Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975) User Reviews

Uncompromising, Uncomfortable & Unforgettable

[reelreviewsandrecommendations · 6/10 · 8 September 2022]

Speak the name in some circles and you'll be greeted with cries of derision and condemnation. In others, you'll be told it's one of the most important, powerful films ever made. There may be no movie so infamous or so hotly contested as Pier Paolo Pasolini's last film 'Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom.'

Inspired by 'The 120 Days of Sodom, or the School of Libertinage' by the Marquis de Sade, the film is set in Italy during WWII and follows four fascists named The Duke, The Magistrate, The President and The Bishop. Alongside their barbaric troupe of acolytes, they put a group of eighteen children through a Dantesque cycle of torture and perversion.

Completely unremitting in its' depiction of depravity and offering the viewer no respite from scenes of brutality at any point during its' runtime, the film makes for a fascinatingly violent viewing experience that is uncomfortable and unforgettable.

It may be easier to start discussing the definitive positive elements of the movie. The cinematography and shot construction is undeniably beautiful and artistic. The images on screen are strange, perverse and off-putting, but captured with style and skill behind the camera- a credit to the work of cinematographer Tonino Delli Colli. The stirring soundtrack makes effective use of pieces by Chopin, Bach and others, while Ennio Morricone's original score is haunting.

The film also benefits from having a cast full of dedicated, brave performers, whose work lingers in the mind long after the film has ended. The actors playing the four fascist libertines are all outlandishly, disgustingly terrific, with Giorgio Cataldi and Aldo Valetti being particularly memorable as The Bishop and The President respectively. As one of their accomplices, Hélène Surgère also does admirable work, but it's hard to appreciate the performances when the characters are so detestable and despicable and the actions they perform so thoroughly base.

This is the problem with the whole film actually: it's hard to appreciate because Pasolini was so committed to showing the audience nothing but cruelty. 'Salò' could be seen as an allegory about the corrupting effect of absolute power, of the extreme savagery man is capable of when they have no inhibitions, shame or empathy. By showing us nothing but repetitive scenes of torture to illustrate this theme, though, the film seems a little cursory in its' examinations of same. A cynical critic might say it's a very one-note movie, that note being one of sadism, pain and disgust.

On the other hand, one might say that it is important for artists like Pasolini to hold truth to power in their work. While the film is based on the writings of the Marquis de Sade, by updating the film to a WWII setting, Pasolini can make commentary on the barbarism of the fascists during that war.

When the allies were liberating concentration camps, lampshades made with human skin were found. The twisted, unnecessarily cruel experiments Dr. Josef Mengele performed on children are well documented, as well as other countless acts of sadism undertaken by the fascists who enjoyed absolute power at the time.

One could say Pasolini is giving us an account of the viciousness that took place during WWII that cannot be forgotten or obfuscated by history- the film will always be around to remind us of where humanity went wrong. Except, 'Salò' is largely confined to an isolated mansion, which sets the proceedings apart from the war or real life. This gives the film an odd, otherworldly feeling that in turn makes trying to contemporize or understand in in a real-world context incredibly difficult and somewhat pointless, even if that is what Pasolini intended.

Say what you will about 'Salò', it does make you think and will certainly make you feel something- it is a visceral and intellectual experience. It's also a thoroughly uncomfortable one, featuring nearly two hours of torture and sexual perversion with no break for the viewer from the unceasing depravity whatsoever. It's not a film someone will say they enjoyed- and if they do be wary of that person- but it can be somewhat rewarding.

It is certainly unique and deserves its' infamous reputation as one of the most challenging pieces of cinema ever made. It is a film that will likely provoke different reactions from everyone who sees it- some will hate it and others will hail it as a masterpiece.

There are those of us whose feelings about the film are constantly in flux, who think they can see what Pasolini intended but don't think his ideas were expressed as eloquently as they could have been. Whatever the case and whatever your feelings are on the film, 'Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom' is an uncompromising journey into a world of depravity that is sure to leave an indelible impression on the viewer.

