Salo or the 120 days of Sodom

[Mandi Apple]

May I just say before we start:

urgh, urgh, urgh, urgh, urgh, urgh!

Great film though! *lol* yep, that would be the very extent of my review were I to do something so stupid as attempt to review something so eye-wateringly brutal and revolting

Anyone else here seen it, and if so, what did you think? And is it really the grossest film ever made, or have you seen worse? I honestly can't think of anything worse than those coprophiliac scenes in the middle - I can only reprise by saying again...

And what of his other stuff? Anyone actually seen anything else by Pasolini, and if so, is it all like that?!

[GoodFellow]

I liked "Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma" very much. It was repulsive, but still I did like it. It has very odd athmosphere, and I quarantee that after seeing that movie you will remember it quite a long time.

I did find some scenes quite funny, SPOILER COMING ->
when Old Perverts was looking what kind of poop the prisoners did!

One of the most unforgettable film I´ve ever seen. GREAT!!!

There was many people wriggleling in chairs during that movie...

[Messiah]

I was in the video store a few months ago, and my friend Gary started telling me about it. He was grossed out beyond belief and now he's scarred for life. I, myself, am never going to sit through it. Isn't it one of the most sought after and really hard to get movies?

[Mandi Apple]

Originally Posted by Messiah

I was in the video store a few months ago, and my friend Gary started telling me about it. He was grossed out beyond belief and now he's scarred for life.

Scarred for life? :o well, I wouldn't go quite that far... :? Sure, there's lots of beatings, unnecessary torture and killings and WAAAAAAAYYY too much poo-eating, but... oh heck, what was my point again?

I, myself, am never going to sit through it. Isn't it one of the most sought after and really hard to get movies?

Doesn't seem to be too hard over here - in fact, Amazon.co.uk stock it http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...824165-6771603 and I first saw it on FilmFour TV channel...

But I seriously don't recommend watching it while you're eating your dinner. Especially not if you're having chocolate ice-cream for dessert

[Yani]

Hmm, maybe some other time...

Really, does that film really have much submessages and stuff?

[Apocalipstick]

hehe Pier Paolo Pasolini 's movie is probably the the closest to the book I have ever seen (I hope so anyway, i will be worry if someone is crazy enough to try to push it further)

Other Pasolini movies are also excellent (not as extreme)
Decameron, Il (1970)
Racconti di Canterbury, I (1971)
Fiore delle mille e una notte, Il (1974)
Teorema (196
and Medea (1969).

[def_tone]

I have to admit seeing worse..

"Cannibal Holocaust "

is maybe the worst exploitation ever made ! with: real animal deaths, intestins, spears up the "lower regions", good ol´penis eating and god awful gross ugliness all over the place. If Salo is 10\10 in the "gross-o-meter Cannibal Holocaust is a horrid 15\10.. mmhmm

"Cannibal Ferox" is pretty bad too , although not as horrid

[Yani]

Originally Posted by def_tone

I have to admit seeing worse..

"Cannibal Holocaust "

is maybe the worst exploitation ever made ! with: real animal deaths, intestins, spears up the "lower regions", good ol´penis eating and god awful gross ugliness all over the place. If Salo is 10\10 in the "gross-o-meter Cannibal Holocaust is a horrid 15\10.. mmhmm

Same sort of thoughs I've heard from my friend who usually doesn't get shocked easily. And he only saw the trailer

[Apocalipstick]

I actually find most Cannibal movies prettiboring and not that gross...

[Dr.Gonzo]

"Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma" is considered one of the masterpieces of italian cinema pf all time. Believie me, I'm Italian too
Director Pierpaolo Pasolini (who was also a writer, a poet and involved in politic against any kind of discriminations) has a straight-in-your-stomach style in this movie. I saw it and I must admit that it's really disturbing in some scenes, but it is exactly what the director wanted, to shock the audience. And, remember that movies was filmed in the mid seventies in a country (Italy) where censorship was really rough!

[theNomad]

120 MINS OF FILTH thats all it is.....I know I sound like a prude but its just filth....I think the directors idea was to show how the people of power,like the 4 heads in this film degrade the working class.....but he misses the point by miles....I think its a disgrace that such an high profile director should go down the euro shock cinema road like this...I must admit that I was a little young when I watched it around 17-18.maybe I missed the point,but I dont wanna see this kind of junk thats been passed off as art again never,I actually watched Irreversable this week and that was as strong but made in such a fine way that it made you sad and think unlike this pile of cr@p....If you want good films based around the De Sade legend check out Jesus Francos Eugénie or Philip Kaufmans Quills

[Mandi Apple]

That's your own personal opinion, riiiight?

