MUBI

Pretty sick, and pretty significant but I didn’t connect to this one quite as well as I connect to most 70s flicks dealing with the same sort of thing ie The Devils. Very good though, loved the architecture and the framing, all of Kubrickian proportion and Fellini-esque colouring, at times resembling Satyricon. The DVD release is a fine one, boasting a crystal clear audio track and perfect picture quality. The liner notes mentioned a drop in quality in several places due to different footage being used but I’ll be damned if I could point you to where this occurred.

Originally written September 28, 2008.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” —Benito Mussolini

“Smedley Butler helped destroy a corporate Fascist Putsch in the mid-1930’s, but how long did that last? In the 1960’s, all four primary liberal leaders were assassinated. In the mid-’90s, a so called Democrat President turned back the Bill of Rights and Constitution with a multitude of crime bills. And in the year 2000, Jim Crow laws were revived, and a Presidential election was swayed by disallowing over 50,000 eligible African-Americans to vote in the state of Florida. Corporations will not be denied their sway and profit.” —Adam Parfrey, introduction to Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler’s WAR IS A RACKET

“…what we’re seeing is a tidal pull exerted on the will of almost everyone in a country – or in this case, a chateau – to fulfill the wishes of a minor but powerful few.” —Noel Vera on Salò
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Politically, in terms of power and (non-sexual) exploitation, there are a few ways to look at Pasolini’s Salò. Traditionally it is seen as a condemnation of Fascism; more specifically, the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler through which Pasolini lived. Personally I’m not sure this is even worth talking about since there is so little to learn from it: Fascism is bad, power corrupts. We don’t need art to show us this so I find it disappointing that so many viewers boil the film down to this simple truth. Salò is much more interesting if we see it as a work of art that lifts the veil of our everyday reality so that we can more easily see the true nature of the exploitative systems in place.

According to Pasolini the coprophilia in the film is meant to represent the toxins we are force fed by corporations and manufacturers. This can refer to the processed foods, the high fructose corn syrup, the GMO tomatoes and the myriad other atrocities which Pasolini could not have predicted, but it is as easy to apply Salò more generally to all of modern civilization. Each day we are fed the idea that the road we are on is the one, true, God-given path, and toward that end we consume a lot of shit. The Libertines who feed it to us are the privileged few who run this world. We spend the best years of our lives running their businesses in exchange for a fraction of what they make off our labor, we consume their tasteless, poisonous food, we grease their wheels and fuel their fire – all so their “Chateau” is kept running in a way that pleases them. And we allow all of this to happen with complete passivity.

But the real horror of Pasolini’s vision is that it may not be disturbed enough. We in the Western world are privileged beyond all measure of belief despite being buggered often by a copiously well-endowed system. The true horror is reserved for those a step below us, those who sew our cheap sweaters for almost no pay, those who are forced to live with agent orange and depleted uranium, those killed in Iraq who are called ‘collateral damage’, those in the Niger Delta whose water and land are being destroyed for oil, those in West Virginia who exchange cheap American energy for cancer and dirty water. The State does its best to make sure that all of these people remain hidden away so we don’t have to see or think about this process of which we are all a part, but even in those rare glimpses when we do see it we are loathe to do anything about it. Having been fed shit for so long, we are anxious for a chance to feed shit to others, to bring us closer to the shining example of the Libertines we long to be. We are passive, and our passivity empowers them.

People who criticize Salò as being too simplistic miss the point that Fascism isn’t always some obvious system that can be easily opposed or even recognized. It sometimes exists behind the curtain, and, with Salò, Pasolini gives us a glimpse of the gears at work there.

The sexual politics presented in Salò comprise what is probably the most interesting aspects of the film, but I ignored them altogether because of something I saw on the news recently that reminded me of the film:

PS: It is important to note that when I say “Having been fed shit for so long, we are anxious for a chance to feed shit to others, to bring us closer to the shining example of the Libertines we long to be”, I only mean “we” in the sense of what we have become under such circumstances (within a system that believes our “natural impulses” must be kept in check through power). I don’t for a second believe that man in his natural state is a tyrant.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nov. 10(Bloomberg) — "The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn’t require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return."