So disturbing, but more than meets the eye

[jcslawyer · 6/10 · 3 April 2020]

This is on the list of most disturbing movies ever. But it's not disturbing for the sake of it. There is an underlying exposition of a fascist government and it's ability to control to the most depraved extremes. I don't need to go into the plot, just don't watch if your skin crawls easily.

Apparently based loosely on the Marquis de Sade's eponymous story, it feels dirty...it feels icky. You will not finish the film feeling happy, relieved, redeemed, or satisfied. You will feel that humanity is capable of terrible things and sometimes for no real reason other than they can. It shows what happens when people blindly follow terrible people and abandoned their own sense of decency. The following orders defense will never work. When you've become an accomplice you ate equally guilty.

This movie has depth, but it's not an easy watch. It's not for a simple eve with a date. I can't imagine watching this with anyone other than fellow film students or a significant other you've been with for years.

One of the most gruelling films ever made

[world_of_weird · 17 January 2005]

Pier Paolo Pasolini, as is well known, was murdered not long after he finished work on this, his most audacious and confrontational film, yet even the most casual viewing of SALO begs the question - had he not been murdered, would he have taken his own life anyway? Every sequence, every shot and practically every moment of this film is so burdened with despair, barely concealed rage and a towering disgust with the human race, one gets the impression that Pasolini was barely hanging onto life - and any attendant shreds of hope - by his fingernails. Although ostensibly an adaptation of one of DeSade's most depraved works channeled through the horrifying excesses of the Second World War with the Fascist ruling classes as its (authentically vile) villains, SALO also contains a lot of contemporary criticism - Pasolini hated the modern world, and explained the stomach-churning 'banquet of s**t' as a none-too-subtle attack on the encroaching global domination of the fast food chains. (The scenes of sexual excess can similarly be read as a despairing attack on the permissive society - those who come to SALO expecting titillation or B-movie sleaze will be sorely disappointed.) Beyond the nihilistic content, which has been well documented elsewhere, the film has an overall mood that seems to have been engineered to make the viewer thoroughly depressed. Shot on washed-out, faded film stock using primarily static cameras, long shots, choppy editing and very few cutaways, SALO has a visual style reminiscent of cinema-verite documentary. Add to this the unnerving use of big band music, piano dirges and the (intentionally?) scrappy post-dubbed dialogue, and the distancing effect on the viewer is complete. SALO comes across as one long primal scream of rage, designed to shake the viewer out of his complacency, and in this respect, the film succeeds unequivocally. Whether or not you would care to watch this more than once, or indeed for 'entertainment', is another matter, but SALO is an important film that demands a careful viewing ONLY by those prepared for it.

Ridiculous and Anti-Intellectual

[Mourn-2 · 1/10 · 28 March 2000]

Four fascists in WWII Italy abduct 16 youths and subject them to dehumanizing rape, humiliation and torture.

Many reviewers have commented that this movie is powerful and that everyone should see it because it gives you access to true feelings of disgust and guilt about man's inhumanity to man, especially during times of anarchistic, despotic, or fascist rule. If you need this movie to understand how terrible the crimes visited on people by the fascists, Nazi and otherwise, during WWII were, then Pasolini's only success is that he has demonstrated just how sick and desensitized our global society has become.

Stark brutality has its value as a tool for demonstrating the full force of certain horrible events. This tool was used effectively in other WWII films around the same subject, "Schindler's List" comes to mind. The problem with this film is that this tool has to be accompanied by real emotion and demonstration of the effect of that brutality. The only emotion (other than pure physical pain) demonstrated by the adolescents in this movie is during one scene where a young abductee cries at being reminded of the death of her mother. Aside from that, the victims walk through this movie like zombies as various disgusting acts are perpetrated upon them. There is no emotion, and frankly, the movie is an extremely boring series of repetitive acts of violence and humiliation that are reputedly designed to demonstrate the horror of unchecked power. The truth is, this is a dull expose on the acts of several bored, wealthy, powerful members of society who can no longer find stimulation in the banal trappings of every day life, just like the book it is based on.

