17 Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom

[singinblues26]

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.

Yes, we can distance ourselves from the film just as easily as we do with the news, but Pasolini uses the art of cinema in such a way that it is hard to distance ourselves from it, psychologically speaking.

Spoiler

More specifically, in the end sequence, we the viewers see the final torture sequence through the eyes of the torturers themselves and in this sense, we are complacent with what goes on in that courtyard. You can't tear yourself away from it and because of that one little binocular lens technique that Pasolini uses, we are drawn and connected to the crime, and ultimately responsible for it.

[T99]

One obvious thing with Pasolini is that he works with allegories. His mythical films are all filmed like documentaries. Oedipus Rex ends in modern time and is in fact "autobiographical" (Pasolini filmed the beginning of the film in the town where he was born and the film is obviously about his affection to his mother). While shooting the crucifixion scene in The Gospel a bus can be seen driving in the background. Pasolini decided to leave that take in the film, because he felt that the film in fact dealt with the present time. In the same way, Salo is also to be viewed as a modern film, one showing Pasolini's hatred towards the Italian society of the 70s (the shit eating scene standing for the consumption culture etc.) and his view that fascism is not gone from Italy.

Anyway, you don't have to agree with Pasolini's views in order to appreciate the film. In the same way as you don't have to be religious to like Tarkovsky or Dreyer, an extreme leftist to enjoy Godard etc. The film's thematics are presented with such precision, effect and artistic merit that one simply can't ignore the film as empty provocation. For example, can anyone name a single scholar who is defending and discussing Cannibal Ferox?

[HerrSchreck]

What takes me aback is the lack of discussion about the huge amount of black humor in this film, and the messages relayed via the casting of the film.

It may be that those who've not experienced life beyond the pale, who've not experienced a certain destruction of the spirit-- of taking enormous risks out on the fringe, had via this confrontation the usual set of bourgouise moral tropes torn to pieces, which will never go back to the way they were-- can take this film head-on to see it for what it is. A perfect allegory for just about anything in life which involves power and control. The satisfaction that the controller gets from controlling.. and the classic identity of the controller vs the classic i.d. of the controlled.

Destruction of the spirit is tough material to deal with, of man completely divorced from "eternity" for example-- and that goes for the artist as well as the viewer. Those who havent experienced it will probably stray away. A la Naked Lunch, which this discussion (and the film itself) reminds me quite a lot of.

As far as the extremity of the film-- guys, look at what your nieghbor is doing on the internet. Trafficking in pics of corpses. Covering kittens with ronsonol and burning them and sending the pics bit by bit to 4chan.org. Bukakke gone haywire (involving something other than chocoraisin), chicks getting into headstands and () out of their () & ( ) so it rains down all over them. Bestiality, vids of all kind of viddied medical curiousities for the "lulz". This is during peacetime, some for the kink, and some for the $. How could anyone look at a film like this-- with seeing eyes-- and see anything but mankind's usual darkest tendencies in action?

[MichaelB]

A la Naked Lunch, which this discussion (and the film itself) reminds me quite a lot of.

Funnily enough, I recalled David Cronenberg's famous quotation earlier today - "if we shot Naked Lunch as written, it would cost $400 million and be banned in every country in the world."

And Pasolini could have said much the same thing - because although Salò is undoubtedly pretty strong meat by mainstream cinema standards, it's infinitesimally milder than de Sade's original.

(Then again, many of the atrocities in 'Les 120 Journées de Sodome' just aren't filmable for reasons quite aside from moral ones as they don't make much physical sense).

[domino harvey]

Again I must echo M. Sausage's question, is what the viewer gets out of this film something that even needed to be taught? It's like praising Vertical Limit as an important film because it tells us so much about gravity.

[HerrSchreck]

Taught? Someone said Salo is an instructional film?? WTF?

Is it neccessary to portray something Hitherto Unknown for a film to qualify for value? Every war film would hafta be flushed on those grounds, every love story, every historical film vs the accusation "what is this film portraying that is Not Already Known?"