A little absurd, though not really as disturbing as some would make it out to be. I tend to find myself more bothered by acts performed on others when an attachment is developed between myself and the character(s.) Otherwise it is just pushing the boundaries of synthetic violence. In comparison to the rest of Pasolini’s work, I find it to be even a little silly in some ways. The way the chapters are divided is interesting, each representing a stage in the deliberate deterioration of liberties, brought on by those who are supposed to preserve them. His message – no one is truly free. A bleak perspective, and a tad too sensational for me, yet nevertheless effective.

This is a film of contrasts. The overarching theme of incredibly harsh dehumanizing sexuality is quickly evident and the film is relentlessly unflinching in depicting depravity. Prior to watching this film, I read Les 120 journées de Sodome ou l’école du libertinage by Marquis de Sade and had a good idea what to expect. What I wasn’t prepared for was the beauty that Tornio Delli Colli captured with his excellent cinematography.

For me, seeing the beautiful camera work exposing the continuing downward spiral as the subjects in this film stray further and further into the depths of sexual violence and cruelty is one of the great contrasts in film.

A truly and most disturbing showcase of human acts appropriated in any film i’ve seen so far. However, this film does bring out sublime quality in terms of aesthetics. Various scenes of nudes were beautifully portrayed and photographed, somehow reminding me of Baroque paintings or maybe Manet’s “Luncheon on the grass” in particular.

The film in a way, left me affected with its crude aspects. For this, I dare call it an artwork. It’s a shame, we couldn’t catch the upcoming two works of this series that he planned to work on(if i’m not wrong).

A very ugly film that explores the depths of human depravity. There is nothing good that happens here. It’s all awful shit, all the time. Some would argue that this movie is pornographic in nature, however Pier Paolo Pasolini’s approach to the material is anything but, exploring the story in a way that is so cold and clinical it makes no attempt to involve you at even the most base of emotional levels, making it all the more repugnant to experience. SALO is a great film, but its not one for the masses by any means, it’s hard to say even who this movie is for.

I wouldn’t go as far as saying is jazzed up fetish porn. Porn is mean to arouse, this doesn’t necessarily do that, but it doesn’t make it any better.

It’s very hard to critique this film, because the subject of extreme violence and sex comes up. The common thing to throw around is that if you’re in disagreement to the film, you obviously can’t handle the images on screen. Let it be known that none of the images on the screen did anything to me. It has nothing to do with the actual graphic nature, but more to do with the emotional detachment and the realization that it’s just a movie; none of it is real. It’s no more a fantasy than any other film. If you can get over that fact that it’s all simulated, then it’s no more watchable than any other film

My gripe with the film is it’s poor idea of getting it’s ideas through to audience. It doesn’t rely on the realities and horror of what really goes on in the world, but is completely reliant on using shock tactics in an attempt to provoke a reaction. For some reason, people think if it provokes the reaction they get while watching the film, it’s suddenly validated as art. You look at an anti-abortion pamphlet and think for a second “How awful”, that’s not art, and just like Salo, it’s meant to manipulate your feelings with shock. It’s no more better than a film that bashes you over the head with sentimentality. Provoking a reaction isn’t art. Politicians, con men, the news, they all attempt to draw some sort of reaction, but they’re by no means artists.

By the first twenty minutes, I just want to yell “I get it! Fascism is bad!”. When there are far worse effects of rampant consumerism and loss of personal identity, but this film does it no better than any exploitation film of the seventies to get it’s point across. It’s a real shame considering that Pasolini directed and wrote some of the finest contributions to Italian cinema.

