17 Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom

[domino harvey]

Some of the topics we discussed were: What was the film really about; is it acceptable to make a film like this; what is a director's responsibility when working with young amateur actors; how true is the film to the attrocities of real life etc. So, when people are critizing the film I always come to think of this evening. A film that raises all these questions and emotions can't be a failure. On the contrary, it is clearly a sign of a true masteripiece.

No it isn't, and that's not a valid defense of this or any movie. A reaction is involuntary; it's a symptom, not a reward.

Purely as a talking point, this thread proves Salo has some limited value for instigating discussion, but these discussions could easily have been jump-started by any real atrocity or violent acts in far better films, films that don't circle the drain for two hours with the same simplistic and ugly idea. This film's passionate defenders make me feel like Olivia D'Abo in Kicking and Screaming, shaking her head at her bf's friends wasting so much time focusing on things that don't matter. So many films deserve new attention, new defenses, new viewers. So many films that aren't Salo.

A film that assumes we need to be spoon-fed contrived horrors, when we're surrounded (then and now) by the reminders of tragic legacies and current depravities, is a film that has little faith in the audience's intelligence. I don't need to see teenage girls being force-fed shit to realize humans can be awful, I already know: A human made the film.

[T99]

No it isn't, and that's not a valid defense of this or any movie. A reaction is involuntary; it's a symptom, not a reward.

Sure, I was giving my - and my friends - reaction as a defence of the film. But you have to remember that the reaction was exactly that what Pasolini intended the audiences to have after seeing Salo.

Actually, your complaints are nothing but reactions either and there's nothing in your opinions (or in this thread) that would proove that Salo wouldn't be a masterpiece. Of course, unless your definition of art is that it has to be entertainment. But even in that case it would be just your opinion.

[alfons416]

i'm surprised they didn't include Giuseppe Bertoluccis docuemntary Pasolini Next To us (Pasolini prossimo nostro) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0966582/, on the re-issue, it feels like the perfect extra.

[zombeaner]

This may seem trivial in light of the current discussion, but does anyone else hate the cover?

[Darth Lavender]

Pan's Labyrinth is many things, and it is a wonderful film, but it is not a complex look into fascism.

Indeed. I don't want to sound like I'm saying Pan's Labyrinth is a great study on facism. Viewed purely as films (completely detached from their relative auteurs) I would never suggest that Pan's Labyrinth excedes Salo as a Facist critique. The only reason that Pan's Labyrinth, with its incidental presentation of Facists as evil, left more of an impression on me than Salo & 1900, is the relative impartiality/distance of del Torro as a person (at least, what I've heard of him) as compared to Pasolini (what little I've actually read about him) and Berolluci (who one doesn't have to read about, his politics are crudely obvious throughout 1900)

As for Salo's merits, I think we are getting into an interesting question here on the relationship between a film's value/intelligence, and the questions it prompts (and the importance of that relationship)
In the case of Salo, I do lean a little towards the idea that Pasolini specifically crafted the film to prompt these kinds of intricate critiques and discussions.

Taking an alternative example; The Matrix trilogy I suspect was written with only the most banal ideas. But, for a variety of reasons (six months for audiences to discuss the cliff-hanger between 2 & 3, the numerous Judeo-Christian* and Hindu references, etc.) it has still served as a basis of discussions much more far-ranging and complex than the Wachovski's probably intended.

So, essentially, The Matrix really is the kind of film that Domino is accusing Salo of being. And that's not entirely a bad thing (The Matrix movies are amongst my favourites, and I do seem to come up with more interesting ideas on each viewing) even if that's the kind of movie Salo is.

*Actually, bringing this back on topic, it occured to me on a recent viewing that Keanu Reeves in the Matrix looks an awful lot like Christ in Pasolini's "Gospel..."

A film that assumes we need to be spoon-fed contrived horrors, when we're surrounded (then and now) by the reminders of tragic legacies and current depravities, is a film that has little faith in the audience's intelligence.