I don't think anyone is watching this film, to nod ever more emphatically as the end approaches, saying "Hmmm, yeah, mmmmm... hmmm. yeah-- okay," turns to rest of family, "i'm convinced-- humans expose a mighty black heart at times. Which is news to me.."

"Thanks Salo!"

(cut to Ultra Brite commercial)

[domino harvey]

Is it neccessary to portray something Hitherto Unknown for a film to qualify for value?

Of course not. But browse the defenses of the film in this thread, including your own, and it's not hard to notice that the primary defense of Salo is tied to supposed importance of the film's message. My comment was merely a response to that tendency.

[HerrSchreck]

I don't see this as a "message" film at all. I take it in my case you meant my quote about the "messages" sent by the director viz the casting of the film. It's utterly hilarious! These people are blackest grotesqueries of every power harboring Shit on the face of the earth.. people who nourish on shit, who have become completely unmoored from the pillars that hold most people down into pereptions of "decency".

I made that comment because folks have a difficulty seeing where Paso stands regarding the goings on. All yo have to do is observe how the film was cast to determine.

It's value to me is in the wonderfly black grotesquerie of its funhouse of portrayals, at last seeing the true face of anyone from an owner of a multimedia empire to a squalid little powermongering lieutenant (or office manager) ruling his pathetic little fiefdom with an iron hand.. because he can.

I hate to say it, because its so stupid, but the film is almost like a secret society. If you've been there and back, you can see clearly the wonderful, ultimate sarcasm, and how perfect it all is in mirroring the shits of the world.

[Darth Lavender]

Is it necessary to portray something Hitherto Unknown for a film to qualify for value?

Of course not. But browse the defenses of the film in this thread, including your own, and it's not hard to notice that the primary defense of Salo is tied to supposed importance of the film's message. My comment was merely a response to that tendency.

A look at any of my responses, and you'll find I have consistently dismissed the idea of this as a "message" film. Partly on general principle (teaching is for math and physics. Not for film. Part of the reason something like 1900 is so laughable is its efforts to "teach" Bertolucci's politics in a "this is right and this wrong and this is what you should think" kind of way)

Not only that, but one of the chief points on which I've praised Salo is that its fictional basis serves to partly distance it from any specific reality. It touches upon the time and place of fascist Salo (quite (deliberately) jarringly, I thought, with the insular world occasionally interrupted by the sound of planes, or a Heil Hitler to remind us of the setting) but doesn't really occupy it, instead residing in timelessness and 'pure thought' (especially in the choice of literary basis; a 300 years dead French lunatic's fantasies)

[domino harvey]

Exactly - I said pages ago it's not a film for the kiddies. It's for grownups.

There goes decorum.
If this argument is really going to boil down to "You must be this tall to ride," then you can carry on the debate without me.

[Darth Lavender]

(Then again, many of the atrocities in 'Les 120 Journées de Sodome' just aren't filmable for reasons quite aside from moral ones as they don't make much physical sense).

Indeed. A browsing of de Sade's novel revealed one moment of (intentional/unintentional?) comedy gold; "Then there was the man who f---ed a cow, and the cow gave birth to a hideous abomination; which he f---ed."

Exactly - I said pages ago it's not a film for the kiddies. It's for grownups.

There goes decorum. If this argument is really going to boil down to "You must be this tall to ride," then you can carry on the debate without me.

I think you've misinterpreted that as a personal attack. I certainly don't get that impression. The poster seems to be criticising the IDEA of 'instructional' films (ie. as suitable only for children)

Also, a further thought on the shock element (touched upon by others, earlier) There is a very big difference in reasons for shock from a film-school student (or an exploitation director) vs an established art-house film-maker. A film-school student makes a shocking film because, especially if he lacks real talent, it's the best way to get noticed.

Pasolini was already very well established and respected, so he lacked the most obvious reason for "just being shocking," suggesting that he does after all have a reason (and, further more, for someone with an established career, making something as shocking as Salo would run the risk of career suicide)

[singinblues26]

Thus, the first binocular trope is a direct expression of the viewing experience, like Hitchcock, and Kulsehov, and all of Paso's ideas about the image, montage and open camera, right down to the direction/manipulation of images and the fakery, and the - if any - visceral nature of response, which he undoubtedly knew he was provoking.