Fwiw, I thought it was well-made, if not exactly 100% to my taste. And I do appreciate de Sade - I've read most of his work, and enjoyed it, in the main. I thought the film stuck pretty closely to the whole ambience of the style of that genre IMHO... and pushed the envelope, which I also appreciated... <shrugs>

[Apocalipstick]

Philip Kaufmans - Quills is IMHO the most insulting movie base around Sade I can imagine I am afraid....simply a waste of time if you actually want to understand sad's life or his writing...If you don't want to know about sade then of course it is a nice little romantic fiction.
(I believe I have seen most if not all movies base on/about Sade's life/writing)

With Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma is filth maybe because it is faithfully base on the book, I have never seen nor do I want to see one that is in the likness of 120days thou if you ask me.

Speaking of movies with Sade link, i must suggest a viewing of Marat/Sade (1966) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0060668
Simply fun the movie is.

[MellieB]

I've heard of this movie. I found out about it actually through Amazon. Of course it is catching my curiosity, but I don't think I could being myself to see this. I suppose this could be my once change to finally see a movie that actually scares me, but on the other hand I'm thinking that it might scare me too much.

[Mandi Apple]

Originally Posted by MellieB

I suppose this could be my once change to finally see a movie that actually scares me, but on the other hand I'm thinking that it might scare me too much.

It's not exactly what you'd call scary, I don't think - it's more just... gross and unsettling. The atmosphere is very claustrophobic, and the brutal final scenes are just distressing and depressing, IMHO. Not scary, but profoundly disturbing...

After all the horror/extreme films I've seen, it takes quite a bit to stick in my head, but Salo did - it's definitely a very adult film, so don't watch it expecting a teen-creepout style flick. I enjoyed it, in a kind of masochistic way

[Apocalipstick]

This movie will be a mistake to play during christmax dinner....no one will want to finish off the puddings...

[MellieB]

Originally Posted by Mandi Apple

It's not exactly what you'd call scary, I don't think - it's more just... gross and unsettling. The atmosphere is very claustrophobic, and the brutal final scenes are just distressing and depressing, IMHO. Not scary, but profoundly disturbing...

I think that disturbing movies would scare me far more than a slasher horror type. I'm thinking that this would be a movie that would scar me for life. Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit.. but then again, I havn't seen the movie.

[ghevans]

I really hated this film, i thought it was the most nihilistic film i had ever seen - it was nothing but a barrage of horrible sadisitic sequences which IMO has nothing artistic about it. It's badly filmed, badly acted, and any sense of a higher understanding or submessage is a desperate attempt to make exploitation as art.

I actually found it more offensive than Visitor Q, basically because the sense of unease is so relentless. Whether you look at that as a positive aspect (the director achieves his goal) or negative I guess comes down to personal opinion. And for me it was just too relentless, too vulgar and too horrid a film for my taste (and yes, I enjoyed Ichi and Visitor Q).

Take from this what you will, but my question is this - if the negative aspec of Pasolini's film relates to sticking faithfully to the book, then he has failed as a filmmaker. Books and films are very different things entirely, if a structure of a book fails to transfer cinematically then you approach it from a different angle and try to remain as faithful as possible. I felt Mary Hannon's film of American Psycho was expertly handled, the novel as a 100% faithful adaptation is impossible. She made good choices on how to handle both the narrative and the violence.

By showing less she gained more. If she tried to push the films boundaries of screen violence she would still never have reached the peak of the book, and as thus would fail to impress fans of the original novel. I feel her approach was perfect for the subject matter.

[Mandi Apple]

Originally Posted by ghevans

By showing less she gained more. If she tried to push the films boundaries of screen violence she would still never have reached the peak of the book, and as thus would fail to impress fans of the original novel.

Besides, she'd have had a heck of a time getting a literal adaptation of the chapter entitled 'Tries to Cook and Eat Girl' past the censors

Did Pasolini entirely fail in his rendering of the original material, though? To me that seems questionable, or at the very least, a matter of personal interpretation.

De Sade's writings have always struck me as being as unpleasant as the limits of the human imagination will allow - maybe not to the same kind of level as Gareth's excellent example American Psycho, or to something in the genre of Cannibal Holocaust or Men Behind The Sun(which seems infinitely worse to my mind, as real-life suffering inflicted on sentient creatures seems IMHO a whole lot more morally repugnant than actors getting to eat chocolate poops) - but then we are talking about an author who was writing in the eighteenth century!

Surely, then, to make a film which is equally reprehensible as the original novel means that he succeeded in interpreting, if not the style of the book, then at least the point of it?

Oh, this is making my head ache Please feel free now to shout at me for talking complete bollocks ... it's been a long day at work and my brain hurts from all this serious stuff

[ghevans]

no shouting from here - you made a very good point about him succeeding in interpreting the original source material, however, in response to this i felt (again only in my opinion) that he failed "cinematically" to make a good film. Which is really what it should be first and foremost.