The truth is, this movie has NOTHING to do with the horrors of fascism, it just happens that Pasolini chose a setting he knew well. There is no reason that this same exact movie could not be shot in a palace in the Middle East, a castle in Austria, a Villa in Latin America or a mansion in the USA and be just as realistic. It is nothing more than a dull comment on the depravity of the rich and bored.

Don't be drawn in by the mystery and the hushed tones that people use when they speak of this so-called "Masterpiece". And if you are a DVD owner, don't be fooled by the fact that Criterion wasted their time with this banal piece of Anti-Intellectual trash.

A Film of Rage and Sadness

[BackFire83 · 8/10 · 29 May 2007]

Salo, the final film by Pasolini, is far and away the most affecting film I've ever seen of it's type. The images that it shows will stay with every viewer forever, they are unforgettable. Yet, you will wish you could forget them.

The film is about a group of rich Fascists during WWII-Nazi Occupied Italy, where they kidnap a group of 18 youngsters, allowing only physically perfect specimins to stay, and subject them to various forms of mental, physical and sexual torture over the next 120 Days. The torture starts off in a sexual nature--Sodomy, rape, humiliation and so on-- and slowly degrades and descends into mental and physical torture. Just when you think what you are seeing can't get worse, it does, ten-fold.

What makes Salo so brutally shocking and disturbing is its uncompromised and blunt way of showing the acts of horror. It is a very quiet and slow film, mostly shot using static and still cameras, it feels more like a documentary than a fictional film. It's clear upon viewing, that Pasolini wanted to remind us all that violence should not be entertainment. As such, every act of violence and degredation is drained of all its possible energy and excitement, and shown in a sad, painful light. Nothing is sugar coated, nothing is softened. This film is an attack on our desensitized feelings towards violence. Yet, at the same time, the film purposely desensitizes us to certain acts -- Such as rape. We see it so much during the film that it becomes "normality" to us, we barely raise an eyebrow. Upon realizing this, one also realizes how the horrible acts shown in the film are possible, and it's a terrible realization.

Salo continues to descend until at the end, when we are taken to the punishing grounds, where various rule breakers are tortured and murdered. This final sequence is the most harrowing and effective I've ever seen in a film. As the victims are tortured and murdered, each one of the fascist rulers take turns as voyer, watching from a second story window, far enough away to not hear the screams of terror and pain. And we watch with him. The film attempts to equate our viewing of this film to their viewing of the executions, after all, we're watching these acts for "entertainment", just as he is. And we distance ourselves from the acts in order to enjoy them, as he does by watching through binoculars far away. It's a savage and truthful attack, one that is impossible to deny.

Also incredibly unsettling is the inherent joy that the villains (Heroes?) feel at their victims pain, sadness and discomfort. Sometimes even to the point of sexual arousal. There is a scene where a girl is crying because her mother died trying to save her from these people. She is completely naked as she weeps, to us, she's the picture of vulnerability and sadness, to the fascists, it's the most exciting thing they've seen all day. The fascists all stand and watch her weep with the utmost sexualexcitement. It is terrifying. It's scenes like these that set Salo apart from other "gross out" movies. Some of the most affecting and frightening scenes are ones where there is quiet, watching the expressions and reactions of people to the various horrible acts.

Salo is a film of rage and sadness. It is a film that asks you to hate humanity, to hate what we're capable of; to look in the mirror and hate yourself. Then weep because nothing can be done about it. Nothing will ever change..

It's not necessarily a film, per say, as it is an endurance test...