Oh, absolutely davidhare, I don't disagree with you here. (And thanks for the welcome!) But from a psychoanalytic standpoint, it's rather obvious that the binoculars technique directly inserts us as the audience into the place of the Italian bureaucrats. My point was simply that it's hard to distance yourself from the horrors that take place in that villa, especially when the bureaucrats' gaze through the binoculars (while it means many things) becomes the audience's gaze as well.

[colinr0380]

Sorry if this message is a bit garbled, and again this is all speculation on my part about the film, but I wanted to post something trying to tackle your questions so you don't feel too upset domino.

Of course not. But browse the defenses of the film in this thread, including your own, and it's not hard to notice that the primary defense of Salo is tied to supposed importance of the film's message. My comment was merely a response to that tendency.

I guess we (or at least I) have focused so much on the message because the basic 'plot' of the film really speaks for itself. Most of my posts have been more about the themes I've identified behind the film because I want people to not casually dismiss the film as not being 'about' anything just because the surface is so deceptively simple (that combined with the extreme imagery can be quite overwhelming in itself).

In a way this seems similar to what I was hamfistedly trying to get at in the Contempt thread a while ago, only Salo is at even greater of an extreme. Contempt is a wonderful film and provides many surface pleasures but its true importance and magnificence is only revealed on a much deeper examination - that of course runs the risk that on a first pass audiences don't grasp the underlying themes or doesn't understand why the screen is going red, white and blue (I didn't get it before having it pointed out in the commentary to the film!) and can lead audiences who only see the film the once to summarily dismiss the film as inpenetrable with strange touches that they do not understand the reason for (in a world where culture has moved towards something having to be immediately understandable to be deemed successful isn't there something great about films that reveal themselves and their meaning over repeated viewings?)

While Contempt does have a narrative and many surface pleasures (of Bardot and Capri to name but two) that may hold a general audience and maybe even have them return and then maybe lead to a discovery of the greater pleasures of the themes of the film itself, Salo has a very stripped down surface and is actively trying to remove itself from any notion of being a 'commercial' piece of cinema.

Actually your Vertical Limit point domino, though made in jest, is an interesting one as it could be suggested all those Cliffhanger/Terminal Velocity type films on a deeper analysis play on a fear of heights and it could be argued that the plots of the films only serve as McGuffin's to get the characters hanging off a rope over a crevasse or plunging out of a plane without a parachute and having to steal one from someone else in mid-air, which is the issue the films really want to deal with!

If we try and apply this to a film like Salo that seems to be being willfully designed to try not to provide any of the expected 'filmic pleasures' in its plotting then the scenario is stripped of any of the narrative that the themes are normally hidden behind (no romantic sub-plot, no characters we can empathise with) - or to put it another way the themes are made impossible to miss because there is not an exciting plot there to otherwise be engrossed in, sort of the opposite to the way 'entertainment' films work by hiding their themes under plot to make them less noticeable and more palatable to an audience.

I feel the audience is faced with the choice of finding no merit in the film narratively whatsoever (and thinking it only boring or disgusting or whatever) or actively confronting what would normally be the metaphorical subtext to try and understand the film - you are not being allowed a middle ground, not being allowed to say "well the underlying themes were suspect but the story itself was moving enough that I enjoyed the film" as I might say about Pretty Woman or Forrest Gump(!) That is another reason why Salo is such a confrontational film beyond the shocking elements, it is forcing the audience to confront the issues without a safety net of providing them narrative pleasures they would expect and without an 'if you want to think of the film on a deeper level then you can if you want, but you don't have to if you just want to sit back and switch off to a film' construction (It could be suggested there is a cynicism towards the audience inherent in that because it suggests that the filmmakers think that if the audience is given the choice between an engaging plot and important ideas the audience will always choose the easier option and ignore the possibility of further consideration of a film - but then I suppose wondering about Salo having a cynical attitude towards its audience is not really surprising or should be the cause of much concern when considering the overall nihilism of the film!)

