Personally, overall I found Salo a rather average-type film. Aside from its shock-value (and reputation), there wasn’t THAT much to it. certainly little that makes me want to watch it again. I came out of it with more of a “Well, now I can say I have seen it” attitude, rather than a “Wow, that was a brilliant film!” view. So I guess my question to you is, what do you want from the film? I like to have seen most of the “hype” films, so I do not regret seeing this one.
nothing should not be seen. knowledge of existence is power.
edit after 2nd post if there’s any part of you that wants to see it, see it.
Justin Traviss – What I want from the film is what I want from any experience. That it be edifying in some fashion, whether it be intellectually, physically, spiritually, sensually, etc. Films, as with other forms of art, have an experiential distinction in that I can choose whether to experience it or not. With Salo I have not come across a reason to experience it other than being a completist (seeing all of Passolini’s films, seeing all the Criterion films, or seeing “hype” films like you mentioned) and that isn’t a strong enough reason to me anymore. I similarly don’t like the idea of the film’s that i watch being trophies. I want “War and Peace” to actually be a good story or at least be extraordinary in terms of craft, not just an obnoxiously long book. That being said, that denial gives the film a particular mystique that is as tantalizing as the grass the sign tells you to stay off of.
Mr. Sweetums (genius name) – Nothing should not be seen? Dangerous maxim. Would you agree then, that it aught to be seen simply because it exists? Is this true only because it is a fabrication and not a documentation or does this hold true for anything that can be taken in visually? Honestly curious what you think, not trying to bait you.
I agree that if you have any curiosity about the film, you should see it. I personally was disappointed by the film but I saw it without really knowing much about it, either. I don’t usually see the “hype films” but I checked Salo out because I really didn’t think the visuals were going to be that intense and I was told it was an important “Criterion” movie that I should not miss. I’m glad that I can discuss the film now but, eh. That’s just me. I think also if you’re starting a thread on here about whether you should see it or not, it’s already built up in your mind to be more interesting than it actually is.
i saw the film out of curiosity more than anything. it wasnt the sort of film i will watch over and over, but the legendary status of the original criterion dvd, added to what i had seen of pasolini previously meant that it was an interesting view regardless of how i felt about what was going on on screen. iv seen much worse, the staging of the “acts” is all fairly obvious and i dony think it would do yourself much harm by subjecting yourself to it.
Just by asking the question “Should I watch Salo?” means yes you should. On the other hand…I read about the film for at least five years before I saw it and in that time it really blew itself up in my mind and when I finally had the chance to see it there was no way it could reach the strange high places I had put it. My advice is to watch it right now immediately or never watch it at all. If it sits and festers for a while it will continue to build up and grow as it did for me and it was ultimately a disappointment, but it may not have had a fair chance so don’t hesitate and make up your mind right this second. Neither choice is absolutely right or wrong, but allowing the mind to twist is the worst decision.
Phil: I know you weren’t trying to bait me; thanks for inquiring about my logic on that… The meaning behind my original post was designed for the context of why you posted this thread in the first place: you recognize there MAY be something of value in Salo, but are weighing it against the likelihood of enjoying the film to the legendary extent of where its unique and invaluable status holds it.
I haven’t seen the film. Do I plan to soon: yes. If it’s already been praised on this website by true fans of cinema whom I can relate to, then yes, I’ll most certainly give it a chance. Apparently I should’ve reconsidered my wording in the first post, since my first reaction warranted a thumbs down. Sometimes I have to trust other previous viewers to know if it will be worth my time and energy to sit down and watch certain films. But if I listen to the right people, it’s usually always worth it.
Watch the movie, Phil!
“Salo” should be seen. It’s an important piece of work. Yes, depending on your point of view and tolerance, the violence, both sexual and in terms of torture, is graphic and wholly in context, although one can argue it might not need to be as horrific as it was. But it’s a movie from a director at the end of his creative zeal, who had a hatred for life and couldn’t reconcile his homosexual, Marxist and Catholic roots. He realised how commodified everything was becoming, including an individual’s body. Junk food is represented, literally, by eating shit.