Recuerdo durante mi adolescencia a principios de los ochenta, que existian 2 peliculas de las que todo mundo (al menos, los chavos de mi generacion) comentaba. Una era Caligula de Tinto Brass, y los comentarios mas comunes entre mis compañeros de clase eran algo como esto.“no mames, pinche pelicula esta bien cabrona, pura cojedera” “noo, cabron, a un wey le cortan la verga y se la dan de comer a un perro, no mames”, lo cual, para cualquier adolescente de secundaria, representaba un severo aliciente para verla, y aquellos que habian conseguido ver la dichosa peli(esto es, despues de haber sustraido una copia pirata del cajon del escritorio de papa) podian presumir con orgullo su gran “hazaña”…y, sin embargo, se decia que existia aquella “otra pelicula”, aquella que era casi una leyenda urbana, aquella que muy,muy pocos habian logrado ver y quienes, segun se decia, salian con grave daño cerebral o seriamente traumados, una pelicula tan tremenda que era prohibida en todos lados, y, segun se contaba tambien, motivo del asesinato de su director. 30 años han pasado. Hoy sabemos que la muerte de Passolini no se debio a su film sino a una venganza pasional entre putos,nadie se trauma despues de ver la pelicula (al contrario, en estos tiempos en que la realidad supera a la ficcion, hasta provoca risas) y la cinta circula libremente en DVD. Personalmente, no la considero ninguna obra maestra,ciertamente,tampoco una pelicula muy agradable de ver que digamos (lo cual es un elogio: los cuatro libertinos de la cinta estan tan bien personificados que llegan a ser verdaderamente detestables) y sin embargo, vale la pena verse, al menos para constatar que tipo de cosas eran consideradas como un tabu a mediados de los 70 y 80 y, quiza, para reflexionar a que grado de desensibilizacion, enfermedad o madurez hemos llegado en este principios del siglo 21,en los que cosas como esta pelicula, no logran ni asustarnos,ni shockearnos, sino todo lo contrario. Cuestion de enfoques.

One of the great birthday presents I have ever received, the Criterion Collection’s Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom. I am a young filmmaker, just receiving the green light on my first feature, and this film was extremely important for me to watch. I instinctively knew I had to watch it when I first heard about it. This film is very hard to experience, it is the only film I have ever had to turn my head from. It’s grizzly, it’s terrifying, it’s depraved and it’s absolutely brilliant. Pasolini’s fearlessness and obvious directing skill are so evident in this film that Salo is the perfect curtain call to his career. Do not go into this film thinking that you will be happily shocked, it’s terrors are not jovial, they are biting, scathing and relentless. Salo stands as a work that does not require the viewer, it continues the barrage of inhuman barbarism weather you watch it or not. It does not depend on your interpretation, and there in lies it genius. It shows you what people are capable of if not kept in check. It shows you what can happen if you idly let yourself become a victim. If you have the stomach for it, and you approach it with the right mindset, you will experience the madness, the dichotomy, and the astounding beauty that is Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom.

For the record, I believe Salo is a masterpiece in its own right. But honestly, the images aren’t as brutal as the hype would have us believe. Plenty of movies have been made since then that are far more graphic and unrelenting than this (which says a lot about the times we live in). If anything, it’s unnerving ‘cause of its overall context to history. And I find it difficult for anyone to “love” a movie like Salo but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s pointless either. However, Salo certainly feels like the kind of film someone would’ve felt compelled to make at some point or another and that drive cost Pasolini his life. In my opinion, that counts for something.

I was nine when my sister took me to Milan to meet Signora Calzetti. She examined me and asked if I wanted to work for her. I said I would, if the pay was good. My first client, a stout man named Vaccari, looked me over carefully. At once, I showed him my pussy, which I thought was very special. He covered his eyes: “Out of the question. I’m not interested in your vagina, cover it up.” He covered me, making me lie down, and said “All these little whores know is to flaunt their vaginas. Now I shall have to recover from that disgusting sight.”

A poet’s perception of the surviving ideologies of fascism in the 1970’s set in the last days of WW2. Consummerism, power, people turning into objects. It’s all there, as it still is today. Few are the moments in which the victims are treated as human beings, or even in which they react as such; their humanity is taken away from them to become things, which happens in real life, but in a larger scale. Politicians see people as numbers, they don’t really care if they live, die, suffer, enjoy, anything at all. Fascists certainly did it in a much more awful and direct way, but it’s something that still goes on, and people, just like in a highly metaphoric scene in the film, allow themselves to be controlled by consumming the shit they’re given. Yesterday, it was made out of ideals, promises of greatness and superiority based in lies. Today, we’re given products to consume. We respect each other according to the clothes we wear, the amount of money we have, but it’s all part of a system. In the end, this is a hard to watch film, but if you can really appreciate art, you’ll understand it, respect it, and why not, maybe even enjoy it.