Jamie Kennedy's favorite movie review site
Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 

Overall Rating

Awesome: 28.57%
Worth A Look34.29%
Just Average: 11.43%
Pretty Crappy: 5.71%
Sucks: 20%

1 review, 29 user ratings

Latest Reviews

In the Heights by Peter Sobczynski

Strawberry Mansion by Jay Seaver

Spirit Untamed by Peter Sobczynski

Amusement Park, The by Peter Sobczynski

Amusement Park, The by Rob Gonsalves

Army of the Dead by Rob Gonsalves

Cruella by alejandroariera

Cruella by Peter Sobczynski

Quiet Place, A: Part II by Peter Sobczynski

Oxygen by Rob Gonsalves

subscribe to this feed

[AllPosters.com] Buy posters from this movie
by John Linton Roberson

"Best seen once per lifetime. Your worst nightmare, literally."
4 stars

Pier Paolo Pasolini died, as some directors real and fictional(kubrick-EYES WIDE SHUT, Richard Mulligan in SOB)are prone to do, after having done the Grand High Art Porno Epic, an odd ambition but one held by many directors--to make an erotic film that is art. Unlike Kubrick, however, this was no meditation on marriage(and Kubrick's is, oddly affirmative of marriage), but, like EYES WIDE SHUT, is deliberately anti-erotic and analytic. And terrifying.

Pasolini had, up to that point, been known by the affirmative tone of his "Trilogy of Life," film approximations of what he considered their civilizations' most central cultural works, and as a good Marxist chose the most vulgar and funny, and therefore most characteristic of the culture, works of the lower classes, such as THE DECAMERON, CANTERBURY TALES(whose cinematography influenced all medieval films after, starting with THE HOLY GRAIL; one can smell the Middle Ages and all its shit just looking at the film), and ARABIAN NIGHTS(the most beautiful and least "vulgar"). These films are, for all their dramatic and sometimes horrifying moments, are true to their sources in being celebratory of sex and bodies, as affirmative of life itself. One odd thing that does crop up is that when sex occurs, Pasolini reveals he thinks straight folk do it without moving.

In fact, Pasolini developed a loathing of straight people, as political disfavor(Pasolini was quite active as a political speaker, writer and poet--indeed, was better known for his poetry in Italy than his films) and enemies began to make him more fearful, culminating, after the release of SALO, with his assassination by a young man who pretended he had killed him in self-defense when Pasolini came on to him(as Pasolini was, in fact, prone to do), but who in fact was in the pay of anti-communist political enemies of Pasolini. In his "self-defense" against the fearsome short gay director, the fellow found it necessary not only to almost beat his head in, but run over, and back over him twice before driving away, leaving a body with a square valley crushed across the chest, much of Pasolini streaked on the road left and right of said chest. And was believed and received a light sentence.

Given this, it's difficult in retrospect to dismiss SALO merely because it is so horrible, and grisly, and it is. One only needs to see it once per lifetime, but it occupies a place nothing else can, in its flawed, hateful way. Pasolini was particularly radical; he did not want gay rights because he enjoyed the outlaw status of the gay man of the time.

It was mentioned in PASOLINI: REQUIEM that Pasolini meant SALO as an attack, pure & simple, on heterosexuality, as a negation, indeed, of any affirmation thereof that had popped up in his previous films. Just like the other films, it was an attempt to arrange images & narrative in a manner like poetry, but this time it would be of a much more burnt, dark sort. And when I say "dark," I don't mean like goth. I mean like the apocalypse, because that's what it feels like--apocalypse as enslavement, torture, and death. In a way, the film is a glimpse of hell, but as humans make it on earth.

And it cares not one bit whether you like it or not, which should be respected.

On the surface, it is an adaptation of the only work one needs to read by the Marquis De Sade(because it really is nothing but an endlessly repetitive listing, recapitulation, and reworking of all the ideas he ever had; at some point it's nothing but fragments of lists), THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM. The Marquis wrote this as a final expression of every last bit of hatred against his class as he sat in the Bastille.

De Sade was a slimy individual personally, though did not even a little as much as his works would repute him to have. But his works were not simply meant as something to get himself off--though they did serve that purpose too. They were meant as savage satires of the mores of the dying upper class of France prior to the Revolution. Said satire is clumsily expressed by a writer who had little but bile, but there are nuggets in that bile that let us see the essential inhumanity of what that class had become. (The people he slanders are the same people you see, and loathe, in DANGEROUS LIASONS and RIDICULE, among others)

Many, including Peter Brook, Peter Weiss(MARAT/SADE), Grant Morrison(THE INVISIBLES) and Luis Bunuel(L'AGE D'OR) have quoted and reworked it, seeing in its simple exvcessiveness--it is the most violent pornographic novel ever written; no one would dare top it--an archetype of the real face of power relations in the world, especially in light of the development of fascism. Like them, Pasolini saw in it a metaphor for the basic nightmarish character of fascism--and in some ways society itself.

The basic story(which created a configuration of characters Genet would later use to death) is this: four aristocrats--a president, a bishop, a banker and a judge("president" is "duke" in De Sade) kidnap a number of innocent adolescents, take them to a remote castle where they are told nobody can hear them or will come to help them, for they are believed dead; that they cannot call upon God for help and will be killed if they do; and that the four of them will do anything they like that is devoid of warmth or love(demonstrations of either of which will result in punishment). The captives are converted into objects for use, and these four children enjoy watching how their toys can break. And they do, till they kill them, after subjecting them to the most horrifying psychological & physical meat-grinder, culminating in making them betray one another.

