on the encroaching global domination of the fast food chains. (The scenes of sexual excess can similarly be read as a despairing attack on the permissive society - those who come to SALO expecting titillation or B-movie sleaze will be sorely disappointed.) Beyond the nihilistic content, which has been well documented elsewhere, the film has an overall mood that seems to have been engineered to make the viewer thoroughly depressed. Shot on washed-out, faded film stock using primarily static cameras, long shots, choppy editing and very few cutaways, SALO has a visual style reminiscent of cinema-verite documentary. Add to this the unnerving use of big band music, piano dirges and the (intentionally?) scrappy post-dubbed dialogue, and the distancing effect on the viewer is complete. SALO comes across as one long primal scream of rage, designed to shake the viewer out of his complacency, and in this respect, the film succeeds unequivocally. Whether or not you would care to watch this more than once, or indeed for 'entertainment', is another matter, but SALO is an important film that demands a careful viewing ONLY by those prepared for it.

Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

Nine young boys and nine young girls are gathered up and taken from their homes. They are taken to a secluded castle in Italy during WWII where they hear a variety of perverted stories while their captures sexually and mentally abuse them.

Pier Paolo Pasolini would be murdered before the release of this, his final film and many still seem to think it wasn't a random murder. Many people believe that his politics had some higher ups order his murder but it's doubtful we'll ever know what the truth was. With that said, this final film of his is certainly unlike anything you're ever going to see as it's about as depraved, disgusting and depressing as you're going to get. I personally think SALO, OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM is a very good movie but it's hard to really recommend it to anyone.

Based on the work of Marquis de Sade, this film is about as disturbing as everything put to film. The real debate is rather this is some sort of serious art film with a message or is it just a cheap piece of exploitation that was meant to make you sick. I mean, certain horror movies are trashed for their disgusting scenes of violence and sexual brutality but how many movies are actually worse than this one? Not only do you get disgusting stories being told ranging from child rape to people being forced to eat poop but we have to see these things as well. This is a film that really works on the viewers mind so it's going to be up to that viewer whether they take it in as art or some sort of exploitation.

For my money, the film is a piece of art. I'm not going to say what the director was trying to do or say with the picture but to me this film works because it seems very real. It seems like you're really there watching these horrible events and the film really doesn't back down at anything. The stories are rather brutal and we get scenes of such sexual depravity that you can't help but be disturbed. There really isn't any style here because the camera just captures the horrors that are there. The performances are raw, realistic and just add to the horrors of the story.

Obviously, not everyone is going to be able to take this film and I really can't say I'd blame anyone for turning it off. Again, we can debate the politics and message of the film but there's no question that when the end credits start you're going to need a shower.

Pasolini made it quite clear in several texts that this is not an anti-fascist film, but rather that fascism is a symbol for something far more pervasive. He ultimately saw himself as a committed director, and thus all of his historical films are about the present, and this film was made in the 70's, not in the 40's. It is rather an anti-bourgeois film. (Pasolini's political enemies at the time were not fascists at all, but the Christian Democrats)...Furthermore it is NOT a defense of Sade, but an apology for his earlier writings and films which mythicized acts of violence and glorified them as the pure, unconscious, pre-verbal expression of the subproletariat. However Pasolini saw the riots of the bourgeois students in 1968 as nihilistic acts of revolt, not revolution--a revolt of the Bourgeoise against itself, as his poetry makes clear. He watched in horror as he saw his vision of true revolution twisted into a childish and merely destructive tantrum against the previous generation. And so it is the Bourgeoise, symbolized by Fascism, which he represents and condemns in Salo, in the guise of what he considered to be a medieval morality play. And it is in this context that he apologizes for having made statements like "Only a bloodbath can save the world" (1962), which is quoted in the film. Yet, like everything else, it has been appropriated by the bourgeoise, who misinterpret it first as Nietzsche, then as St. Paul, until it gets reduced to a merely absurdist Dada interpretation. The characters are continually misinterpreting the many structuralist citations, because they have no history. History has been destroyed, and thus Pasolini is trying to re-introduce it in the film. The revolution, by 1968, was impossible, as there was nobody left to fight it. The bourgeoise, Pasolini lamented, had subsumed everything into itself-there was no "other", only a technological god-like and all-inclusive power structure. But what is most shocking is that it is the Sadean libertarianism and the permissivness of that class that Pasolini finds most disturbing. He held that the permissiveness of the "anarchy of power" was more tyrannical than repression. He was most traumitized, oddly, by the increasing tolerance of homosexuals. And so truely Pasolini takes the side of Dante, not Sade. And finally, its ultimately a film about misinterpretation. What the characters say and what they do (as in Sade) are incongruent. He knew that he was to be misunderstood by his Bourgeois audience, as it misunderstood itself, Pasolini said that it was intrinsic that Salo remain enigmatic (on the model of Dante), and this is the film's real genius. Judging by most of these reviews, Pasolini made his point.

"Salo: The 120 Days of Sodom" (1975): Be prepared for one of the roughest films you'll ever see. This was Pasolini's last, and going by what I've seen, his vision only became bleaker and more disturbed as the years clawed along. Using the Marquis de Sade's ideas on the decadence of 18th century France, Pasolini represents Fascist Italy (1944-45). We are shown the upper class – always removed and protected from the outer world – as predators of the poor, weak, young, and less educated. A group of wealthy adults shop amongst the kidnapped older children of bourgeoisie. They choose eighteen, and steal them away to a hidden mansion, where there is no escape. There, the adults live out every twisted fantasy they've ever had or can now muster, while demeaning, raping, and torturing the youngsters. The teens react in many ways, none of which are "pretty". This entire film experience MUST be viewed as a symbolic, emotional "explanation" of what it was like to live under Nazi/Fascist rule (in this case), and how an otherwise normal, decent society could be turned into lunatics and sub-animals. Although made 30 years ago (with the usual weaker production qualities of that era), I cannot think of another work which so blatantly and painfully illustrates what those in power are capable of doing when boredom gives rein to impulse. In comparison, "Lord of the Flies" barely lights upon these issues, "Pink Flamingos" was but a tiny, kitschy springboard, and "Schindler's List" described a much narrower range of degradation. To this day, "Salo: …" is banned in some countries. This is NOT a film about acting, lighting, sound, camera work, etc.. This is a film about states of mind – theirs then, ours now. P.S.: If you are interested in set design, this one is FILLED with original Cubist/Bauhaus/Futurist/Moderne furnishings, murals, and art. Spectacular. Those styles were not yet being reproduced, so Pasolini used the real thing. There is also an interesting use of a Charles Rennie MacIntosh chair…which will alter how you see this design from here on out.