Repeat Offender

I watched Pier Paolo Pasolini's infamous Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom again, with a curious friend, and enjoyed it much more the second time around. It is pretty efficient storytelling, really working the audience's eyes, ears, and minds--especially for those who don't speak fluent Italian. I no longer wish it had a more-informative set-up; it has just the right amount, and Pasolini's unwillingness to pander to its audience is impressive.

Not that I was bothered by it the first time around, but I did notice that I was less distracted by the disgusting visuals this time around. Having already seen them, I concentrated instead on the philosophy behind the acts, and found the movie much more interesting as a result.

All this aside, I wonder how long it will take for me to go to the bathroom and not think of how disgusting it is that there are people out there who would want to eat/drink what I produce in there, as well as how disgusting it must taste. I think those thoughts will take a while to shake, although I hope I'm wrong.

One thing is for sure, after watching that movie, most other things that people find offensive, disgusting, or cruel seem quite tame; everything's relative.

120 Days of Sodom

Okay. So I finally watched Pier Paolo Pasolini's Salo, or 120 Days of Sodom, an uber-controversial 1975 film adapted from the Marquis de Sade's equally controversial 18th-century book, The 120 Days of Sodom, or the School of Licentiousness.

How controversial was Salo when it came out? Well, 20 days before the movie was to premiere at the Paris Film Festival, Pasolini was repeatedly run over--with his own automobile--on a beach outside Rome. A 17-year-old hustler confessed to the crime, then recanted 30 years later, saying the safety of his family had been threatened unless he did as he was told.

Although most countries eventually allowed the film to screen--after rating it X and/or cutting footage--Salo is still banned in Australia.

Gotta love the Criterion Collection for putting this out there; it was the 17th film they chose to release (this is the second issue--much improved from the first, I hear, and full of extras).

As in the book--which remained unpublished for 150 years--most of the action in the movie involved homosexuality and shit eating, which is pretty unfortunate when you consider there were nine beautiful young girls (virgins, of course) they could have been having their way with instead. But hey, when it's my 120-day orgy, I guess I can start making the rules...

Overall, I enjoyed the experience--probably more than most people would, since my sensibilities have been continually worn down to nothing over the last...30 years...of action movies, horror movies, porn, Ultimate Fighting Championship, and my own perversely inventive imagination--but it is not without its problems.


From an ideological standpoint, I respect the movie. The transposition from pre-revolution France to the waning days of Fascist Italy definitely adds an interesting political dynamic to a story already rife with social commentary and philosophy generations ahead of Freud, Nietzsche, and the Surrealists. Through his depiction of the victims in the film, Pasolini seems to be saying that the public will always be forced to endure whatever they will tolerate--and that we should feel no sympathy for those people, as they chose their fate by allowing it to happen--is certainly heartless, but not exactly untrue, either. Methinks the scrolls of history seem to agree...

Additionally, the structure of the story is admirable--it ends in the middle of things, leaving the audience wondering how long the cruelties will continue, leaving the fate of the participants unknown, leaving us hanging, making us feel less like an audience watching a story unfold and more like voyeurs watching a sickening reality, and wondering if we should tell somebody about it or just keep watching and see how bad things get.

Will we do anything? Do we ever do anything? Oh, every few hundred years or so, when things get really bad...wait--are we at that point again? Shall we storm the Bastille like old times?

My main complaint about Salo is that I would have liked a little more set-up in the beginning. Who are these guys? Why are they doing this? Why exactly did others lend a hand in capturing beautiful young boys and girls for them? Even something as simple as showing some money change hands would have been enough for me... I think the movie's comment on Fascist Italy, the class system, and consumerism would be much more powerful if the audience were given a little more information at the outset, a little something to chew on while the perversions unfold.

All in all, I would say it is most important that this movie is watched as a work of art, as a philosophical treatise, as a political statement, and not as entertainment. It is not a popcorn movie; it is not a clever, cool art film that makes you want to move to Europe; nor is it pornography, for that matter, if you were so inclined, as the nudity is frequent, but decidedly un-erotic.

So if you've got a head on your shoulders and a stomach for filth, pop it in your VCR and see what you think...