Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma

Speak the name in some circles and you'll be greeted with cries of derision and condemnation. In others, you'll be told it's one of the most important, powerful films ever made. There may be no movie so infamous or so hotly contested as Pier Paolo Pasolini's last film 'Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom.'

Inspired by 'The 120 Days of Sodom, or the School of Libertinage' by the Marquis de Sade, the film is set in Italy during WWII and follows four fascists named The Duke, The Magistrate, The President and The Bishop. Alongside their barbaric troupe of acolytes, they put a group of eighteen children through a Dantesque cycle of torture and perversion.

Completely unremitting in its' depiction of depravity and offering the viewer no respite from scenes of brutality at any point during its' runtime, the film makes for a fascinatingly violent viewing experience that is uncomfortable and unforgettable.

It may be easier to start discussing the definitive positive elements of the movie. The cinematography and shot construction is undeniably beautiful and artistic. The images on screen are strange, perverse and off-putting, but captured with style and skill behind the camera- a credit to the work of cinematographer Tonino Delli Colli. The stirring soundtrack makes effective use of pieces by Chopin, Bach and others, while Ennio Morricone's original score is haunting.

The film also benefits from having a cast full of dedicated, brave performers, whose work lingers in the mind long after the film has ended. The actors playing the four fascist libertines are all outlandishly, disgustingly terrific, with Giorgio Cataldi and Aldo Valetti being particularly memorable as The Bishop and The President respectively. As one of their accomplices, Hélène Surgère also does admirable work, but it's hard to appreciate the performances when the characters are so detestable and despicable and the actions they perform so thoroughly base.

This is the problem with the whole film actually: it's hard to appreciate because Pasolini was so committed to showing the audience nothing but cruelty. 'Salò' could be seen as an allegory about the corrupting effect of absolute power, of the extreme savagery man is capable of when they have no inhibitions, shame or empathy. By showing us nothing but repetitive scenes of torture to illustrate this theme, though, the film seems a little cursory in its' examinations of same. A cynical critic might say it's a very one-note movie, that note being one of sadism, pain and disgust.

On the other hand, one might say that it is important for artists like Pasolini to hold truth to power in their work. While the film is based on the writings of the Marquis de Sade, by updating the film to a WWII setting, Pasolini can make commentary on the barbarism of the fascists during that war.

When the allies were liberating concentration camps, lampshades made with human skin were found. The twisted, unnecessarily cruel experiments Dr. Josef Mengele performed on children are well documented, as well as other countless acts of sadism undertaken by the fascists who enjoyed absolute power at the time.

One could say Pasolini is giving us an account of the viciousness that took place during WWII that cannot be forgotten or obfuscated by history- the film will always be around to remind us of where humanity went wrong. Except, 'Salò' is largely confined to an isolated mansion, which sets the proceedings apart from the war or real life. This gives the film an odd, otherworldly feeling that in turn makes trying to contemporize or understand it in a real-world context incredibly difficult and somewhat pointless, even if that is what Pasolini intended.

Say what you will about 'Salò', it does make you think and will certainly make you feel something- it is a visceral and intellectual experience. It's also a thoroughly uncomfortable one, featuring nearly two hours of torture and sexual perversion with no break for the viewer from the unceasing depravity whatsoever. It's not a film someone will say they enjoyed- and if they do be wary of that person- but it can be somewhat rewarding.

It is certainly unique and deserves its' infamous reputation as one of the most challenging pieces of cinema ever made. It is a film that will likely provoke different reactions from everyone who sees it- some will hate it and others will hail it as a masterpiece.

There are those of us whose feelings about the film are constantly in flux, who think they can see what Pasolini intended but don't think his ideas were expressed as eloquently as they could have been. Whatever the case and whatever your feelings are on the film, 'Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom' is an uncompromising journey into a world of depravity that is sure to leave an indelible impression on the viewer.

"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.

This is on the list of most disturbing movies ever. But it's not disturbing for the sake of it. There is an underlying exposition of a fascist government and it's ability to control to the most depraved extremes. I don't need to go into the plot, just don't watch if your skin crawls easily.

Apparently based loosely on the Marquis de Sade's eponymous story, it feels dirty...it feels icky. You will not finish the film feeling happy, relieved, redeemed, or satisfied. You will feel that humanity is capable of terrible things and sometimes for no real reason other than they can. It shows what happens when people blindly follow terrible people and abandoned their own sense of decency. The following orders defense will never work. When you've become an accomplice you ate equally guilty.

This movie has depth, but it's not an easy watch. It's not for a simple eve with a date. I can't imagine watching this with anyone other than fellow film students or a significant other you've been with for years.

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.

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.