These are, I think, two very different things. I've been saying to the point of annoyance, I don't think Salo works as a confrontational presentation of the horrors of a specific time and time (unlike, say, Schindler's List) And I would like to think that Pasolini didn't intend it as such.

The film's "fictional" qualities are a part of what makes it so intriguing as a more generalised and archetypal presentation of horror.
The redeeming feature (aside from some gorgeous set-design) is the impeccable structuring of the film... It isn't just random horror like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre or a hundred other recent films...
Have you thought about, for example, the relationship between the three circles? Rape (ie. (sexual) excess,) Excrement (ie. degradation) and Mutilation (ie. destruction)

There's a very definite journey there; a methodical deconstruction of humanity which, like a medical autopsy, serves to direct one's attention to the structure of humanity itself. Of course I can't, definitively, speak to the precise mechanics of those relationships (nor could, I assume, Pasolini) but the contemplation of it is immensely fascinating.

[Antoine Doinel]

I have to agree with Domino's assessment of Salo. I caught the film at a packed midnight screening and I don't think anyone there was interested in Pasolini's politics so much as the grossout scenes everyone had heard about (I think most of the audience were seeing the film for the first time). And seeing the film, Pasolini's message comes across in an extremely juvenile manner. Yes, the shit eating and torture is a metaphor, but it's a sloppy one and coming away from the film, I wasn't left with a profound sense of the complex troubles of fascism but with the sense that had a twenty year old film student made the same film, it would not be received in the same way.

I also can't believe The Matrix is being invoked in this thread at all. I like the first film (the sequels are awful), but solely as a sci-fi action flick. I think all the Judeo-Christian mumbo jumbo in that film is just as amateur as Pasolini's shit=fascism=BADBADBAD.

Salo is a curiosity, but to be honest, I've always been baffled why people have been clamoring for this to return to the collection. I never want to see this film again and have no desire to read any insights to the film. It hasn't aged well and the presentation of it's politics are less subtle than something Michael Moore would do.

And just because a film invokes "discussion" doesn't make it a good film. By that dubious qualifier, Uwe Boll would be the greatest filmmaker alive with Postal as his opus.

[Tommaso]

Yes, the shit eating and torture is a metaphor, but it's a sloppy one and coming away from the film, I wasn't left with a profound sense of the complex troubles of fascism but with the sense that had a twenty year old film student made the same film, it would not be received in the same way.

Please don't forget when the film was made, what might appear 'sloppy' to some members of the audience now was absolutely unheard and unthought of in Italy in the early 70s. I would assume that even Sade's novel would have been put away under the bookseller's counter for its 'shocking' qualities.

And the reason why the film isn't dismissed is simply that a twenty year old film student would never have been able to make it. What annoys me a little is that - over this discussion whether the film is an accurate portrayal of fascism or not - the purely aesthetic and formal qualities of the film are somewhat forgotten. In cinematographic and mise en scene terms, this must be one of Pasolini's very best films, and THIS is the reason why people want it "to return to the collection".

I much agree with Darth about the "methodical deconstruction of humanity", and this means that Pasolini is attempting much more here than just an analysis of fascism; his point seems to be rather that 'these things happen' in any modern society (and the film was partly inspired by some contemporary scandals there, and by Pasolini's general frustration and hopelessness regarding modern society in general). So Pasolini forces us to watch, to look at these things that normally should better not be talked about, but which are there as 'rumours', as 'secret possibilities' of evil in everyone. The film is not a simple allegory a la "shit=fascism"; the point seems to be rather that fascism becomes possible because certain realities are not looked at.

That's also why I find the new cover brilliant, because it captures the essence of the film: are we disgusted or are we secretly fascinated (or even more) by looking at it? Far more effective, because much more ambivalent, than the old cover (especially if you don't know the film and what happens in that particular scene where that shot comes from).

