Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (1975) Reviews

• One of the most gruelling films ever made

  world_of_weird2005-01-17

  Pier Paolo Pasolini, as is well known, was murdered not long after he finished work on this, his most audacious and confrontational film, yet even the most casual viewing of SALO begs the question - had he not been murdered, would he have taken his own life anyway? Every sequence, every shot and practically every moment of this film is so burdened with despair, barely concealed rage and a towering disgust with the human race, one gets the impression that Pasolini was barely hanging onto life - and any attendant shreds of hope - by his fingernails. Although ostensibly an adaptation of one of DeSade's most depraved works channeled through the horrifying excesses of the Second World War with the Fascist ruling classes as its (authentically vile) villains, SALO also contains a lot of contemporary criticism - Pasolini hated the modern world, and explained the stomach-churning 'banquet of s**t' as a none-too-subtle attack on the encroaching global domination of the fast food chains. (The scenes of sexual excess can similarly be read as a despairing attack on the permissive society - those who come to SALO expecting titillation or B-movie sleaze will be sorely disappointed.) Beyond the nihilistic content, which has been well documented elsewhere, the film has an overall mood that seems to have been engineered to make the viewer thoroughly depressed. Shot on washed-out, faded film stock using primarily static cameras, long shots, choppy editing and very few cutaways, SALO has a visual style reminiscent of cinema-verite documentary. Add to this the unnerving use of big band music, piano dirges and the (intentionally?) scrappy post-dubbed dialogue, and the distancing effect on the viewer is complete. SALO comes across as one long primal scream of rage, designed to shake the viewer out of his complacency, and in this respect, the film succeeds unequivocally. Whether or not you would care to watch this more than once, or indeed for 'entertainment', is another matter, but SALO is an important film that demands a careful viewing ONLY by those prepared for it.

• Don't judge this film too quickly.

  marcopop1999-04-30

  It appears most people find this movie to be sick, pointless, and without substance. That's unfair. This is the strongest movie I've ever seen, and it made an IMPORTANT impression on me, a big horrorflick-devotee. It made me question a lot of things about former favourite films, and made me realize how sick it is to make horror and violence into entertainment. The problem with most movies is that violence is not portrayed violent enough, horror isn't portrayed horrible enough. Most 'thriller' films have these ingredients softened so that people can enjoy it, and THAT'S sick. This movie is SANE. It shows horror and violence as it IS - totally revolting and disgusting. I sat as on needles for 1 hour 40 minutes, and felt really bad watching this film. It grossed me out, but I understood why this film is both good and important. It gives a sane perspective on violence, as opposed to SICK, SICK Hollywood-action where people get killed by 'heroes' and nobody raises an eyebrow.

• A Film of Rage and Sadness

  BackFire832007-05-29

  Salo, the final film by Pasolini, is far and away the most affecting film I've ever seen of it's type. The images that it shows will stay with every viewer forever, they are unforgettable. Yet, you will wish you could forget them. The film is about a group of rich Fascists during WWII-Nazi Occupied Italy, where they kidnap a group of 18 youngsters, allowing only physically perfect specimins to stay, and subject them to various forms of mental, physical and sexual torture over the next 120 Days. The torture starts off in a sexual nature--Sodomy, rape, humiliation and so on-- and slowly degrades and descends into mental and physical torture. Just when you think what you are seeing can't get worse, it does, ten-fold. What makes Salo so brutally shocking and disturbing is its uncompromised and blunt way of showing the acts of horror. It is a very quiet and slow film, mostly shot using static and still cameras, it feels more like a documentary than a fictional film. It's clear upon viewing, that Pasolini wanted to remind us all that violence should not be entertainment. As such, every act of violence and degredation is drained of all its possible energy and excitement, and shown in a sad, painful light. Nothing is sugar coated, nothing is softened. This film is an attack on our desensitized feelings towards violence. Yet, at the same time, the film purposely desensitizes us to certain acts -- Such as rape. We see it so much during the film that it becomes "normality" to us, we barely raise an eyebrow. Upon realizing this, one also realizes how the horrible acts shown in the film are possible, and it's a terrible realization. Salo continues to descend until at the end, when we are taken to the punishing grounds, where various rule breakers are tortured and murdered. This final sequence is the most harrowing and effective I've ever seen in a film. As the victims are tortured and murdered, each one of the fascist rulers take turns as voyer, watching from a second story window, far enough away to not hear the screams of terror and pain. And we watch with him. The film attempts to equate our viewing of this film to their viewing of the executions, after all, we're watching these acts for "entertainment", just as he is. And we distance ourselves from the acts in order to enjoy them, as he does by watching through binoculars far away. It's a savage and truthful attack, one that is impossible to deny. Also incredibly unsettling is the inherent joy that the villains (Heroes?) feel at their victims pain, sadness and discomfort. Sometimes even to the point of sexual arousal. There is a scene where a girl is crying because her mother died trying to save her from these people. She is completely naked as she weeps, to us, she's the picture of vulnerability and sadness, to the fascists, it's the most exciting thing they've seen all day. The fascists all stand and watch her weep with the utmost sexualexcitement. It is terrifying. It's scenes like these that set Salo apart from other "gross out" movies. Some of the most affecting and frightening scenes are ones where there is quiet, watching the expressions and reactions of people to the various horrible acts. Salo is a film of rage and sadness. It is a film that asks you to hate humanity, to hate what we're capable of; to look in the mirror and hate yourself. Then weep because nothing can be done about it. Nothing will ever change..

• One of the roughest films you'll ever see.

  futures-12005-06-06

  "Salo: The 120 Days of Sodom" (1975): Be prepared for one of the roughest films you'll ever see. This was Pasolini's last, and going by what I've seen, his vision only became bleaker and more disturbed as the years clawed along. Using the Marquis de Sade's ideas on the decadence of 18th century France, Pasolini represents Fascist Italy (1944-45). We are shown the upper class – always removed and protected from the outer world – as predators of the poor, weak, young, and less educated. A group of wealthy adults shop amongst the kidnapped older children of bourgeoisie. They choose eighteen, and steal them away to a hidden mansion, where there is no escape. There, the adults live out every twisted fantasy they've ever had or can now muster, while demeaning, raping, and torturing the youngsters. The teens react in many ways, none of which are "pretty". This entire film experience MUST be viewed as a symbolic, emotional "explanation" of what it was like to live under Nazi/Fascist rule (in this case), and how an otherwise normal, decent society could be turned into lunatics and sub-animals. Although made 30 years ago (with the usual weaker production qualities of that era), I cannot think of another work which so blatantly and painfully illustrates what those in power are capable of doing when boredom gives rein to impulse. In comparison, "Lord of the Flies" barely lights upon these issues, "Pink Flamingos" was but a tiny, kitschy springboard, and "Schindler's List" described a much narrower range of degradation. To this day, "Salo: …" is banned in some countries. This is NOT a film about acting, lighting, sound, camera work, etc.. This is a film about states of mind – theirs then, ours now. P.S.: If you are interested in set design, this one is FILLED with original Cubist/Bauhaus/Futurist/Moderne furnishings, murals, and art. Spectacular. Those styles were not yet being reproduced, so Pasolini used the real thing. There is also an interesting use of a Charles Rennie MacIntosh chair…which will alter how you see this design from here on out.

• Did Pasolini really "wallow in his own sensationalism"?

  renelsonantonius2002-04-19

  With Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Salo," the long-disputed issue of the extent to which a filmmaker can interpret a story on screen has been put to the ultimate test.And when "extreme" cases do happen, do the censors become "morally" justified in interfering with the filmmaker's "creative freedom"? There are a good number of films that can be used to illustrate the issues raised:Alejandro Jodorowsky's "Santa Sangre" can be a case in point regarding the subject of violence and gore (a mentally-disturbed serial murderer and his domineering mother, with surreal images and subtle attacks on the Catholic faith),while Nagisa Oshima's "In the Realm of the Senses" can be a point of reference regarding the subject of sex and nudity (a couple---a geisha and a tradesman---who has practically made sexual intercourse the be-all and end-all of their lives, to the point of obsession and possessiveness). On the other hand, Pasolini's film shows both "flesh and blood." The opening credits, with the accompaniment of a soft-sounding music, and the opening shot of a calm body of water, with a palace (turns out to belong to the high officials) viewed from afar, are deceiving:what follows from thereon is definitely not soothing to one's senses.Set in World War II Italy, where Benito Mussolini's Nazi-Fascist regime is very much in power, the film depicts the ways in which the dictator's high-standing minions are capable of degrading and brutalizing the citizens,particularly the youth, just to satisfy some perverted and homo-erotic desires. The film is divided in four parts (or "chapters," if one may call them so, since the film, it's significant to say, is based on a novel by Marquis de Sade, a controversial and provocative man of letters during his time),where each one represents the stages in which the young, innocent and gentle are deliberately and systematically corrupted and destroyed by the supposed-to-be leaders and guardians of the state---it's like hungry wolves feeding on gentle lambs. "Antechamber of Hell" shows how a number of young people, most of them beautiful and fresh, are rounded up, brought to the palace and oriented with the "rules and regulations" that are to govern their existence within the chamber of power---upon hearing them, one gets the impression that this might just be what hell really is. "Circle of Obsessions" has the state officials weaving tales of eroticism and sensuality to arouse themselves and the youth into making some of the most perverted sexual acts---unabashed nudity, autoeroticism, hedonism, lasciviousness and homoeroticism are strewn all over. "Circle of Shit" illustrates a further debasement:feeding on others' and one's own excrement (there's even a scene where one of the officials lets a young woman urinate right into his mouth) as, if I understand it right, a gesture of wholly accepting the "evil" in all of us---the "stench," to be taken literally and figuratively.The images may truly repel the viewers:a graphic act of defecation, close-up shots of feces (and what a heap!) and the notoriously unforgettable mock wedding reception. Finally, "Circle of Blood" takes the viewers to "salo"---the punishing ground, where the young boys and girls who broke some of the "rules and regulations" are "taught their lesson" by the men in power.Again, this part is excruciating to watch, for the viewers become witness to some of the most brutally painful acts of punishment:how about an eye being removed, just to give a sample? Now, was Pasolini "guilty" of, to use film critic Leonard Maltin's words, "wallowing in his own sensationalism"? I've yet to read the book on which the film is based, but someone told me that the Italian filmmaker was just being faithful to De Sade's work.Meaning to say, Pasolini tried as much as possible to express visually what the French novelist expressed in words.True, "Salo" in its entirety is an extremely offensive and shocking film, the kind to which the moviegoing adage "Just sit back and relax" won't definitely apply.But then, isn't that the kind of response that the film's theme and images should elicit from the viewers in the first place? Not to be disoriented and enraged by the lowest depths into which man's (ab)use of power and satisfaction of primitive cravings and desires can plunge is one of the most absurd things that can ever happen.We should really appreciate artists (directors, novelists, poets, etc.) who have the courage and commitment (an abundance of them, it must be) to explore "extreme possiblities" inherent in human life.Life isn't always like "a box full of chocolates"---sweet and comforting---is it? If it ever happens that "the people concerned" get alarmed, raise concerns about a film and eventually mangle, if not ban, it, it may only prove that the film hits right where it should.