Pasolini chooses to set this in Salo, the last fortress of fascist Italy which held out for awhile after the rest of Italy had fallen to the Allies. The events didn't jhappen, but Pasolini is interested in tying the two together to show what he considered the evil of "normal" culture.

It would be difficult to call this film truly pornographic; it makes sex look evil and septic. Someone looking for some SM leather romp will be very surprised. This is the real essence of De Sade(and a view he was not advocating but describing, mostly)--people reduced, basically, to pigs for slaughter. Having freedom dangled in their face if they eat shit first, only to have it snatched away right after. All for the pleasure of a bunch of upper-class bastards. One can look at one's place in the work world and wonder how, in principle, the average person's role in life is much different. Except in the actual things one has to do.

In a world where the Yugoslavian Rape Camps have existed, however, an attack like this on that brutal part of human nature has a valuable place in aesthetic discourse. This is an image of that brutality at the base of everyone--that should be controlled, not indulged, and an image of the toilet/abbatoir the world becomes when our worst selves are unleashed. And fortunately, nobody has to make it again. It is a pure, unforgettable nightmare, and for all its clumsinesses and heavy-handedness, it fits in the progression of Pasolini's worldview up to that time, as misanthropic and heterophobic as that image is.

But as long as CRUISING is still available on video, I sympathize with any gay filmmaker regardless of the hate level--and it is high in this film. Be warned--it is true to De Sade, including a scene of shit-eating. Remember it's chocolate and it almost might be funny, but I can't watch that part myself. Pasolini's anger either limits or focuses his vision.

This occupies a place that needs filling, but only a very small part one doesn't always want to see, nor should one, necessarily. Nevertheless, worth one look. That part of us should be understood. Unseen it begets monsters, like this film, say...

link directly to this review at https://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/review.php?movie=1134&reviewer=151
originally posted: 10/24/00 03:21:30
[printer] printer-friendly format  

User Comments

5/03/14 FireWithFire Need an new version, with COMMUNISTS doing these horrors to innocent White people 1 stars
2/20/14 FireWithFire What WILL happen if LEFTIST LGBT's and NAMBLA rule.While preaching "tolerance",natch. 4 stars
7/29/13 Fire With Fire Leftist,Bi-sexual Libertines + power = Death of humanity.For nothing more than cheap kicks 4 stars
5/09/12 Marty Most disturbing film I've ever seen. Hard to find the point but this review helps. 2 stars
4/10/10 Josie Cotton is a goddess Contains more social significance than most would like to admit 5 stars
1/29/09 CTT Trying, and not exactly a "popcorn" movie 3 stars
10/20/08 Monster A Go-Go The MOST disgusting thing I think I've ever seen--Repulsive but compulsive 4 stars
7/01/08 RHawk Hailed by art as some, vile exploitation to others. Falls somewhere in the middle to me. 3 stars
10/10/07 mr.mike after about an hour i started reading the newspaper 2 stars
8/07/07 Ellis Prifti It reflects what humans can think of and act out on other humans 4 stars
4/23/07 stef sick, but there are plently of people in the world like that today 3 stars
10/03/06 vin Quite disturbing and unsettling. Watch it with an open mind and an empty stomach! 4 stars
6/19/04 DECENT PERSON Absofuchkinglutely CRAP 1 stars
5/13/04 JLRoberson After the Iraq prison photos, anyone think now this is unrealistic? 5 stars
4/24/04 Paolo Pasolini has represented the perversion of the absolute power, when everything is forbidden 5 stars
4/02/04 Anthony Lammers Great family film 5 stars
9/01/03 Andrea Nanni Viaggio nella perversione umana, da vedere almeno tre volte perchè la prima si rimane male 5 stars
1/30/03 Pinkline Jones One hundred per cent SHIT...literally 1 stars
6/06/02 LIAM JACKSON I thought this film was excellent. It was a disturbing depiction of gay-ass perverts,great! 5 stars
1/23/02 Marty Layton You will need a shower after watching! 3 stars
3/13/01 Bionic Booger Greatest "adult" horror film. 5 stars
2/15/01 Saul Andreetti Awesome!A representation of evil in its purest form. 5 stars
11/19/00 Bob Fugate Your f---ing nuts 1 stars
10/31/00 TOM GREEN great 5 stars
7/01/00 Purple Monster I have absolutely no intention to see this garbage !!!! 1 stars
11/19/98 little jerry This is a beautifully balanced film.Tender and strange. 5 stars
10/24/98 Vincent An important film, but NOT at all entertaining- should be seen by scholars 4 stars
10/15/98 {{{OZ}}} Excrutiatingly disgusting. Has significance, but only as a spectacle of exploitation. 1 stars
Note: Duplicate, 'planted,' or other obviously improper comments
will be deleted at our discretion. So don't bother posting 'em. Thanks!
Your Name:
Your Comments:
Your Location: (state/province/country)
Your Rating:

Discuss this movie in our forum

  02-Jul-1975 (NR)
  DVD: 26-Aug-2008


  02-Feb-1976 (X)
  DVD: 26-Aug-2008

Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 
Privacy Policy | | HBS Inc. |   
All data and site design copyright 1997-2017, HBS Entertainment, Inc.
Search for
reviews features movie title writer/director/cast