[Antoine Doinel]

I much agree with Darth about the "methodical deconstruction of humanity", and this means that Pasolini is attempting much more here than just an analysis of fascism; his point seems to be rather that 'these things happen' in any modern society (and the film was partly inspired by some contemporary scandals there, and by Pasolini's general frustration and hopelessness regarding modern society in general). So Pasolini forces us to watch, to look at these things that normally should better not be talked about, but which are there as 'rumours', as 'secret possibilities' of evil in everyone. The film is not a simple allegory a la "shit=fascism"; the point seems to be rather that fascism becomes possible because certain realities are not looked at.

I certainly understand Pasolini's point, but by filming the "deconstruction of humanity" in such a sensational, fictionalized manner does he really add all that much to the discussion? I guess the point I was trying to make is that the polemic is lost under so much, well, shit. For me, political statements in films tend to have much more resonance when the statements within are fewer and harsher, rather than the smorgasboard of extreme metaphorical grossout that is presented here. Why do we need to be "forced to watch" when all one has to do is to turn on the nightly news to see just how awful people can be. Christianity in general is based on the general fact that we are born sinful and have to forever redeem ourselves.

I think Woody Allen addressed the entire issue Pasolini presents with Salo much more powerfully and profoundly with a single line of dialogue from Hannah And Her Sisters (and it's a line that forever strikes me):

Frederick: You missed a very dull TV show on Auschwitz. More gruesome film clips, and more puzzled intellectuals declaring their mystification over the systematic murder of millions. The reason they can never answer the question "How could it possibly happen?" is that it's the wrong question. Given what people are, the question is "Why doesn't it happen more often?"

[Tommaso]

I certainly understand Pasolini's point, but by filming the "deconstruction of humanity" in such a sensational, fictionalized manner does he really add all that much to the discussion?

I don't know why, but I never found "Salo" 'sensational'; what created that 'sensationalist' character was rather the censorship debate and the the audience and press reaction which focussed on these bits (especially the shit eating), while rarely discussing the film's very 'tight' construction; its 'logical', formalistic scheme which helps to avoid that these sequences get an over-importance in the context of the whole of the film.

Why do we need to be "forced to watch" when all one has to do is to turn on the nightly news to see just how awful people can be.

Because when watching the news you can easily distance yourself from what you see; you can always say "it's those Chinese, Burmese, Iraqis (pick your favourite enemy....) who do those things, it has nothing to do with me". The point of "Salo" is to create a much more intense reflection; it doesn't allow you any more to speak about 'those awful people' out there.

But I agree: that Woody Allen quote is brilliant. But it won't give you two sleepless nights afterwards (which is what "Salo" normally does after first viewing), and thus might perhaps be less effective in the long run.

[Antoine Doinel]

I think you bring up a good point Tomasso, in that we can distance ourselves from the news, but I also think we can do the same with film. I think it could be argued that the general ruthlessness of Salo instead of drawing viewers into a debate can very well alienate them. I think part of the problem I have with Salo is that it's very nature would only encourage a likeminded audience in participating with the film, where a more tempered film might engage a larger audience and have spark the kind of conversations I'm sure Pasolini wanted to have. While on aesthetic grounds, Salo is accomplished, that kind of appreciation goes out the window for both knowledgeable and general audiences alike during many of the film's extreme scenes. How "sensational" the film is will definitely vary from person to person, but I think we can all agree it's undoubtedly and deliberately provocative. I think the underlying question is whether that provocation stimulates discussion or distracts from it.

[Adam]

Frederick: You missed a very dull TV show on Auschwitz. More gruesome film clips, and more puzzled intellectuals declaring their mystification over the systematic murder of millions. The reason they can never answer the question "How could it possibly happen?" is that it's the wrong question. Given what people are, the question is "Why doesn't it happen more often?"

Long forgot that line. The correct answer is, of course, that it does happen quite often, far too often (since once was too often), and even had at the time of Hannah and Her Sisters. All the more reason for the relevance of the film.

[oldsheperd]

Oh, Man, let's all watch the original drop in price from 700 dollars straight down to 5 bucks!

