Yeah, it’s a silly idea that you have to watch any particular film. But the squeamishness of the original Slate piece is even sillier and almost quaint now given where cinema has moved since then. Imagining a tug-of-war between the pull of cinematic canon completionism and the push of the reviewer’s horror at the idea of Salo is amusing to me. Anyway, the whole piece is rather lazy thinking.
i haven’t seen the film and don’t intend to if only because i’ve been told for so many years that i ‘have to.’ >:(
There was just a period of unavailability that made it seem like a snuff film, and weirdly convinced people to shell out thousands of dollars to obtain copies of it. And I think the cult of buff-dom arose from those privileged money-bags wanting to convince themselves they’d gotten their money’s worth. I’d be willing to pay about five bux, tops, for a copy. Though I’d be willing to shell out thirty for a decent transfer of OEDIPUS REX.
God, one of the oldest articles on the net about SALO was called “Salo, Obsession, and the Salophile”…just some guy’s text-on-HTML-page musings about the cult that built up surrounding the Criterion laser and original OOP DVD. But it’s so old the link no longer works. Crud. Can’t find it archived anywhere else either. Maybe part of the old “Salo Salon” forum that appears to also be gone.
Glen Kenny said, This whole notion of film “buff”-dom, and/or cinephilia, as a kind of contest; I never got it. No one individual knows the entirety of film history; no one has seen everything; no one can speak with authority on every film, every filmmaker.
Fwiw, I don’t see the question in the way he frames it above. The issue is whether you should see an important film, even if it is extremely unpleasant to watch—again, not because of some contest or test to prove one’s self or get into an elite club. (I agree those are silly notions.) That’s the way I look at the question, and I wouldn’t necessarily dismiss it.
Imo, I think a professional critic should probably see the film—just because of critics probably should be able to comment on it. On the other hand, the credibility of a critic doesn’t rest on seeing this film. (On a side note, would most people agree that there are must-see films—films that if the critic did not see, you’d begin to question his/her credibility?)
Note to Matt: Don’t apologize for “lazy” thread starting. A good thread doesn’t require a well-thought out OP. You might not believe this, but I’m going to say it anyway. (Hopefully, this thread proves me correct! :)
Nothing but American anti-intellectual bottom-feeding in action IOW "I’m not going to see it cause pointey-headed eggheads are telling me that I’ve got to. Well to hell with them. I’m going to watch “The Hangover Part 2” instead. So THERE!"
Why bother to watch any films? As George Constanza may say " I always wanted to pretend I was a cinephile"
nah, i just have problems with authority.
however i’d say there are MANY people on this site who are anti-canon and surely not all american fwiw
Well that’s ture, Ruby. There are stubborn morons everywhere. But America encourages them like few coutnreis that I know of.
I get a little bit of a feeling that Glenn wrote that in part just to point out the Kois quote in the Slate piece. Which is amusing in light of his earlier article.
@ david: ha, yes i tend to agree
@David
But is there a point where critics can reasonably refuse to see an important film? For example, suppose a critic refused to watch Birth of the Nation or Triumph of the Will because of the reprehensible political ideology in both films? Is that OK? And by “OK” I don’t mean to imply that the critic should be kicked out of the club, but are there certain films that critics should see, no matter what a critics objection might be.
Are there some reasons for objecting to see a film more valid than others, e.g., a critic just doesn’t have a taste for certain types of movies?
Canon films were usually very bad. Ever saw the Lemon Popsycle series? Did not those guys end up in jail? :)
^ Jazz, critics really should be open to seeing any and every film. Well ok, my idea of a good critic is someone sort of like an academic — a broad knowledge of film. Just so their criticism is more interesting when it comes to comparing and contrasting, etc. etc.
But that may not be what all critics want to be…
@Odi
So would you say there really isn’t a good reason not to see an important film?
Haglund: “what if you consider yourself a serious film lover but don’t want to find life itself defiled?”
@ Jazz
“The issue is whether you should see an important film, even if it is extremely unpleasant to watch”
Yeah, but I’m not sure that Salo’s reputation exists so much based on its importance-as-film as it does on it’s importance as culty, Ludovico techniquey, fetish item. There are those who appreciate it purely in terms of its cinematic value, I’m sure, but there’s a lot of other stuff that has attached to it.
Not if you’re a film critic, no. It’s your freakin’ job, right?
Put it this way, if you haven’t seen Salo then you don’t really know where Pasolini’s head was at in the final few years of his life. He was so honest and bleak in his view of the obscenity of consumer society.
But as a general viewer, I’d say no, I am NOT going to see a film I don’t want to see. Period. End of story.
However, if you are PAYING me to be an expert on film, and know what’s what and speak intelligently about film, YES, it’s my duty to see as much as humanly possible. And to comment intelligently about what I see, put it in historical context both for the director, the time, and compare and contrast to other films. If I’m getting paid and it’s my career, I’m going to see EVERYTHING.
“…but I’m not sure that Salo’s reputation exists so much based on its importance-as-film as it does on it’s importance as culty, Ludovico techniquey, fetish item…”
Because no one seems to ever get around the fetishization to actually talking about it. I can’t think of another cinematic example that this is so much the case with (a few very good Auteurs threads aside, of course). It’s really gotten to the point where the only dialogue going on about the film is, “You gotta see it…if you dare!”
