criterionforum.org

HerrSchreck wrote:and the messages relayed via the casting of the film.

What do you mean?

The release is still missing that one sequence that's on the BFI disc. During the first wedding sequence the Duke shoves everyone outside and then the sequence cuts to him closing the door. So it's still the same cut as on the old Criterion DVD.

The transfer, though, is gorgeous. A huge improvement over the previous release. It was nice to see actual colour and I have to say it was like watching a completely different film (I've only watched it through the older Criterion disc.) The audio has also been vastly improved.

Looks like it's just (this July) been banned again in Australia

'Shock Video' submitted it for classification and got another 'RC'

And for a whole lot of detail on the history of the banning.

Having glanced at the article I see that, at least, for what it's worth, the vote was 7 to 6.

Thanks for the link. While the article itself seems to be a fair account of what happened, the title of it tells all about the popular perception of the film, not just in Australia:

"Sadistic sex movie ban 'attacks art expression'".

It's about sadism and sex (among other things), but clearly not a 'sadistic sex movie'. But it shows how little Paso's intentions are understood even now, after more than 30 years.

You know, the more I think about it, a new transfer of Salò is incredibly important. The less the presentation of the film makes it seem like an exploitation film, the more people will look at it with respect for its artistry. cdnchris's comment about it being like a whole different film is exactly right.

Tommaso wrote:While the article itself seems to be a fair account of what happened, the title of it tells all about the popular perception of the film, not just in Australia:

"Sadistic sex movie ban 'attacks art expression'".

It's about sadism and sex (among other things), but clearly not a 'sadistic sex movie'. But it shows how little Paso's intentions are understood even now, after more than 30 years.

Before they even name the title of the film, they have already identified it as "A FILM with graphic depictions of torture, extreme sexual violence, pedophilia and eating faeces".

Klaylock wrote:Before they even name the title of the film, they have already identified it as "A FILM with graphic depictions of torture, extreme sexual violence, pedophilia and eating faeces".

I find this extremely odd. Sálo is a nasty film, and its importance (that I personally recognise greatly) is no doubt going to be debated in regard to the nastiness on screen (of course this debate should be given to the floor to judge, not those few individuals representing the eyes and ears of a nation), but, in regard to another film that features 'extreme sexual violence, paedophilia', my R4 Madman copy of Á Ma Soeur (Fat Girl) has been passed fully uncut, yet, from what I gather, the BBFC did not allow the dvd release to go un-edited and trimmed 28 seconds from the penultimate scene on the Tartan R2 release. Of course the films are wildly different, but there is no denying the impact the removed scene has in Breillat's film, and I felt somewhat impressed that the Australlian classification system were brave enough to go where the BBFC feared to tread, only to take 5 steps back again.

I'm not entirely sure what my argument is here...perhaps its just confusion over the inconsitencies of a classifcation system in general.

While banning the film is ridiculous, it can't help that a company called Shock Video (no matter how respectable they are) are looking for a rating.

Klaylock wrote:You know, the more I think about it, a new transfer of Salò is incredibly important. The less the presentation of the film makes it seem like an exploitation film, the more people will look at it with respect for its artistry. cdnchris's comment about it being like a whole different film is exactly right.

Yes, exactly my thought. In that article it is gleefully (?) noted that the film is widely distributed in the US and Europe, and although this is a situation that will not change anytime soon, who knows? All the more important that the BFI and CC are releasing it in what seems wholly adequate editions, apart from that missing moment that cdnchris mentioned in the CC release (which indicates that, regardless of your preference in the extras department, the new BFI would be the one to go for). I remember the film very imperfectly; is the missing bit very important or very cruel? Why is it (still) missing in the first place? I thought the CC was a wholly new transfer from restored elements?

bigP wrote:my R4 Madman copy of Á Ma Soeur (Fat Girl) has been passed fully uncut, yet, from what I gather, the BBFC did not allow the dvd release to go un-edited and trimmed 28 seconds from the penultimate scene on the Tartan R2 release. Of course the films are wildly different, but there is no denying the impact the removed scene has in Breillat's film, and I felt somewhat impressed that the Australlian classification system were brave enough to go where the BBFC feared to tread, only to take 5 steps back again.