[domino harvey]

I think this film's defenders should not be rallying behind it based primarily on its ability to provoke a response. Being a provocateur is not difficult, it is in fact something literally anyone could do. If I grab a Bolex and film my girlfriend drowning puppies and then present the short film to an audience, I'm going to get some strong reactions, and these visceral reactions to do not justify this or any film. It's hard to make someone laugh. It's hard to make someone think. It's not hard to provoke emotions, disgust, or outrage.

At least Tommaso is attempting to defend the film from an aesthetic standpoint, which is an argument that, even though I disagree with, is more easily defended and logical than saying the film's important because the audience reacts. Viewers, particularly those steeped in film studies traditions of looking for the meaning and looking close at the film to see what it means, what its saying, how it is capable of being read, &c, naturally want Salo to mean something. When I was a kid, if I saw a movie that I thought I'd like and it turned out to not be very good, I'd always try to convince myself I liked it better than I did because I didn't want to admit I'd wasted money and time on a bad film. Perhaps viewers feel they're owed something after sitting through two hours of horrible, joyless nothing-- "If I had to suffer through this film, then by golly, it's gonna mean something, it can't just have been an empty experience."

[colinr0380]

I think it's great news that this will be back in the collection. I hope many will "exert the effort" not only to watch this film but to look charitably at why Pasolini made the film the way he did. Films that are merely shocking and grotesque are a dime-a-dozen, and they often become dated pretty quickly. The fact that this one is still so controversial is a sign of its lasting power. And beneath that controversy, I think the film has important things to say to us.

I completely agree with Gregory.

If you love watching teenagers eating feces, fucking, and then getting tortured/murdered in a manner completely absent of merit, aesthetic or otherwise, than this is your must-buy release of the year. Otherwise, pursue at your own peril. It's a one-note exercise in shock, the same kind of shock the book has already prevented the film from succeeding at. It does have its defenders, so I suppose you can build a beautiful castle of ideas upon this garbage dump of a film, but I can't help but wonder why anyone would exert so much effort when there's plenty of grassy cinematic fields out there. Pasolini was capable of making challenging films that are worth sitting through, but this isn't one of them.

I'm afraid I must disagree with domino on this one - I feel the film most definitely has an aesthetic just not a very palatable one! And it is not exactly meant as a 'shock' or 'transgressive' film because we are so detatched from the events (literally distanced in the final scene and I should slightly correct davidhare in that the pianist defenestrates herself before the final sequence and instead a transistor radio (suggesting the impersonal nature of the torture) accompanies the final images) so we can witness the acts for their meaning, their turning the order of the world in on itself (marrying each others daughters, eating their own waste, sex linked with murder are all insular acts that the rulers of this isolated little house turn into the rules of their 'society') not purely their impact, though they do have a visceral impact.

It does, and it's message of mankind's untramelled ability for evil while bleak is horribly real.

Admittedly I haven't seen Salo, and I don't want to be dismissive, but the first thing that came to mind when I read the above was: did people really need to be convinced of this? The second was: is such a graphic and extended depiction of debasement and suffering any more effective at communicating this message than, say, Night and Fog (which is neither graphic nor extended)?

Most definitely - Night and Fog is a specific atrocity that happened to real people and defined the 20th Century. Salo is a fictional atrocity that takes a metaphoric approach to try and tease out what makes people treat others so terribly - is it just because they can and they've got the power and licence to be able to do what they want?; do they hate specific groups of people and want to debase those they have chosen?; or have they no interest in the victims as human beings at all and are just using them for their pleasure, the way at a feast we wouldn't necessarily shed a tear for the animal that was killed to provide us with our nourishment?