[Quinoa1984 · 6/10 · 8 July 2004]

...meaning that if a viewer can stay tuned, as I could, through the "Circle of Sh*t" segment, then a viewer can sit through just about anything that's on celluloid. It's indeed appropriate that it's called the most disturbing and disgusting film ever made, as it well could be. As I watched all the way through till the end I got the same feeling as I did watching Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Both films go out on a limb with excesses (although Gibson's excesses were arguably not as faithful to the source as Pasolini was), and I have to say that at least from an objective point of view Pier Paolo Pasolini gets the job done there. With great cinematographer Tonino Delli Colli (Once Upon a Time in the West) providing the sometimes exquisite camera-work and lighting, Ennio Morricone delivering a slight, but melodic tone in the background, and with interesting sets, plus an interesting editing style that doesn't entirely show as much of the grotesque and sex as it could've, the craft behind the film is pretty good. If one were to look past the subject matter, it's actually a very well constructed piece of film art, which is why many consider it important.

I suppose it's a unique film, but you couldn't pay me to want to watch it again (unless it was in a film class where the teacher proved himself to have reason to have us watch it). At the core, Salo: 120 Days of Sodom, is interesting as a concept, from which it was taken from Sade's novel - a group of f*cked up fascists during the end of world war two capture some young boys and girls and force them to go under sexual and mental tortures. As in the book (which I've never read and don't really have a desire to seek out at this point in my life), the acts are relentless, and in between the fascists instilling fear and intense degradation, a woman narrates stories that go over and over as she describes everything from eating excrement to helping out a grown man in diapers. By the end, it's a controlled chaos as most are dead and those who aren't look on with binoculars. Now, the problem is with this material, at least for me, it becomes very subjective.

I can see the core point PPP's making (it's almost like a twisted satire), and it does remind me how much fascism is the worst kind of ideology there is on Earth...But then the relentlessness of it all becomes very, very close to unbearable (i.e. endurance test). And, reminding me again of 'The Passion', Salo doesn't give any of the characters any other kinds of emotions to work in than those they're stuck with. There's no deviating from the paths and fates of the characters, and without any point of entry into the victims (the exclusion being two girls, who all they say are 'I can't take this anymore' to each other), they're left with the controlled state that the villains have put them in. I suppose the acting by these four, vicious bastards is commendable, but after a while the acts that they thrust upon the kids stops being shocking, and becomes boring. And when a film that is supplied with a talented crew and cast that does whatever PPP tells them to do, and it's boring, it doesn't work for me. The stories by the one woman, in-particular, tend to drag on as her character seems to just think up new ways to entice the heads of the manor into ecstasy. On top of this, there isn't logic to history because if this is towards the end of the war, where are the allies putting a stop to the fascists?

I guess, in the end, I found Salo to be one of the more difficult films I've ever seen. I know I'm sort of glad I got through with it, but by the end I realized that PPP committed a bit of a film crime (though certainly not deserving of his mysterious death before the film was released) - there's no room for catharsis. This could be argued by some, however I'd have to say that if there was one it was buried underneath all of the sh*t food and *ss raping. Because the film is a bit one-dimensional, and hope is a lost cause, by the end all one could reasonably be left with is emptiness. In a way it reminded me of Bergman's Cries and Whispers in how it's just a sea of bleakness and despair for everyone involved, but at least in Bergman's bleak world there are moments of sweet (if maybe brief) humanity and love. I can't recommend Salo except for extreme, die-hard film buffs and for nihilistic types (and maybe for those interested in understanding the nature of fascism), and for those looking for what's worse after Gibson's POTC. It's definitely deserved, either way you take the film, as one of the most notorious, soul-churning pieces ever produced, though I wouldn't say it's one of the worst.

One of the roughest films you'll ever see.

[futures-1 · 8/10 · 6 June 2005]