To be fair to the BBFC, their hands were tied - the 1978 Protection of Children Act (which they have to take into account: "bravery" doesn't come into it) allows virtually no room for manoeuvre, and context/artistic merit doesn't provide a legal defence.

Presumably Australian legislation isn't quite so draconian.

By contrast, though, Salò doesn't contain anything that's actually illegal in British law - it doesn't fall foul of the 1978 Child Protection Act or the 1937 Animals Act, and the 1959 Obscene Publications Act doesn't apply since its famous/notorious "artistic merit" defence absolutely applies here.

David, I understand this has nothing to do with this thread or the movie, but sometimes you really turn me on.

Tommaso wrote:I remember the film very imperfectly; is the missing bit very important or very cruel? Why is it (still) missing in the first place? I thought the CC was a wholly new transfer from restored elements?

According to the first DVD Beaver review it is the scene of the poem being recited.

davidhare wrote:The rebanning of Salo in Oz is entirely political and has in reality nothing to do with content. It's as ever, a sop to the fucking Christians, and to that spineless cunt, the Prime Minister.

You deploy obscenities with the precision and craft of a true poet.

[Applause.]

Chalk up one for the truth in unvarnished language. Or rather, language that strips varnish!

jsteffe wrote:

davidhare wrote:The rebanning of Salo in Oz is ^%&^&$$%$##^^ [spittle] &^*&^*(%%^%$%$^##&$&$^(*&(*&(&!

You deploy obscenities with the precision and craft of a true poet.

[Applause.]

Chalk up one for the truth in unvarnished language. Or rather, language that strips varnish!

I hope like that heck that you're being satirical, Jsteffe.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go read some Noel Coward in a desperate attempt to regain some respect for homosexuals.

I am suddenly curious about one thing, though, what does David think of Jews and Muslims? It seems that most of his criticisms of certain Christians and 'Christians' would be just as aptly applied to certain Jews (and 'Jews') and certain Muslims (and 'Muslims') And, continuing with his penchant for generalisation and hating entire religions; is David an anti-Semite as well?

Of course, there are bad people in every religion (hence my inclusion of 'Jews,' 'Christians' and 'Muslims' in quotation marks, to suggest those who claim to be a part of a religion, but do not follow its teachings (the Borgias, etc.)) but it seems to me that if David is to apply his hatreds to 'the Jews' and 'the Muslims' with the same... generosity.... with which he hates 'the Christians' he must perforce move into the realm of anti-Semitism and the (clumsily applied, but interesting) catch-phrase of 'Islamophobia'

(Yes, I am aware that 'anti-Semitism' is generally used to refer to the whole race, regardless of belief. But, religious beliefs are inextricably tied in to all that. But, if anyone knows of a word to describe "Hatred of Jews" (based entirely on religion) then, let me know

Darth Lavender wrote:And, continuing with his penchant for generalisation and hating entire religions; is David an anti-Semite as well?
Of course, there are bad people in every religion (hence my inclusion of 'Jews,' 'Christians' and 'Muslims' in quotation marks, to suggest those who claim to be a part of a religion, but do not follow its teachings (the Borgias, etc.)) but it seems to me that if David is to apply his hatreds to 'the Jews' and 'the Muslims' with the same... generosity.... with which he hates 'the Christians' he must perforce move into the realm of anti-semitism and the (clumsily applied, but interesting) catch-phrase of 'Islamophobia'

I'm quite certain that he was referring to groups such as the Australian Family Association-- which happens to be both actively involved in trying to censor film and a Christian organization. If you can easily name for me a Jewish group in Australia with this mission, then perhaps I'll come back and actually read your rancorous rant.

neal wrote:If you can easily name for me a Jewish group in Australia with this mission, then perhaps I'll come back and actually read your rancorous rant.

1. Why does it have to be a group in Australia? I thought we were talking about the general principle. Is it 'less wrong' when something happens in another country? You've partly covered yourself with 'Australian' (obviously, there's going to be less Jewish groups campaigning against violence, in a country with such a small percentage of Jews (significant that you haven't asked to me find Muslim groups in Australia campaigning against sex and violence in the media) but in the process made your whole response kind of ridiculous.