It is all this and none - it applies to all regimes and none - it is a Holocaust film and not as specific as that - it is a film about the darkness humanity is capable of and of the ways that expresses itself - it is about the relationships between victims and those who victimise that can be applied to consumerism, sexuality, power games, politics, war - it is about those who facilitate evil acts while never getting their own hands dirty or remaining willfully ignorant of what will occur (from the madames to the parents of the victims sending them off) - it is the final film, of a director, of the director's career (even if both were not entirely foreseen to be so), of an era, of taking cinema to its furthest reaches, while its failings to communicate meaning could be seen as the fundamental failings of cinema itself to actually elict change through scathing represenational rhetoric (the commodifying of torture perhaps being the final irony).

At the fundamental level it is four ugly old perverts, screwing and killing teens for pleasure but that (willfully?) misses so much of what this film is trying to say and would be akin to just saying Rosebud was a sled.

[Tommaso]

I think it could be argued that the general ruthlessness of Salo instead of drawing viewers into a debate can very well alienate them. I think part of the problem I have with Salo is that it's very nature would only encourage a likeminded audience in participating with the film, where a more tempered film might engage a larger audience and have spark the kind of conversations I'm sure Pasolini wanted to have.

Perhaps it's not at all relevant, but I first watched "Salo" and Oshima's "Empire of the Senses" around the same time in the late 80s; and the run-out quote for the Oshima film was MUCH higher; and I assumed then as now that was because the Oshima film, while not being as overtly 'disgusting' (despite some scenes/sexual practices which could be inserted into the Pasolini work without all too many problems), is also far less 'engaging'. I can only say that to my experience everyone who watched "Salo" actually did feel the need to engage into conversation/reflection afterwards (while Oshima's film allows much more immediate distancing because one could easily dismiss it as just a 'private' love affair of some cracked-minded Japanese couple).

While on aesthetic grounds, Salo is accomplished, that kind of appreciation goes out the window for both knowledgeable and general audiences alike during many of the film's extreme scenes. How "sensational" the film is will definitely vary from person to person, but I think we can all agree it's undoubtedly and deliberately provocative.

Yes, I agree. Appreciating the aesthetic qualities of "Salo" almost necessarily requires a second watching, and many will not undertake this. I have watched the film only once after that first viewing, and don't even own it on disc currently. It will be interesting to see what my reaction will be now, after seeing the other films by Pasolini and some other films like "Sweet Movie" or "The Holy Mountain", which for some people seem almost as shocking as "Salo". But all these films (and that includes the Oshima, of course, which I still don't like particularly) have important points to make, and that is why I believe they will provoke discussion and engagement, even if one wouldn't want to watch them too often, obviously. And that's why I find none of them simply 'disgusting', unlike something like Ridley Scott's "Hannibal", which uses shock for the sake of shock.

I read Domino's post only after typing the above, and must say: the reaction he describes (i.e. trying to convince yourself you sat through something worthwhile even though you felt disgusted) never occured to me after "Hannibal". It was simply bad and indeed made me angry I spent money on it.

[Mr Sausage]

A film that raises all these questions and emotions can't be a failure. On the contrary, it is clearly a sign of a true masteripiece.

Of course it can. A film raises a discussion by fitting itself within a particular discourse. It is that discourse which gets picked up and carried into the after-film discussion, and which you and your interlocutors find intellectually engaging. This need not have any necessary link to the quality of the film, which can work through its particular discourse either well or poorly without affecting the quality of your discussion afterwards. The intellectual rewards you feel are equally provided by being able to range through aspects of the discourse provided by other sources, but which the film could have overlooked, or muddled, or failed to use properly; or by being able to intelligently work through certain ideas that the film could not. The rewards of any discussion that come purely from the film are the answers, however tentative, that you come to; the rewards purely from discussion of the question come from yourselves.

A film's magnitude and greatness is not, ultimately, decided in public chatter. It's decided in solitary reflection, as with every other art.

Most definitely - Night and Fog is a specific atrocity that happened to real people and defined the 20th Century. Salo is a fictional atrocity that takes a metaphoric approach to try and tease out what makes people treat others so terribly - is it just because they can and they've got the power and licence to be able to do what they want?; do they hate specific groups of people and want to debase those they have chosen?; or have they no interest in the victims as human beings at all and are just using them for their pleasure, the way at a feast we wouldn't necessarily shed a tear for the animal that was killed to provide us with our nourishment?