The techniques of torture and execution are representative of modern era judicial methods of homicide, up until the point most of the EU abolished the death penalty. It’s not a film for people happily enjoying life, but it’s prophetic in the sense that, depending on your political bent, things have probably got worse, not better since the film was made, and since Pasolini was murdered. The thing that has always struck me about the film is that a lot of the violence comes from the tone of voice of those in authority- it’s very jarring the way they expect their victims to be obedient when being forced to do disgusting and degrading activities.
But to get the most effect from it, you have to read around the subject. Issues around Italian occupation, fascism, capitalism, Marxism, subjugation of the many by the few. Pasolini quotes various poets and many people have written on the film over the years. It’s also useful to watch other movies about fascism- Visconti’s “The Dammed”, “Bertolucci’s "The Conformist” and “1900”, “The Night Porter”, “Seven Beauties” and other Pasolini films such as “Pigsty” and “Theorem”.
I first saw the film when I was 16 in 1988, and was struck by the film’s power, even though in the UK the film had been cut to avoid prosecution for obscenity. It was double-billed with “The Dammed”- another skewed look at fascism. Italy and fascism is a fascinating and disturbing time in Italian culture, and the films that came out of the era and the aftermath are some of the most powerful ever made. Every one should see “Salo” at least once, but the violence has to be taken in context, rather than isolated moments of visceral power and horror.
Well, I think this is a film meant to be watched. It certainly is a tough one… I guess, since I wasn’t even shocked by it (that doesn’t mean I don’t think the scenes in it are horrible), but the whole point of it is what it menas, what it wants to transmit and state. You should read a lot as Andrew says and know about the subjects it deals with so that your approach will be more focused on the metaphors, rather than the depictions of torture, murder and coprophagia.
Well, I think this is a film meant to be watched. It certainly is a tough one… I guess, since I wasn’t even shocked by it (that doesn’t mean I don’t think the scenes in it are horrible), but the whole point of it is what it menas, what it wants to transmit and state. You should read a lot as Andrew says and know about the subjects it deals with so that your approach will be more focused on the metaphors, rather than the depictions of torture, murder and coprophagia.
Well, I think this is a film meant to be watched. It certainly is a tough one… I guess, since I wasn’t even shocked by it (that doesn’t mean I don’t think the scenes in it are horrible), but the whole point of it is what it menas, what it wants to transmit and state. You should read a lot as Andrew says and know about the subjects it deals with so that your approach will be more focused on the metaphors, rather than the depictions of torture, murder and coprophagia.
I think Salo, like a small number of films with a narrow political point of view, was not made for general consumption, but to upset a specific group of political adversaries. If one has enough detachment from the subject and can view it as a historical or political curiosity, it may have some merit. But don’t we become more selective in our choices as we see more films? After reading about Salo, extensively, I came to understand Pasolini’s social and political anger, and having learned that, I decided I would not be further enlightened by watching people play-act at debasing each other and being debased.
I asked myself, “What can I possibly gain from observing the torture and degradation? Will I notice how well-lit the scenes are? Will I appreciate the careful attention to detail and mise-en-scene? Will I be ennobled, moved, thrilled? Will I really learn something more by witnessing these images? Am I going to have perverse fun? Do I feel self-righteous? Will I be motivated to go forth and speak out against tortrure? Or am I just going to have to tighten my gut and get through it? And will the experience have been worth it for its own sake?”.
I don’t believe in censorship, but I believe in making an informed personal choice of what to view and support. Those of us who love film the most are in the best position to be honest with ourselves and make these choices with full knowledge of what we expect going in. So I do believe that some things are not meant to be seen by all people. I don’t think Pasolini had me in mind when he made Salo. But I had to ask myself some hard questions first.
The film, while occasionally repulsive, certainly does not deserve its reputation as “one of the most offensive films ever made”. I found it to be a suprisingly intelligent, even delicate film. Having read the novel on which it is based, it is miles away from its source material; where de Sade is wild and indulgent, enjoying every word and texture, assaulting a world he sees as false and repressed, Pasolini seems to be crying out to a world he believes is dying.
de Sade’s novel is about freedom, Pasolini’s film is about the loss of it.
That being said, it is by no means a masterpiece. If you have an interest in Pasolini, Italian or Art Cinema I would reccomend viewing it. If your tastes tend more towards entertainment and craftsmanship, you’ll probably find little of interest, other than some shocking images.
