Comments on: SALÒ, OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM d: Pier Paolo Pasolini

By: Stuart

Stuart — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:23:08 +0000

I found Salo to be a very disturbing & vulgar but also something I couldn’t turn off. It is far more impressive than the usual slasher remakes that Holloywood thinks are nasty. Salo is a masterpiece that actually hasn’t got the respect and fan fare it deserves. Only 1 other film I’ve seen has upset me as much as Salo and that’s August Underground’s Mordum. Forgien films and low budget unknown films are far more impressive & shocking than the crap Hollywood poop’s out.

By: luck

luck — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 06:43:25 +0000

Is this film art? Not really.it has no plot and no good acting.actors and actresses are second or third class and furthermore the victims even are not actor.if we call this as art then we must call fetish porn,torture porn,gore movies etc. as art but this is not the point.
Is this a thought proviking film?well,if you have a little brain, yes.for a well educated,intelligent and sophisticated person this is just a piece of cake.any metaphor in it?kind of and very obvious,explicit.art must be suggested and makes us think.repetitive tortures are very explicit and that’s why it has such a reputation.
To be able to understand this film we must look de sade,because this film belongs to de sade rather than pasolini.it is adapted almost literary from his book.so who is de sade?for this we again must his writings and real life.no doubt only a sick and pervert man could write these kind of stuff.de sade is nothing for literature and philosophy.he had a simple,childish philosophy that is stolen from rousseau.rape and murder are not a crime according to him.he had only one purpose in his like.to live as much as free and freedom means to him that being able to rape,torture and mutiliate children,women and little girls.in his real life he did these many times and he was imprisoned several times for this.his writings reflect his real life.his childish philosophy is just a cover and an excuse for his crimes.to him women and children are just bodies,flesh and holes from where he could get sexual pleasure through raping,torturing and humiliating them.he saw them as an object and thought whatever he wanted to do them.
So how a monster,pervert,aristocrat can critic fascism?he,himself was a kind of fascist.though this he was very honest.in his writings there was no metaphory and allegory.he reflected his real life experiences and sick,disgusting fantasies.nothing less nothing much.
Coming back to film,one can derive everything out of it depending the way he/she thinks and this is possibly for almost every film included banal porns.in salo there is a weak fascism criticism.to wear a nazi uniform,to call them fascist and to let them torture children not a fascism criticism.there are some fetish-torture porns which do same like stalin.no intellectual depth at all.if you really want to watch a powerful fascism criticism then i advise you Fassbinder.
Do not be ignorant and try to see the real nature of this film by looking further.

By: Random Critic

Random Critic — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:06:50 +0000

Wow … art or not, it certainly got you all worked up, didn’t it, Dan? Hmm… I wonder if that was what Pasolini and/or de Sade were going for? If so, they each scored a solid victory over you, didn’t they?

But of course, your personal wisdom is obviously greater than the collected wisdom of Literary History, and your witty little review will certainly be remembered as a Great Work of Art.

Oh wait, no, no it won’t … it will languish in obscurity on the internet, while the artistic creations that you unloaded your spleen on will continue to shape and influence society, as they have for decades and centuries respectively. Your drab little article will be forgotten, while the very works of art that you tried to blast will continue to be appreciated by people who actually ARE astute critics and art lovers, long beyond your death.

How sad for you.

By: AC

AC — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:11:33 +0000

Also, a “notoriously bad poet”? Is this a joke?! His literature has played a crucial role in establishing him as Italy’s foremost post-war intellectual, a place which he rightly deserves.
These reviews, however, should be notorious for their lack of insight.

By: AC

AC — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:03:46 +0000

This is an absolutely terrible review of a brilliant film… I wouldn’t have written anything if this had not been the second time mr. schneider has been completely and utterly off the mark about a work of art. I frankly cannot believe you’re still writing reviews… perhaps YOU’RE missing something, but a good proportion of the world isn’t. To say ANY work of Pasolini’s lacks intellectual depth is basically an admission of your own ignorance.

By: Karlo

Karlo — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:05:03 +0000

Interesting diatribe.