Indeed, I understand this, but I'm still wondering whether what Pasolini did--meaning the extremes to which he took his imagery-- is as effective as what was done in Night and Fog. Answering this question goes someway towards assessing the film's worth, I think.

What puts the Holocaust in the absolute position it has attained is a combination of the severity, systematicness, singularity (by which I mean the short time over which it occurred, giving it an identity as a single, giant atrocity, instead of a pattern of atrocities over a hundred years), and scale. I don't think anything else quite touches it in the history of atrocities when you consider all four of these things, though it would be hard to believe that there haven't been atrocities that have exceeded it in each of these categories individually.

There are, I believe, atrocities of a magnitude which approach or exceed the holocaust in all of those categories except the one I've bolded, and that one comes at the reason why the holocaust seems sickening to such an unparalleled degree: it is the conjunction between human atrocity and modern mechanization. The systematic and mechanical way in which these atrocities were carried out are attended by the fear we have of the machine: it all seems cold, ugly, and non-human. The atrocities of the past were done by the sword, that is, in hot blood, something which, however cruel, we understand on some sort of human level. But the mechanical systematization puts the holocaust beyond that understanding, so that what we are confronted with seems less like anger or rage--emotions we can understand on some level--than apathy, disinterest, and calculation.

It's not that we are necessarily meant to identify with them in any sense, but that we see people that have adjusted to committing atrocities in the most casual of senses, and that their level of comfort with what they are doing is such that they behave as though it were normal.

This is the best defense I've heard of Salo, because it approaches the movie on a pure artistic ground. William Empson, the great twentieth-century literary critic, always maintained, with much vigour, that great literature was sympathetic literature: it brought us into close contact with a mind or an idea or a perspective that we did not share, and then allowed us to understand it closely. It was a means to expand our consciousness past its limits, to incrase human understanding.

What Jun-Dai argues (if I have understood him correctly) is that Salo does exactly that: it knows we want to understand evil, so it gives us our opportunity to actually make the imaginative leap and consider, for a moment, the mental existence of thoroughly evil people. It offers understanding through a sympathetic technique. But of course the question must still be begged: how necessary was the extreme graphic debasement to its sympathetic achievement?

[Steven H]

What Jun-Dai argues (if I have understood him correctly) is that Salo does exactly that: it knows we want to understand evil, so it gives us our opportunity to actually make the imaginative leap and consider, for a moment, the mental existence of thoroughly evil people. It offers understanding through a sympathetic technique. But of course the question must still be begged: how necessary was the extreme graphic debasement to its sympathetic achievement?

To me, the graphic debasement works because it's balanced by the somber atmosphere. They counter each other, the same way the Fascists used wealth and power to counter any guilt or the desire to treat humans as people rather than disturbing playthings. That they debase them in such a "refined" way makes Pasolini's desire to keep the mood "just right" with slow camera movement and candle lit interiors so much more unsettling. If he had done a fast paced SAW style shit-eating film, it would have been easy to write off.

I find it interesting to think of the film from the point of view of "who is the protagonist?" Trying to find a hero in Salo is rewarding in that you start seeing how it plays with character roles, and disquietingly rips you to shreds when you find someone to identify or empathize with.

[Mr Sausage]

If he had done a fast paced SAW style shit-eating film, it would have been easy to write off.

But what you're explaining is the necessity of Pasolini's refined style, not the necessity of the graphicness of the horrors. I'm beginning to suspect that my question concerning the graphic imagery is moot, however, since if Pasolini could achieve the exact same effect on the audience by being less graphic about his imagery, the mere presence of graphicness is irrelevant as the audience is horrified in the same manner either way. It makes no difference. I still wonder, tho', if such an extreme effect was necessary.

