Reproduzir clip3:12
Assistir a If You Liked Terrifier 3, Watchlist These Endurance Horror Classics
Durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial na Itália, quatro fascistas encurralaram nove adolescentes e os submeteram a cento e vinte dias de torturas.Durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial na Itália, quatro fascistas encurralaram nove adolescentes e os submeteram a cento e vinte dias de torturas.Durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial na Itália, quatro fascistas encurralaram nove adolescentes e os submeteram a cento e vinte dias de torturas.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 2 vitórias no total
Uberto Paolo Quintavalle
- Eccellenza
- (as Umberto P. Quintavalle)
Hélène Surgère
- Signora Vaccari
- (as Helene Surgere)
Resumo
Reviewers say 'Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom' is a controversial film exploring power, corruption, and depravity. Based on de Sade's work, it depicts extreme abuse by fascists. Many find it disturbing yet artistically significant, while others criticize its graphic content and slow pace. Its examination of fascism and power abuse is noted, sparking debates on its artistic and moral value.
Avaliações em destaque
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.
*** 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.
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.
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.
Salo, the final film by Pasolini, is far and away the most affecting film I've ever seen of it's type. The images that it shows will stay with every viewer forever, they are unforgettable. Yet, you will wish you could forget them.
The film is about a group of rich Fascists during WWII-Nazi Occupied Italy, where they kidnap a group of 18 youngsters, allowing only physically perfect specimins to stay, and subject them to various forms of mental, physical and sexual torture over the next 120 Days. The torture starts off in a sexual nature--Sodomy, rape, humiliation and so on-- and slowly degrades and descends into mental and physical torture. Just when you think what you are seeing can't get worse, it does, ten-fold.
What makes Salo so brutally shocking and disturbing is its uncompromised and blunt way of showing the acts of horror. It is a very quiet and slow film, mostly shot using static and still cameras, it feels more like a documentary than a fictional film. It's clear upon viewing, that Pasolini wanted to remind us all that violence should not be entertainment. As such, every act of violence and degredation is drained of all its possible energy and excitement, and shown in a sad, painful light. Nothing is sugar coated, nothing is softened. This film is an attack on our desensitized feelings towards violence. Yet, at the same time, the film purposely desensitizes us to certain acts -- Such as rape. We see it so much during the film that it becomes "normality" to us, we barely raise an eyebrow. Upon realizing this, one also realizes how the horrible acts shown in the film are possible, and it's a terrible realization.
Salo continues to descend until at the end, when we are taken to the punishing grounds, where various rule breakers are tortured and murdered. This final sequence is the most harrowing and effective I've ever seen in a film. As the victims are tortured and murdered, each one of the fascist rulers take turns as voyer, watching from a second story window, far enough away to not hear the screams of terror and pain. And we watch with him. The film attempts to equate our viewing of this film to their viewing of the executions, after all, we're watching these acts for "entertainment", just as he is. And we distance ourselves from the acts in order to enjoy them, as he does by watching through binoculars far away. It's a savage and truthful attack, one that is impossible to deny.
Also incredibly unsettling is the inherent joy that the villains (Heroes?) feel at their victims pain, sadness and discomfort. Sometimes even to the point of sexual arousal. There is a scene where a girl is crying because her mother died trying to save her from these people. She is completely naked as she weeps, to us, she's the picture of vulnerability and sadness, to the fascists, it's the most exciting thing they've seen all day. The fascists all stand and watch her weep with the utmost sexualexcitement. It is terrifying. It's scenes like these that set Salo apart from other "gross out" movies. Some of the most affecting and frightening scenes are ones where there is quiet, watching the expressions and reactions of people to the various horrible acts.
Salo is a film of rage and sadness. It is a film that asks you to hate humanity, to hate what we're capable of; to look in the mirror and hate yourself. Then weep because nothing can be done about it. Nothing will ever change..
The film is about a group of rich Fascists during WWII-Nazi Occupied Italy, where they kidnap a group of 18 youngsters, allowing only physically perfect specimins to stay, and subject them to various forms of mental, physical and sexual torture over the next 120 Days. The torture starts off in a sexual nature--Sodomy, rape, humiliation and so on-- and slowly degrades and descends into mental and physical torture. Just when you think what you are seeing can't get worse, it does, ten-fold.
What makes Salo so brutally shocking and disturbing is its uncompromised and blunt way of showing the acts of horror. It is a very quiet and slow film, mostly shot using static and still cameras, it feels more like a documentary than a fictional film. It's clear upon viewing, that Pasolini wanted to remind us all that violence should not be entertainment. As such, every act of violence and degredation is drained of all its possible energy and excitement, and shown in a sad, painful light. Nothing is sugar coated, nothing is softened. This film is an attack on our desensitized feelings towards violence. Yet, at the same time, the film purposely desensitizes us to certain acts -- Such as rape. We see it so much during the film that it becomes "normality" to us, we barely raise an eyebrow. Upon realizing this, one also realizes how the horrible acts shown in the film are possible, and it's a terrible realization.
Salo continues to descend until at the end, when we are taken to the punishing grounds, where various rule breakers are tortured and murdered. This final sequence is the most harrowing and effective I've ever seen in a film. As the victims are tortured and murdered, each one of the fascist rulers take turns as voyer, watching from a second story window, far enough away to not hear the screams of terror and pain. And we watch with him. The film attempts to equate our viewing of this film to their viewing of the executions, after all, we're watching these acts for "entertainment", just as he is. And we distance ourselves from the acts in order to enjoy them, as he does by watching through binoculars far away. It's a savage and truthful attack, one that is impossible to deny.