It seems that the point of much ‘art’ (good or bad) is about the resulting discussion and conversation about it. This film has generated an innumerable amount of such discussions.

By the way, some great essays have been written in conjunction with the Criterion re-release of the film, and I entreat you all to review them. The writer above could gain a lot of perspective by reading what others have thought of the film, its impact on the industry, and the obvious political fallout resulting.

Disgusting, vile, even pornographic… Sure. Things that “are not supposed to be seen”. Things that “should never happen”. The director supposes that in the historical context of Fascism they did. He dramatized them (as is his prerogative), and we are still talking about it! There is passion in that. There is honesty in that. It may not (and obviously it hasn’t) affected you in that manner, but for a great deal it has.

Slow-paced? Look at just about any other 1970’s film. LOL! by today’s standards, they were all slow! Ha! The late 20th century “sound-bite-MTV-cut-click-flash of ADHD directing styles has obviously made you forget the historical context of film-making in question!

Look, dude, the film is worth discussion, and for that I thank you. But your calling it “vomit” begs a retraction. They said that about many other great artists in every realm. Mozart’s music was “dissonant” to his contemporaries. Edvard Munch depicted the art of a “sick mind” and “disrespected the art or painting”. I’m not calling Salo the work of genius, but it certainly seems like the act of one. Time is certainly trying to tell us something…

By: Marli

Marli — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:14:09 +0000

I found Nick stealing the words I was about to type. Damn you. And I would like to add that if anyone did not find this movie offensive in the slightest then you do not get the message! Why is it so hard to watch something that truly grabs at yours nerves, and patience but we in the 21st century make films about serial killers and we pay to watch it? What is so hard to watch? The fact that it is true and deep down inside you felt that?

You know as a woman, I watched The Accused and have not been able to watch it since then. It made me angry! I swore, and any man within a yard of me heard very classy-like words coming out of my mouth. It obviously moved me, and eventhough I was offended to watch a womans body be unwillingly taken advantage of, it spoke volumes.

We live in such a desensitized world now that I almost fine it amusing that anyone found this hard to watch! This movie was supposed to scare you and anger you. If it doesn’t, then no one can help you! haha

By: Baraa Oxygen

Baraa Oxygen — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:45:08 +0000

Salo’ is the only film (in whole the history of pictures) which talked seriously about the deep relation between power and perversion. I’d like to invite the critic above to follow hollywood, since only that would meet his cinematographic and cultural level.

By: lenny

lenny — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:43:25 +0000

yeah, the message is that eating poop and killing people is only scary if your a good director.

By: Dave M

Dave M — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:55:53 +0000

What IS the message of the film?

By: think

think — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:07:36 +0000

Personally, i MUST add my thoughts. I agree with both of you, that there are two sides of each coin. But i think that the “message” should have been shown less intensely, rather make you think about this horror than make you disgusted or something. This stuff really recalled that strange bad feeling what i have when i think of ww2 and all of its terror.
I really think that if it was supposed to be an art movie, it should have been more impressive, with tiny shings that make you shiver inside instead of making you need to throw up. I guess that was a way to express the horrific spin in the head of all this stuff and give it intensity, but this way, i’m completely on the side of Schneider, it is boring and doesn’t make you want to think about deeper meanings, which, i think, this film has, but makes you so horrified that you don’t even want to think about it.

By: nick frost

nick frost — Sat, 17 May 2008 04:20:11 +0000

I read your patrinising review after seeing Salo for the first time this evening. I was so struck by its relevancy today. The message of the film is timeless – just as the final scene of the film warns us how the film’s horrors will be passed down the generations. I suspect you are so caught up in your won clecer demolition of the film that you blinded yourself to the film’s message. Sure you can hone in on the film’s inadequacies in filming and lighting and some of the acting – although I thought there were several superb performances – but you should not ignore the powerful and universal messages. The film is still terrible and disturbing in the twenty first century. I am sure its message contributed to the director’s death. Of course I did not enjoy the film this evening but I was totally caught up in its message. Perhaps you might look again without the claever tinted glasses.