2. The promise to read my 'rancorous rant' is sort of amusing. I mean, think about it, if you call my (frankly, interesting) question a 'rant' immediately after reading David's profanity-laden... elloquence. Then, tell me, truly, why would I care if you read my 'rant' or not?

davidhare wrote:

Darth Lavender wrote:Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go read some Noel Coward in a desperate attempt to regain some respect for homosexuals.

And I'm curling up with the old Grove Press paperback of the Sade. To remind myself of all those nice het atheists.

I wish I could say I don't care less about any of the religions but while they continue to exercise the dead weight of their poisonous power broking in the affairs of state they all remain reprehensible to me.

But who am I to argue with two thousand years of tribalism, warfare and persecution.

I presume you live in Sydney, so I presume you're also familiar with the recent love fest that cost the State 180 million for the sake of an ex Nazi, an ex Ambulance chaser as new pretender to the Sydney Cardinalship and the unpleasant incumbent Georgie (and the Spice Girls), both of whom seem to have a real soft spot for their pedophilic clergy, not to mention the equally charmless Anglican Primate. And of cours the spectacle of the gormless head of this State going into the press with the astonishing "I am a Christian Politician" routine. (Admittedly it was the Murdoch Press who'll print anything.) But it's always necessary I suppose to restate, it's the Organizations, not individuals with faith who are the problem.

There's actually a (in my humble opinion) pretty good response hiding in that paragraph.

While I've never liked name-calling and vitriol, I do very much appreciate that you've stood up and bluntly said you disapprove of all those religions (as organisations)

I was rather expecting a lot of double-talk, and non-sequitur. So, it was nice to get an honest and coherent answer.

davidhare wrote:I think I have a couple of rivals for colorful language here on the board (Hi guys.)

Sadly - and you may find this unbelievable - I hate myself for resorting to this language, but frankly obscenity seems the only sane response to these parasites/politicians in the 21st Century. (Mind you Sade obviously also thought as much in the 18th.)

It is a very Sadeian response! Though I find it a shame that our derogative terms for the most hateful people or organisations in our world are based on genitalia - parts of the body that surely provide so much joy to so many and don't deserve the negative association!

I prefer to use the other 'c' word to describe the truly hateful things in this world that are unwelcome and unwanted but make an appearance to destroy other people and disrupt lives - 'cancerous growths'!

It seems more appropriate somehow!

davidhare wrote:As I get older the most shocking thing to me about life these days is the apparent absence of any historical knowledge or skills amongst people under 30. I have no idea how old you are, or anything else so please don't take this as a personal attack.

But it makes it so much easier to invade Iraq when you as the leader and your population as a whole don't have a historical knowledge to put current actions into context! I may be being cynical but I feel we are in an age of calculated ignorance - that if you can say you weren't aware of what was going on, or that research or historical background to a conflict does not matter, or that you didn't realise that the consequences of your actions were going to have that effect on the world, you are given a free pass to continue on your way.

Who needs a violent and messy Cultural Revolution when you can just devalue knowledge over time through lack of education and rampant anti-intellectualism?

davidhare's quote seems to get to the point of the early section of Salo - why question your superiors herding you up for their own purposes, instead trust in the appearance of legitimacy without question and allow yourself to be subjected to whatever occurs all while hoping it is for a greater good. They're the adults who know best and we're the eternal children who cannot hope to understand their motivations, and who should be grateful for their attentions and to simply be of use.

"Their's not to reason why, their's but to do or die"

Chris, in your Review you write "As of right now the old BFI is the only disc I know of that contains this extra sequence."

But there is an other release containing that sequence. It is the German DVD released by Legend Home Entertainment, now out of print.
Let's hope the BF will have it in there like the last time.

cdnchris wrote:New Release

A very fine review - thanks Chris. Has your opinion on the film changed at all with this new edition?

Narshty wrote:

cdnchris wrote:New Release

A very fine review - thanks Chris. Has your opinion on the film changed at all with this new edition?