Certainly there might be many reasons to watch Pasolini’s Salo. Why does anyone read de Sade? Perhaps it is initially the taboo nature of the film. No two people that I’ve read had the identical response to it. Nor were they the same as my own. It seems to be a kind of litmus test. I have mixed feelings about whether it has artistic merit. One reason to see it, I believe comes from these very mixed reactions it produces. That is perhaps its merit.
I have seen the film, owned the previous edition (from Criterion) and plan on purchasing the new 2-disc version. However, I do not like the film nor do I believe it has any artistic merit. I only wish to own it because of it’s historical significance. It’s not a film you watch to enjoy. It’s a film you study. It raises many questions. What happened? Did Pasolini simply lose his mind? What possessed him to make this film? I am more interested in the new bonus features than re-watching this film itself again. Bottom line: It should be seen once by cinephiles, but no artistic merit should be expected.
—————————————————————
As I’ve said before, Pasolini seemed to think the best way to get people to think about torture was to make a film that’s torture to sit through, and for all I know that may have been the Marquis de Sade’s point as well. Pasolini goes way, way, way out of his way to make the film punishing to sit through, as repulsive scenes are dragged out in some length, and he rather needlessly forces you to look at things you don’t want to see. Some, of course, will argue that Pasolini is doing this for our own good, but he keeps doing it and doing it to the point where it feels as if watching the film amounts to a kind of S/M contract with the director. As the comments on this forum indicate, the director has no end of willing victims who will not only take the punishment but defend Pasolini for administering it.
Maybe it’s just because I only watched it yesterday and the wound it left in my mind is still fresh, but I really regret watching it. It was not worth it. At all. I had a horrible day today because I couldn’t get the images out of my head, and, maybe it’s just because I’m too distracted by those images, but I don’t see anything artistic in it, other than some shallow philosophical musings and quotations by the sadists.
I saw it with great curiosity of what it was. Had no Idea about what it was about other that the criterion and the netflix descriptions of it. Will I see it again? Maybe after I read more about the Marquee De salle and see more of Pasolini’s work. Do I regret watching it? No. It is a film for cinema enthusitests must see to see the boundries that could be pushed. I was in my apartment with the lights on watching this film and while I was being further disgusted on what I was seeing on screen I imagined what it would be like to see this film in a theatre with the average audience in attendance that go to these type of films. (“These type of films” meaning foriegn or art house films not snuff films). What type of reactions would the audience be letting out? how many would walk out and when…right when I turned the film off and said I couldn’t take anymore?
It is an interesting film for what it is and what it says…not about the human spirit but about how far we can go now with film.
I saw it with great curiosity of what it was. Had no Idea about what it was about other that the criterion and the netflix descriptions of it. Will I see it again? Maybe after I read more about the Marquee De salle and see more of Pasolini’s work. Do I regret watching it? No. It is a film for cinema enthusitests must see to see the boundries that could be pushed. I was in my apartment with the lights on watching this film and while I was being further disgusted on what I was seeing on screen I imagined what it would be like to see this film in a theatre with the average audience in attendance that go to these type of films. (“These type of films” meaning foriegn or art house films not snuff films). What type of reactions would the audience be letting out? how many would walk out and when…right when I turned the film off and said I couldn’t take anymore?
It is an interesting film for what it is and what it says…not about the human spirit but about how far we can go now with film.
The reason to see it is because it exists and is gross and it has a reputation for being the most offensive movie or whatever. It’s not as gross as the hype would lead you to believe, but it did make me gag once and turn away. Regardless, I thought the movie was pretty boring. I thought the metaphors were kind of dumb. And I thought the whole thing appeared to be just sort of thrown together. I didn’t hate it or anything, I was just hoping for something more interesting. It did make me very interested in Pasolini, though. That guy has quite a story and the mystery surrounding his death is crazy! I definitely plan on looking into his earlier movies soon. So I got that out of it.
Whether or not you think Salo is a great film, it is still an important film. For that, it is worth seeing. Easy Rider, in my honest opinion, is not an especially great film. But because of its place in both sixties counter-culture and film history, I consider it to be an important film. There were a lot of things that were gained from that film and as such it changed somewhat the face of film.
I’ve always been the kind of person that will watch pretty much anything for myself and it has been a long time since I was really offended by anything in a film or in art or in literature. Art is such a broad area to me and it encompasses such a wide array of feelings and convictions. But, then again, of course I am going to tell you to watch it – I recommend Cannibal Holocaust at least once to everyone as well.