Matt said, Yeah, but I’m not sure that Salo’s reputation exists so much based on its importance-as-film as it does on it’s importance as culty, Ludovico techniquey, fetish item. There are those who appreciate it purely in terms of its cinematic value, I’m sure, but there’s a lot of other stuff that has attached to it.
Good point. But that being the case, wouldn’t this still be a basis for a critic seeing the film—i.e., he/she would have to see the film to be able to know if it was truly important or noteworthy for other (insignificant) reasons.
@Odi
It’s your freakin’ job, right?
Yeah, I guess. But I’m open to the idea that there might be some valid reason for not seeing the film. In the case of Salo, one might also argue that, of the important films out there, Salo is not high on the list; therefore, not seeing it because of its unpleasantness might be valid. Plus, it’s one film out of many films that critics has to see. Is it the type of film a critic must push to the top of the to-see list? I’m not sure that’s the case.
But as a general viewer, I’d say no, I am NOT going to see a film I don’t want to see. Period. End of story.
I’m not going to argue this decision with you personally, as that is your choice. But suppose someone really cared about movies—wanted to be really knowledgeable about films. In that case, I would think there would be situations where the person would have to see things they don’t really like. (Heck, I’m not a fan of trash films, but I’ve sat through several. And I’m actually glad I did. Still, don’t enjoy these films very much, though.)
@Ben S
What do you think about Salo itself?
Not Pasolini’s best. Stylistically and tonally unique compared to most movies I’ve seen with an uncanny balance between the reality and artifice of both performance, characterization, and camera framing of symmetry that is hard to put your finger on. But I’d never tell anyone it’s required viewing. Frankly, any political statements it’s making seem pretty muddy to me compared to statements Pasolini made about statements SALO is making.
Is it the type of film a critic must push to the top of the to-see list? I’m not sure that’s the case.
But isn’t the article stating that the author just doesn’t want to see it at ALL? That’s where I have a problem. Who cares where it is on the list of things you are going to see, that’s something that to an extent, you can prioritize yourself, right?
But not wanting to see it at all is like sticking your head in the sand.
“Salo” has nothing in common with either “Triumph of the Will” or “The Birth of a Nation.”
Well maybe the former because pasolini was murdered by the fascists. But his film did not inspire the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan.
All three should be seen by serious people, but for very different reasons.
a fortiori once you’ve seen “Salo” you should seek out Paul Vecchiali’s “Femmes Femmes” which it quotes right in the midst of all the sadean goings-on.
I would be greatly surprised if anyone at “Slate” has so much as heard of Paul Vecchiali.
But suppose someone really cared about movies…
Well yeah, if it’s your passion, then you decide. I think however there’s a big difference between being paid to do something as a career, publishing your viewpoints publically, and the the amount of knowledge you must have to be a credible paid critic, and not getting paid to be a critic but viewing your movies the way a critic might.
A professional critic has a responsibility to whoever hired him, and to his reputation, and to his audience, not to mention the artists whose work he/she’s reviewing.
a fortiori once you’ve seen “Salo” you should seek out Paul Vecchiali’s “Femmes Femmes” which it quotes right in the midst of all the sadean goings-on.
i watched that the other day thanks to david mentioning it previously somewhere. a real treat. thanks david!
Really want to see that since the two actresses’ schtick during SALO is one of the most interesting moments. Is there an English subtitled version available?
@Ben S.
So you don’t think it’s good enough to say it’s a must-see, right?
Frankly, any political statements it’s making seem pretty muddy to me compared to statements Pasolini made about statements SALO is making.
For me, the political statement seems simplistic. But I’m not well-versed in the history and politics of Italy—either at the making of the film or the time of the film’s events. I wouldn’t say the film is important because of the it’s artistic quality.
@Odi
But isn’t the article stating that the author just doesn’t want to see it at ALL?
Yeah, that’s my sense. I pretty much agree with you, although I do think some films are of marginal importance that to not see them isn’t a big deal—although you object to the notion that the critic has decided to never see them, right? I can understand that, but suppose the film isn’t really important? A critic will NOT see every film, so if they don’t see some marginally important film, for whatever reason, should that be a big deal?
If they don’t see a film that isn’t considered major, yeah, so what — but if they just put their foot down and refuse to see it, not because they don’t have time and there are more influential movies they’d rather see first, but because they think they won’t like it, well that’s a bit of an odd (and unacceptable) stance for a professional critic to take.
Matt Parks
Apologies for the lazy thread-starting:
Glenn Kenny wrote this
“This whole notion of film “buff”-dom, and/or cinephilia, as a kind of contest; I never got it. No one individual knows the entirety of film history; no one has seen everything; no one can speak with authority on every film, every filmmaker. Enthusiasts are enthusiasts, and yes, “professional” critics ought to have seen more, and processed more, than laymen or enthusiasts or what have you. The notion that you’re going to get thrown out of some club if you don’t “subject” yourself to film X seems entirely ridiculous. And while I’d be the first to argue, very strongly, that a wide viewing background and some substantial historical context is essential not just to persuasive and engaging critical writing but also to critical thinking itself, even the most learned and erudite will find themselves in a position when they’re obliged to bluff, punt, or just pass on the subject."
in response to this