It's actually changed quite a bit over the years but this release also did help. It wasn't an easy film to digest when one is unprepared. The extras are quite insightful and may help in getting one to at least appreciate the film a little more. It's a good release overall but I'm curious what the new BFI one will be like.

golgothicon wrote:Chris, in your Review you write "As of right now the old BFI is the only disc I know of that contains this extra sequence."

But there is an other release containing that sequence. It is the German DVD released by Legend Home Entertainment, now out of print.
Let's hope the BF will have it in there like the last time.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that release. I'll have to update the review.

Here's a wonderful ...ahm...review of CC's "Salo" from a place called DVD Movie Central.

I love this bit: "At best, maybe Salo is an ultimate litmus test for your own sense of decency. Maybe if you can watch this film and find you feel nothing apart from revulsion and nausea, you’re in a good place in your life. If you find any of it intriguing, absorbing, or titillating in the least…well, frankly, I don’t want to know you."

golgothicon wrote:Let's hope the BFI will have it in there like the last time.

I haven't seen the new BFI transfer myself yet, but my understanding is that it will be just as complete as the earlier one.

Tommaso wrote:Here's a wonderful ...ahm...review of CC's "Salo" from a place called DVD Movie Central.

I love this bit: "At best, maybe Salo is an ultimate litmus test for your own sense of decency. Maybe if you can watch this film and find you feel nothing apart from revulsion and nausea, you’re in a good place in your life. If you find any of it intriguing, absorbing, or titillating in the least…well, frankly, I don’t want to know you."

That's almost as funny as this toe-curlingly pig-ignorant take on Oshima's In the Realm of the Senses from DVD Verdict:

With all of that said, I must now say that this review is based on only watching one-third of In The Realm Of The Senses. Like I said, I'm not a porn person, and In The Realm Of The Senses plays like Japanese porn…Boogie Nights with shamisen music rather than disco (and no Heather Graham). I took nothing from the plot, so here's a snippet from a review by the Edinburgh University Film Society: "A servant and former prostitute, Sada, becomes infatuated with her employer Kizicho, a businessman, after seeing him and his wife make love. Soon Kizicho becomes obsessed with Sada as well. Their relationship becomes more and more intense, with Sada assuming the dominant role and Kizicho proving less and less able to match her sexual demands. Eventually he consents to being strangled whilst having sex in the hope of attaining ultimate sexual fulfilment [sic]. Sada then cuts Kizicho's penis off, wandering around with it for a few days until she is finally found." The review then goes on to discuss the film in bullshit academic terms of male/female roles; you can see in what regard I hold their opinions.

My favourite bit of the above is the oh-so-superior "[sic]", as if to say "Hey, these Edinburgh University guys may be highfalutin innerleckshewals, but they can't even spell!".

In actual fact, "fulfilment" is indeed how we spell the word on our side of the Atlantic, and I'd no more criticise [sic] someone for that than I would for their spelling of "colo(u)r" - because it would make me look like a buffoon.

That DVD Movie Central review does contain one priceless line though:

It’s like being challenged to eat a live bug, but far worse.

I can't really hold a negative review of Salo against anyone though. I'm keen to see both new releases to go through the supplements, though whether I can sit through the film for a third time is something else. I don't find it that unwatchably revolting on a visceral level (whatever that says about me) but it drains the soul like nothing else.

Narshty wrote:That DVD Movie Central review does contain one priceless line though:

It’s like being challenged to eat a live bug, but far worse.

Yeah, that's perhaps even better than the one I quoted. Actually, I think I would prefer watching "Salo" to eating a bug, but that may just be me...

And I of course can understand a harsh, emotional stance against that film; I find it revolting enough myself (more on a physical level than intellectually, though). But I just cannot accept that that reviewer is apparently unable to look beyond these personal reactions, and manages to give the film itself a zero rating because of that. Well, most viewers considering to buy that CC edition will have heard enough about Pasolini or have seen the film itself to be able to make up their minds.

But that dvdverdict review of the Oshima is even more fun:-)
And in a way I find "Boogie Nights with shamisen music rather than disco" almost an apt description of it

Tommaso wrote:Actually, I think I would prefer watching "Salo" to eating a bug, but that may just be me...

I once ate a cricket covered in chocolate and it was rather tasty. Still haven't seen Salo.