I was groaning at the fact that I had to see this film if I wanted to see every film in the “1001 Films you must see before you die” book due to its notorious reputation. I decided to get it over with as soon as I could. After I saw it I was glad I did and I respect and understand what the film says and stands for.
I believe the film IS a masterpiece. I believe it should be seen if you are a cinema buff (that is are open to and wish to experience cinema of all types), because Salo is a cinematic masterpiece, perhaps the final word, in depicting human cruelty and sadism in an uncrompromisingly bleak, yet allegorical, way. I believe the fim is directed flawlessly, with a clear vision of what the director sought out to do with the digusting images on screen, to me it is not only the disgusting images but the actions that the people take against one another that is honest and disturbing, and very very haunting. I personally have suffered myself throughout my life at the hands of other people, and I think that this film depicts truthfully the sick condition of human begins enjoying making each other suffer on many levels (sexually, phsically, psycologically). People who dismis the fim or condem it, I believe miss the point and this films importance, and may perhaps themselves deny the fact that we live in a world where horrible things happen at the expense of innocent people. It shoud be seen, it is an important, unique, and still relevant film, that is a great piece of art, and one of the truest horror films I can think of.
In direct answer to the topic heading without reading the details:
Yeeeah, why not?
—PolarisDiB
Short answer: Should it be seen – Yes, but by most of us just once. I have expressed my own personal reservation about this film elsewhere. As I saw a version where the dialogue was not translated, I will probably see it once more for the audio – but I won’t be rushing to see it again. A film one must attempt at least once to fully appreciate the deranged genius (no real slight intended – there are many of these in the annals of film history & the arts in general) that was Pasolini.
is there a pasolini film generally considered his best?
Jeff — the Pasolini I’ve enjoyed most (and wish there were a decent DVD of same) is “The Gospel According to St. Matthew”. I’d say it’s the best filmic depiction of the life of Christ.
I still have not seen Salo. However, I did just watch Antichrist and while I don’t think it has near the quantity of disgusting content that Salo contains there is a shot (those of you who have seen it know exactly what I’m talking about) that was so horrific and disgusting that I sat and wondered if there was anything close to it in Salo. I don’t intend to find out for sure anytime soon but I am curious if any of you that have seen both can compare that moment with similar moments in Salo.
After much preparation beforehand, including reading some of the excellent and informative articles and discussions here on The Auteurs, I braced myself for an onslaught of shocking and disturbing images. Yes, it is shocking, but not to the extent that I had built up in my mind, which says a lot for the power of the human imagination. I gagged a few times, but I was not traumatized as I had feared. It helped quite a bit to see some of the supplementary features beforehand, to ease my way into the experience. I can appreciate much of the technical prowess that went into this film as well as the beautiful cinematography, but I don’t think Pasolini’s message actually made it to the final product. If I were to approach Salo without any background information, there is no doubt in my mind that I would view it as pointless and exploitative. I’m glad I saw it, if for no other reason than relieving the anxiety caused by my built-up expectations. Upon further reflection, Salo is more of a disappointment than anything else. Perhaps I’ll revisit it sometime, but it’s not a priority.
Justin Biberkopf
Perversion is an outdated term. And de Sade’s text is used against itself. Salo is not pornography — there’s almost no sex in it at all, not in terms of sexual positions. Not sex as I understand it anyway. The use of nihilistic philosophy is meant to discredit the philosophy itself — Nietzsche, modern art, Baudelaire and Dada all leading to (European) fascism in that their devaluation of meaning and existence was carried from theory to act by Hitler. A debatable point, but Pasolini is not the only one who made it. It’s true that the homosexual incidents in Salo are often charged with something more complex and disturbing than a simple indictment, more so than the heterosexual incidents. I’ve tried to make sense of it in another thread, about Disturbing Films I think, and Salo is one of those films that you can spend a lifetime trying to fully plumb. It’s like watching someone’s nightmare.