You'll see more graphic sex and violence in other films but these are usually punctuations within a wider context - in SALO these elements are present constantly. Not for one moment are we offered any relief from the emotional and psychological torment being inflicted upon the fascist's victims, and just when we think the film is all bark and no bite, it offers a final scene that is horrific not only for what it portrays but because it can be the only logical conclusion.
I believe that SALO is not as controversial for its content as it is for the conditions it imposes upon the viewer from the outset: that there is no hope, that there will be no rescue, that these young people will suffer and that we will be witness to every moment of it. Because we accept these conditions and view on regardless we get the feeling that we are conspiring with an agenda of the film-maker's. Is it a film that exists more in the reaction to its content than the content itself? Is the event of the film emulating the anarchic argument behind De Sade's own scandalous writings? What's problematic with SALO is that by means of blasphemy, cruelty or depravity it positions itself as a dialogue with which the audience cannot help but engage, overwhelming conventional attitudes of storyline or character.
I also can't help feeling that Pasolini's decision to update the text to a wartime setting is pure strategy on his part, as if allegory conveniently excuses his indulgence. It's not a film that should be banned (there were lines around the block when I went to see it), or that people should be discouraged from seeing, or that most people should be encouraged to see, for that matter. Ultimately, despite its controversy, I'm left with a muddled reaction to SALO. It's certainly disturbing, but probably for the wrong reasons. Just as De Sade's book tells you more about the man who wrote it than the work itself, so too do I think less of SALO as a film than the end-product of the man who made it.
I believe that SALO is not as controversial for its content as it is for the conditions it imposes upon the viewer from the outset: that there is no hope, that there will be no rescue, that these young people will suffer and that we will be witness to every moment of it. Because we accept these conditions and view on regardless we get the feeling that we are conspiring with an agenda of the film-maker's. Is it a film that exists more in the reaction to its content than the content itself? Is the event of the film emulating the anarchic argument behind De Sade's own scandalous writings? What's problematic with SALO is that by means of blasphemy, cruelty or depravity it positions itself as a dialogue with which the audience cannot help but engage, overwhelming conventional attitudes of storyline or character.
I also can't help feeling that Pasolini's decision to update the text to a wartime setting is pure strategy on his part, as if allegory conveniently excuses his indulgence. It's not a film that should be banned (there were lines around the block when I went to see it), or that people should be discouraged from seeing, or that most people should be encouraged to see, for that matter. Ultimately, despite its controversy, I'm left with a muddled reaction to SALO. It's certainly disturbing, but probably for the wrong reasons. Just as De Sade's book tells you more about the man who wrote it than the work itself, so too do I think less of SALO as a film than the end-product of the man who made it.