Also incredibly unsettling is the inherent joy that the villains (Heroes?) feel at their victims pain, sadness and discomfort. Sometimes even to the point of sexual arousal. There is a scene where a girl is crying because her mother died trying to save her from these people. She is completely naked as she weeps, to us, she's the picture of vulnerability and sadness, to the fascists, it's the most exciting thing they've seen all day. The fascists all stand and watch her weep with the utmost sexualexcitement. It is terrifying. It's scenes like these that set Salo apart from other "gross out" movies. Some of the most affecting and frightening scenes are ones where there is quiet, watching the expressions and reactions of people to the various horrible acts.
Salo is a film of rage and sadness. It is a film that asks you to hate humanity, to hate what we're capable of; to look in the mirror and hate yourself. Then weep because nothing can be done about it. Nothing will ever change..
Reportedly, when the executives of one, now defunct, American film company saw "Saló", which they helped co-finance and had distribution rights on, they were so disturbed and embarrassed that they didn't know what to do. Are we going to release this thing? With our company name on it? Where?
They had to show that they released it somewhere in the U.S. or territories.
So they did. In a small theater in El Condado area near San Juan, Puerto Rico.
There's where I saw it. In the mid-70's. With the film company's name on it.
Is it any good? Well, I'm no great admirer of Pasolini. Frankly, I find his movies intolerable. And "Saló" is no exception. But, unlike his Trilogy of Life ("The Decameron", "Canterbury Tales", "Arabian Nights") where he at least displayed some flair and humor, this one is a different animal.
His style was always somewhat ponderous. In "Saló" it is heavily, oppressively didactic: static tableaux-style framing, a deliberately slow pace, no humor whatsoever, and actors who don't play characters but conceits. Although Pasolini uses De Sade's "120 Days of Sodom" as scaffolding and as a pointed commentary, "Saló" is actually based on real events that happened in the Republic of Saló in Northern Italy, where a group of wealthy fascists abducted a large group of young men and women, went on to debase them, and after they were done with them they killed them. Pasolini staged all the scenes as demonstrations of degradation and cruelty. And he does not flinch.
At the end he includes a bibliography.
It's an unpleasant experience.
Clearly, Pasolini, an award-winning poet and one of the leading intellectuals of his time, was very angry when he did this moving picture. He wanted to send a message to Italy and to the world.
It was his last film.
Months later he was murdered.
After several weeks of being in release, the theater was raided by our local vice authorities.
They had to show that they released it somewhere in the U.S. or territories.
So they did. In a small theater in El Condado area near San Juan, Puerto Rico.
There's where I saw it. In the mid-70's. With the film company's name on it.
Is it any good? Well, I'm no great admirer of Pasolini. Frankly, I find his movies intolerable. And "Saló" is no exception. But, unlike his Trilogy of Life ("The Decameron", "Canterbury Tales", "Arabian Nights") where he at least displayed some flair and humor, this one is a different animal.
His style was always somewhat ponderous. In "Saló" it is heavily, oppressively didactic: static tableaux-style framing, a deliberately slow pace, no humor whatsoever, and actors who don't play characters but conceits. Although Pasolini uses De Sade's "120 Days of Sodom" as scaffolding and as a pointed commentary, "Saló" is actually based on real events that happened in the Republic of Saló in Northern Italy, where a group of wealthy fascists abducted a large group of young men and women, went on to debase them, and after they were done with them they killed them. Pasolini staged all the scenes as demonstrations of degradation and cruelty. And he does not flinch.
At the end he includes a bibliography.
It's an unpleasant experience.
Clearly, Pasolini, an award-winning poet and one of the leading intellectuals of his time, was very angry when he did this moving picture. He wanted to send a message to Italy and to the world.
It was his last film.
Months later he was murdered.
After several weeks of being in release, the theater was raided by our local vice authorities.
"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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesSalò is a town in northern Italy which Benito Mussolini's Fascist government effectively made their capital from 1943 until they fell from power in 1945.
- Erros de gravaçãoWhen the Duke kisses several victims during Sergio and Renata's wedding, some victims and Ezio begin to laugh, off the character.
- Citações
The President: [while eating a meal of feces] Carlo, do this with your fingers.
[the President sticks two fingers in his mouth]
The President: And say, "I can't eat rice with my fingers like this."
Male Victim: [with fingers in his mouth] I can't eat rice.
The President: Then eat shit, you little bastard.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosEssential Bibliography: Roland Barthes: 'Sade, Fourier, Loyola' (Editions du Seuil); Maurice Blanchot: "Lautréamont et Sade' (Editions de Minuit; in Italy Dedalo Libri); Simone de Beauvoir: 'Faut-il brûler Sade' (Editions Gaimard); Pierre Klossowski: 'Sade mon prochain, le philosophe scélérat' (Editions du Seuil; in Italy SugarCo Edizioni); Philippe Sollers: 'L'écriture et l'experience des limites' (Editions du Seuil)
- Versões alternativasThe film was rejected for cinema by the BBFC in 1976 and a private showing of the uncut version at the Old Compton Cinema Club in London's Soho resulted in a police raid and confiscation of the movie. A heavily edited version - minus 6 minutes of footage including scenes of torture, homosexuality and excrement eating, and including a 4 minute prologue describing the history of the town of Salo - was later prepared by UK censor James Ferman for club showings. The film was finally passed completely uncut for cinema and video in the UK in December 2000.
- ConexõesEdited into Histoire(s) du cinéma: Une histoire seule (1989)
- Trilhas sonorasPrelude in C minor
(uncredited)
Composed by Frédéric Chopin (uncredited)
Played by Arnaldo Graziosi (uncredited)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Idiomas
- Também conhecido como
- Saló o los 120 días de Sodoma
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 1.808.595
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 57 min(117 min)
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente