Is "Salo" the most disturbing film ever made?

[Mark Heide]

Salo is a film by Pier Paolo Pasolini who was murdered in 1975 the year this was released. Instead of me explaining what this film is about, here's a link to an excellent essay:

http://www.criterionco.com/asp/release.asp?id=17&eid=40&section=essay&page=1

I believe this film is appropriate for the political audience here. If you are interested in purchasing this film it is out of print on DVD. Legit DVD issues sell for well over $1,500 (note that most of the ones listed on eBay and half.com are bootlegs, so don't get ripped off). You might want to search for a VHS issue at a good foreign film rental outlet.

After you read the essay you will want to see it to believe it.

Mark

[Glenn]

Don't let the Total Information Awareness computers find out you own, have tried to obtain, or have purposefully seen this movie. /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

[MMMMMM]

Sounds disgusting, plotless, and not worth paying 15 cents to go see.

[John Cole]

Mark,

About a month ago, I wrote a post about Salo called "The Movie That Emptied a Theater," but decided not to post it. (I figured nobody had seen it anyway.) I saw Salo about twenty years ago in Providence at a theater that was running a series of Italian films. By the end of the movie, most of the audience in a sold out theater had vanished. Many people left within the first few minutes, and as the horrors progressed, more followed. Salo might be the most difficult movie to sit through I have ever seen.

Nevertheless, it's probably not as "disturbing" as Independence Day. But Salo discomfits. It's not a film for people who want entertainment; in fact, it mocks our desire for entertainment. Pasolini knows, in the same way Hitchcock knew, that, at heart, we are voyeurs, at least we are at the movies. Some theorists suggest that Pasolini's film frustrates our desire to see, which might seem strange given the images the film allows us to look at. In one way, Salo is about the politics of vision.

But, it's more than that. I saw Salo after having completed a year-long study of Ezra Pound's critical writings of the 1930's, a time when Pound foolishly, stupidly supported Musolini's Fascist regime. Salo uses de Sade's text to render the end of Fascism, quoting Pound's Cantos in the remarkable final scene in the film. But, for Pasolini, I think, the end of Fascism in Italy is not the death of Fascism, and perhaps this is a reason to see the film.

Salo is certainly disgusting and sickening, but it disturbs us in a way that art is meant to disturb us, and we walk away, or at least I walked away, from Salo questioning our own complicity in the horrors we witness. As someone said of Salo, "it's essential it exists and it's terrible to watch." I agree.

John

[IrishHand]

This thread, and the film it's based upon, are a waste of space.

There's nothing artistic or worthwhile about making an S&M porn movie full of depravities and then publicizing it as an 'art' film. Hmm...let's take 4 guys, have them rape some people anally, make them eat their own feces, then engage in mass murder and call it a movie! That's not a movie...that's someone's sick fantasies appearing on the big screen for you to enjoy - and as the linked review suggests, the moment you see the movie, you're complicit in it's events if only because you took the time and money to support it.

Sad.

[B-Man]

Nevertheless, it's probably not as "disturbing" as Independence Day.

John, what could you possibly mean by that? Is there another movie titled Independence Day which I am unaware of, in addition to the Hollywood movie starring Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum?

[ripdog]

Holy [censored]! We agree agree on something! I wouldn't pay a dime to see this film and wouldn't watch it if it were free. No, I'd say reading the essay about the film made me less likely to see it, not more.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, and I don't see what more one could significantly glean by actually seeing it than one could by merely reading the review. I think the review probably says it all.

[brad]

i just remember in high school we had to watch a holocaust film one day and it was so gross (explicit dead bodies, etc.)

(remember i was like 16 or 17)

it was so gross i had no sexual feelings at all for almost a week.

[David Ottosen]

...oh you didn't mean the film of a goal bouncing in off his head at the Olympics?

[snakehead]

I felt the same way about Snow Dogs.

[Mark Heide]

John,

I thought that maybe this was one film you had not seen, but I was wrong. Anyway, I am surprised at the responses and thought that some of the posters would like to see this movie just because of the political content and it's message. Furthermore, I thought that todays audience has been totally desensitized by violent films, that this may be passe for a majority of viewers, since we see so much sex and violence in todays films. But, I guess it disturbs people because it's not the traditional sugar coated violence that they have become comfortable with from Hollywood.

Thanks again for your response.

Happy Holidays

Mark

[mike l.]

as an MA student of film studies i viewed this film for a class and it's not particularly disturbing or shocking. there is a very detached feel to the whole film. it's a political/theoretical exercise -- pasolini's other films are much more interesting. it is an interesting film to think about it in the context of historical allegory/fantasy and other contexts, but it's not one worth owning or going out of your way for unless youre a diehard pasolini or italian cinema afficianado or something.

i for one find the gun violence in many of the current US shoot em ups much more disturbing and vulgar.

[mike l.]

"it mocks our desire for entertainment."

it does do that and more. your post is very good.

i prefer godard when it comes to a mockery of our desire for entertainment. i mean later godard, particularly "every man for himself (And god against all)" and "king lear". he's not always very successful in trying to mock us, but at least he mocks himself along the way and makes a complete mess of everything. good stuff.

[mike l.]

"I think the review probably says it all."

youre wrong really. there is much more to it than the review suggests. that's not to say everyone should go out and rent it, it really is only of interest if you are particularly aware of and study something like: cinema, italian history or cinema, fascist politics, etc, etc.

it's an important work of art and far from merely gay s+m snuff porn or whatever easy label you might want to tack on it after reading a short blurb on the internet about it. but, again, it's not something anyone would need to seek out unless they are particularly concerned about the topics it relates to imo.

[MMMMMM]

OK then, I'll take your word that the review was significantly incomplete in some ways. Therefore I'll amend my statement to applying towards a hypothetical more comprehensive review.

I've never watched a movie containing excess graphic or gratuitous violence which I didn't feel would have been better with less of it--still without losing anything important. Movies which employ excess violence (and there are many of them) are an insult to our sensibilities, and usually a cheap attempt at profiteering through shock value (though Salo may well not have been merely a cheap attempt at a fast buck).

Pasolini says his philosophy and duty is to scandalize. I have no problem with the "scandalize" part, although where he got the idea that it is a "duty" I cannot imagine. However, I submit that with this film he is not merely scandalizing, he is assaulting--the film is a deliberate act of psychological violence against the entire audience who are essentially trapped in their seats until they either decide to walk out or stick it out. That's disgusting to me because it seems an abuse of the power a producer has over his audience. It also fits in with the theme of gratuitous abuse of power in this film.

As for the message or statements the movie may be making, I don't see where the points could not be made with far less of depiction of graphic violence and sadism. Does watching a total of 45 minutes of torture instead of 45 seconds really make a difference in the story line, as long as it's understood what went on? I think Marathon Man had about the limit in this regard, and it got the point and story across just fine. Since Pasolini may have been attempting to gain some psychological complicity from the audience through this technique, I'll allow him that possibility but still feel the same could have been achieved with far less.

My guess is also that the long-winded graphic sadism
might been an unconscious or deliberate attempt by Pasolini to try to gain some empathetic response from the viewers to the things he personally found most fascinating and arousing--an out-of-place attempt to force himself on the audience, so to speak. Therefore, I don't think I would have liked Pasolini very much as a person, and without any further information, I would bet he was aggressive and crude in his outward persona in real life as well.

[John Cole]

mike,

I haven't seen Goddard's Lear, but I'd like to, so I think I'll check this weekend at the (nearly) local video store. I know they carry most of his stuff, but I'm really only familiar with his earlier work.

John

[John Cole]

M,

Part of the reason for the excessive brutality in Salo is simply Pasolini's source material, 120 Days of Sodom, which he then combines with Dante's Inferno. mike l quite rightly points that Pasolini views his material from a detached point of view, and long shots dominate in this film. BTW, one critic has pointed out that attacking or assaulting the audience forms the very premise of most of Hitchcock's films. Your notion of the audience trappped in their seats is a good one, and there are a number of reasons to account for this. But, I don't think Pasolini exploits this in the same way Hitchcock does.

John

[MMMMMM]

I suppose I can't really speculate much further without seeing it, and I am unwilling to do that.

Long unnecessary shots of violence just bother me. I walked out of Excalibur for this reason, and while viewing Braveheart at a friend's house I thought the graphic violence was overdone too, although Braveheart ws a better movie overall. It doesn't take much violence to make an impression on me, and I wish more directors would realize that this is probably true of most people, and that they would respect this more. Even viewing material in a detached way, one can easily extrapolate violence and/or cruelty and thus not miss anything. For directors wishing to convey a sense of fear, what is merely alluded to may actually produce the greater effect as well. Very long shots such as described in the review of Salo seem to me to be completely unnecessary--and couldn't that space have been better used in story line, character development, or further exploration of ideas?