[Orphic Lycidas]

According to a poster over at Blue-ray.com, Criterion is putting out a Blu-Ray release of "Salo" later this year.

Relevant post currently on last page there, by demoni » May 09, 2008 02:35 AM. Apologies if this has already been posted and I missed it.

[chaddoli]

I must say I am very upset by the lack of a commentary track.

[a.khan]

I must say I am very upset by the lack of a commentary track.

"That's not real shit -- it's chocolate. I think." -- Peter Crowie

[Darth Lavender]

If he had done a fast paced SAW style shit-eating film, it would have been easy to write off.

But what you're explaining is the necessity of Pasolini's refined style, not the necessity of the graphicness of the horrors. I'm beginning to suspect that my question concerning the graphic imagery is moot, however, since if Pasolini could achieve the exact same effect on the audience by being less graphic about his imagery, the mere presence of graphicness is irrelevant as the audience is horrified in the same manner either way. It makes no difference. I still wonder, tho', if such an extreme effect was necessary.

I would argue (as has been mentioned already) that the horror in Salo isn't 'graphic' The horror is shown mostly in wide shot, etc. the ending even more so. I wonder if what you are criticising might be more accurately called the "extremity" of the horrors. Just the degree of torture presented, not the way in which it is presented.

Incidentally, with the talk about the Masters as the protagonists, and a presentation of evil as utterly callous, etc. I'm reminded of the banality of evil in Imamura's "Vengeance is Mind" (a film which, while not bad, struck me on a first viewing as having limited value (but value, nonetheless))

Another thing that struck me about Salo, was that the coprophagia seemed uniquely excessive. Perhaps others reacted differently, but while other tortures were consistantly horrific, the coprophagia offered one truly disturbing moment (the first scene of the sobbing girl being forced to eat excrement) and then seemed to move into more of a surrealist tone. And, certainly, Pasolini's comment on it as representing processed food suggests more surrealism and attention-grabbing symbolism, than the rest of the film.

[Cinephrenic]

I must say I am very upset by the lack of a commentary track.

Did nobody want to do it? The scholars gone cold on this on? Gary Indiana?

[Cronenfly]

I must say I am very upset by the lack of a commentary track.

Did nobody want to do it? The scholars gone cold on this on? Gary Indiana?

I'm all for this having a commentary track, but I think that the booklet will have plenty of (diverse, important for a movie as divisive as this one) scholarly input; perhaps Criterion thought the movie ill-suited to scene-by-scene analysis, preferring instead to provide numerous POVs on the movie as a whole and a 40 minute doc analyzing the final scene (The End of Salo). That, the Gorin/Feretti interviews and the doc with the Paso, et al. interviews make this a well-rounded package in my books: you get (if done right) numerous relevant interpretations of the film, some specific textual analysis/background on the culminating sequence, and interviews with a reasonable number of the film's key contributors/some of the director's close collaboraters. The above Cowie shit eating joke is pretty relevant to the lack of commentary, I think: given the relentlessness of the content, it seems to me a movie more easily analyzed from a distance.

[geoffcowgill]

Fresh out of high school, eighteen years ago, I spent much of my free time delving into my college library's splendid VHS collection, watching more classic films for the first time than I could possibly recollect now. The pollcy was not to let the titles leave the library, so I had to contort myself in a clunky wooden chair, strap on unwieldy headphones, and try to angle the TV to avoid essentially unavoidable screen glare. The Media Center was located along a pretty heavily trafficed area of the library, and I watched, among other chaster things, In the Realm of the Senses and Salo as countless midwesterners paraded by. The latter remains the movie I've found most difficult to watch in my life. Most details, thankfully, have been forgotten, but the face of the lead tormentor and a scene of some kind of pate or something served with pins are not likely to ever dissipate from my memory completely.

I don't have much of a point, I guess, other than to suggest that if you are planning to get Salo and haven't seen it before, you might want to make sure there are no innocent bystanders for that first screening.