[Darth Lavender]

I've just been doing some more reading of Pasolini online (all I really know about him is what I've observed from "Gospel..." and "Salo," although just those two films certainly suggest an immensely complex and intriguing human being)

Anyway, in the tone of this Salo thread, I'd be interested to hear some defenses of Pasolini's "Trilogy of Life"
I haven't actually watched these films, but what I've read about them makes the films sound utterly skippable. While Salo methodically "circles the drain" for 2 hours, thereby serving as an aid to meditating on the nature of horror, as Buddhists might use a mandala or prayer wheel for their own meditations. The 'trilogy of life' (again, based only on descriptions I've read) sounds like nothing more than well-produced pornography. Could somebody perhaps have a go at elaborating on the Trilogy of Life's merits, themes, artistic value, etc?

[Morbii]

(especially in the choice of literary basis; a 300 years dead French lunatic's fantasies)

Hmm, I've sort of thought as De Sade as more than that. I see him as a bit of a political "commentator", only (like as David said) just very absurdist. You know, the kind of guy that didn't want to get in trouble for directly criticizing the regime (though ironically he got in trouble anyway). I don't think there's any mistake that there's a Magistrate, President, Bishop, etc in charge here (to also further comment on what Schreck said, which I thought was probably right on - this does also assume that the people in a position of power were also represented in the original work).

I also believe there's a lot of dark, absurd humor involved in this film.

[jsteffe]

Oh, absolutely davidhare, I don't disagree with you here. (And thanks for the welcome!) But from a psychoanalytic standpoint, it's rather obvious that the binoculars technique directly inserts us as the audience into the place of the Italian bureaucrats. My point was simply that it's hard to distance yourself from the horrors that take place in that villa, especially when the bureaucrats' gaze through the binoculars (while it means many things) becomes the audience's gaze as well.

Psychoanalytic film theory, at least as it's popularly used, actually isn't very helpful for getting at the question of viewer identification. It's a serious mistake to assume that seeing a character's point of view (here represented by binoculars) means that we identify with the character and his or her actions and emotions, or that we can't somehow distance ourselves.

On the contrary, we can identify with a character even when there are no point-of-view shots at all; idenitication depends on many factors, including narrative structure, acting and character motivation. After all, people commonly identify with characters in literature and on the stage, right? Similarly, we distance ourselves based on a variety of textual cues, to say nothing of what we bring personally, as individual viewers.

In this scene, I find the effect to be exactly the opposite of what you describe. When we see the bureaucrats gazing through the binoculars and share their point of view, it horrifies and repels us even further. This is because it underlines the relationship between voyeurism and sadism, and by extension our own cinematic voyeurism. In other words, I see Pasolini as provoking a deliberate distancing effect here, which paradoxically makes us more uncomfortable by denying us a moral "out." To me it's a master stroke which deepens and lends weight to the film.

Even though I'm using concepts commonly deployed in psychoanalytic film theory--spectatorship, voyeurism and sadism--I think imposing a psychoanalytic framework here is misleading, because it keeps you from looking at how the film works on its own terms. Pasolini was smarter about the complex workings of cinematic identification than most film theorists. So was Hitchcock.

[malcolm1980]

Does anyone here still have that $300 rare OOP original Criterion edition of this movie?

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

I'm pleased to say I sold it off a little less than a year ago for $183 (not bad considering it was unsealed). I probably could've gotten more if I'd done it earlier, but I've never been a good speculator.

I admit I have next to no interest in ever watching this again, but The End of Salò could conceivably be interesting enough to justify a purchase on its own -- has anyone seen it?

[Tommaso]

The 'trilogy of life' (again, based only on descriptions I've read) sounds like nothing more than well-produced pornography. Could somebody perhaps have a go at elaborating on the Trilogy of Life's merits, themes, artistic value, etc?