I think that this movie is a milestone of the cinema, and that passolini is a oracle. More than see Salo for the, obviously, disgusting torture scenes, you must see it as a testament, a last cry of a person, a really sensible, smart, artistic person, who is telling us “the marvelous humanity can become is becoming nothing more than a group of person happy with opress and another group of person happy with be opressed”. You must mind the mechanism of opression that Passolini put in scene in Salo : the word, the tone of the voice, the orders. From the word comes the real violence in Salo. Maybe, i suppose that only maybe, great amount of the reject we in ours days feel for Salo is because that, underground, we didn’t see a lot of difference in our world between the countryside house of the fascist and, let’s say, guantánamo usa’s illegal prisson. And for Passolini who was, i reppeat, an oracle this is only the beggining…
Mr. Worfel: I long held your position, avoiding this film for years, even though I’m an admirer of Pasolini’s work in general. I succumbed last year, and I regret I did.
Absent from this is Pasolini’s rich humanity and humor. So much contrivance here. By marrying de Sade to these Nazi perversions, he certainly did a disservice to de Sade. But I think he also missed the depths of the evil. This is not Pasolini the artist, but the artist gone round a bend. Yes, it is hard to watch. But worse, it is finally boring. So hang on to your good instincts. You’ll never know this first hand, but you’ll be glad you did.
(Of course, for coprophiliacs, this is one not to be missed, a must see.)
I must confess. I do not know what a coprophiliac is. I have no desire to see the film and will adhere to my better judgement.
At least you have the choice, it’s still banned outright across the whole of Australia.
>>I had a horrible day today because I couldn’t get the images out of my head<<
This alone is often taken as a sign of great art. It will not leave you alone. And it is not art’s duty to be comfortable; quite the opposite.
>>we didn’t see a lot of difference in our world between the countryside house of the fascist and, let’s say, guantánamo<<
An excellent observation.
I’ve never seen this, but I wonder what would happen if I watched it for the first time with a freind or two.
I think I may do that since it sounds like I won’t be watching this twice…
Besides, we have all watched various shocks like the infamous 2 Girls, One Cup video, Hatchet vs. Genitals, and some random horrible terrorist videos.
I can’t see how Salo’s explict content is any worse than these horrible desensitizing videos, except longer in terms of film length as a whole.
I’m anxious to see if it’s actually a “good” film though, and not a dumb shock fest. I’ve read mixed things, so I’ll watch it one day out of mere curiosity, but I’m in no hurry.
This was a film driven primarily by Pasolini’s own perverted sexual lifestyle. His infatuation with the Marquis De Sade’s perverted text provided his obviously preferred backdrop to have his characters wax philosophical about the sexual dynamics and violence inherent in man’s nature. The pornography and violence serves as a metaphor for the dangers and evils of capitalism, a favorite subject of Pasolini, which he attributes to the downfall of any established society. The film is rife with dialogue in which characters quote Nietzsche and other philosophers that underscore this theme. The bottom line, Phil, is if you’re intellectually up for the challenge and are brushed up on your philosophy, then Salo is a must.
Phil Worfel
I’ve not seen Salo but I have read quite a bit about it including Gary Indiana’s BFI critique, Ben Simington’s excellent essay and countless forum and review posts. From what I can gather it is completely repulsive and a unique and valuable masterpiece.
It is however one of the few artistically lauded films that I have adamantly refused to watch.
A faction of the crowd that recommends the film seem to enjoy the extreme nature of its content, reveling in it’s extraordinary perversity pausing only to make sure that there is a sign on the door reading “Don’t worry. I’m appreciating it for it’s artistic merit.”
Another group seems to fear the jibes of their liberated contemporaries quoting it to be disgusting and vile but nonetheless important. They don’t really seem to be able to articulate it’s importance other than it being a curio that delineates how extreme a work can be and still be called art.
I’m not really interested in the “What is art and who determines that?” question in this case.
I’m simply interested in hearing, from those who have seen it, why it is important for me as a rabid film enthusiast to subject himself to the images that Passolini has to offer here? Simply because it’s there? Because it was created by a great auteur?
Should I watch Salo?