Well, this question sounds like it would need a whole book of essays to answer. Some brief thoughts: the Trilogy is Pasolini's attempt to construct a sort of 'counter-world' to the modern, capitalist, alienated, sexually repressed culture. It glorifies the world of tradition, of archaism, of a more natural way of living; in this sense it is a clear continuation of some themes of "Medea" and especially his documentaries on India, Sana'a and Africa; a world that Pasolini saw in utter danger of extinction. Whereas these earlier films celebrated the archaic in a spatial location (outside Europe), the Trilogy (at least the first two parts) does the same in time, going back to Boccaccio and Chaucer. Pasolini attempts, via his re-interpretation of those old tales, to go back to an idealized mythical time; this idealization however knows about its fragility (there are some rather dark and also sadistic elements already, especially in "Canterbury" and "Arabian Nights"). These films appear rough-hewn, as if made to give the feeling there's not much time left before this ideal world vanishes.

The films are basically, though, a joyful celebration of both an ancient lifestyle and of sex (certainly a central topic for Pasolini, given he was a homosexual living in Italy - of all places - in the 60s). Thus, although the films sometimes come dangerously close to early 70s soft porn, they are certainly not pornographic, and are as much a contemplation on the world Paso was living in as "Salo" is. "Salo" perhaps is best seen as an 'answer' to the Trilogy; the final acknowledgment of Pasolini that his utopian, idealized, liberated world is no longer possible, or that at least his 'dreaming back' is a sort of self-betrayal, and that the problems he perceived in 70s Italy had to be tackled head-on. Thus he replaces the (I believe) consciously dilletantic way of editing and sometimes filming of the Trilogy with the hyper-precise look of "Salo", and the joyful celebration of sex with "Salo"'s utter exploration of sexual aggression and destruction. The way sex is handled in a society for Pasolini seems to be indicative of the state of that society in general (sounds almost like Wilhelm Reich, and probably it's not by chance that Pasolini defended Makavejev against his distractors).

I think you even have to see the Trilogy to get a proper understanding of "Salo". The artistic merits of the Trilogy are certainly not as high as those of "Medea", "Edipo Re" or "Salo", and "Canterbury" in my view is the worst film he ever made (though his performance as Chaucer is priceless). But these are very 'beautiful' films in their own way (especially "Arabian Nights", which towers over the other two films), and should not be missed by anyone midlly interested in Pasolini.

[singinblues26]

In this scene, I find the effect to be exactly the opposite of what you describe. When we see the bureaucrats gazing through the binoculars and share their point of view, it horrifies and repels us even further. This is because it underlines the relationship between voyeurism and sadism, and by extension our own cinematic voyeurism. In other words, I see Pasolini as provoking a deliberate distancing effect here, which paradoxically makes us more uncomfortable by denying us a moral "out." To me it's a master stroke which deepens and lends weight to the film.

And this is why Salo is one of the most "passionately debated films of all time", because everyone has a different take on what's going on in the film as a whole, and in essence all of us are right. Salo is what you make of it, and I think that's why this film is so wonderful and a true masterpiece, despite it's objectionable content; it gets people talking. I'm definitely buying this DVD the day it comes out because I think it's an essential film to not only see, but to own as well. If anything, it's a definite conversation starter.

[Morbii]

I'm pleased to say I sold it off a little less than a year ago for $183 (not bad considering it was unsealed). I probably could've gotten more if I'd done it earlier, but I've never been a good speculator.

I, too have one, but I'm keeping mine, personally. I'm actually a little bit surprised that it dipped in price like that (I figured that it would actually keep its value as a collectors item because it is a different edition). Whatever the case, I'm keeping this one purely from a collectors perspective (only 2000 made!)

[kekid]

I think Salo will be the test case for Criterion's long-term approach to Blu Ray. There is little doubt in my mind that Salo will be released in Blu Ray format. The question is, when. Criterion should make it a policy to release DVD's such as Salo simultaneously in SD and BD formats, so that the customers can make the right choice. Separating the releases in two formats by several months can only be construed as a strategy for forcing double purchases. I hope Criterion does not engage in such practice.
So...awaiting an announcement about a BD version soon.

[Cold Bishop]

Isn't Salo on Blu-Ray pretty much confirmed already?

[malcolm1980]

Isn't Salo on Blu-Ray pretty much confirmed already?

Oh, the wonders they can do to the shit-eating scene!

[CSM126]

So...awaiting an announcement about a BD version soon.

Well they ain't starting their blu-ray line until October so they're doing exactly what you don't want.