"Salo: The 120 Days of Sodom" (1975): Be prepared for one of the roughest films you'll ever see. This was Pasolini's last, and going by what I've seen, his vision only became bleaker and more disturbed as the years clawed along. Using the Marquis de Sade's ideas on the decadence of 18th century France, Pasolini represents Fascist Italy (1944-45). We are shown the upper class – always removed and protected from the outer world – as predators of the poor, weak, young, and less educated. A group of wealthy adults shop amongst the kidnapped older children of bourgeoisie. They choose eighteen, and steal them away to a hidden mansion, where there is no escape. There, the adults live out every twisted fantasy they've ever had or can now muster, while demeaning, raping, and torturing the youngsters. The teens react in many ways, none of which are "pretty". This entire film experience MUST be viewed as a symbolic, emotional "explanation" of what it was like to live under Nazi/Fascist rule (in this case), and how an otherwise normal, decent society could be turned into lunatics and sub-animals. Although made 30 years ago (with the usual weaker production qualities of that era), I cannot think of another work which so blatantly and painfully illustrates what those in power are capable of doing when boredom gives rein to impulse. In comparison, "Lord of the Flies" barely lights upon these issues, "Pink Flamingos" was but a tiny, kitschy springboard, and "Schindler's List" described a much narrower range of degradation. To this day, "Salo: …" is banned in some countries. This is NOT a film about acting, lighting, sound, camera work, etc.. This is a film about states of mind – theirs then, ours now. P.S.: If you are interested in set design, this one is FILLED with original Cubist/Bauhaus/Futurist/Moderne furnishings, murals, and art. Spectacular. Those styles were not yet being reproduced, so Pasolini used the real thing. There is also an interesting use of a Charles Rennie MacIntosh chair…which will alter how you see this design from here on out.

Horribly weak passe attempt at pure-shock value masquerading as a commentary on fascism

[Freon · 1/10 · 11 January 1999]

This is a mindless and passe attempt of a movie which is basically one disgusting "shocking" scene after another parading as intellectual commentary on fascism. Merely viewing shocking torture says nothing about the human condition. It doesn't make you think and it doesn't make you ponder anything. The only thing that remains is a sick "I wish I hadn't seen that" feeling in the pit of your stomach which amounts to a mere visceral response to viewing innocent victims tortured relentlessly. It is an easy way out for a director to resort to shock value instead of tackling the difficult subject of fascism with dignified examination.

Praised and Reviled

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 26 January 2016]

Four fascist libertines round up nine adolescent boys and girls and subject them to a hundred and twenty days of physical, mental and sexual torture.

Now, who would have thought that taking a Marquis de Sade book about the most vile sexual acts imaginably... and turning it into a film almost as equally vile... was a good idea? That was a brave move, and obviously one that would come with more than its share of controversy.

But this controversy is also why it must be praised. Though it is indeed vile ,and often hard to watch, everyone involved came their complete efforts to make this the strong, memorable monstrosity that it is. It remains a parable of fascism, a story of horror as well as war.

ew

[DPS03 · 1/10 · 10 September 2022]

I need a medal just for my willingness to watch the whole movie without vomiting or gouging my eyes out. It's like someone wrote out their worst questionable inhuman disgusting sexual fantasy/nightmare and then made a movie out of it. I can only see this being Alex Delarge's favorite movie. Anyone saying this movie is a work of art or a masterpiece or powerful are just trying hard to be different and quirky. Fact is, this movie sucks. Sure it shows the true inhumanity of this world but since when has that been news to people. I had to watch Seinfeld after this to detox. And if you are whole heartedly recommending this movie to people you need to be in jail and far away from society.

Don't judge this film too quickly.

[marcopop · 30 April 1999]

It appears most people find this movie to be sick, pointless, and without substance. That's unfair.

This is the strongest movie I've ever seen, and it made an IMPORTANT impression on me, a big horrorflick-devotee. It made me question a lot of things about former favourite films, and made me realize how sick it is to make horror and violence into entertainment. The problem with most movies is that violence is not portrayed violent enough, horror isn't portrayed horrible enough. Most 'thriller' films have these ingredients softened so that people can enjoy it, and THAT'S sick. This movie is SANE. It shows horror and violence as it IS - totally revolting and disgusting.

I sat as on needles for 1 hour 40 minutes, and felt really bad watching this film. It grossed me out, but I understood why this film is both good and important. It gives a sane perspective on violence, as opposed to SICK, SICK Hollywood-action where people get killed by 'heroes' and nobody raises an eyebrow.

No comment...

[RZ-5 · 1/10 · 30 September 1999]

I just accidentally watched this movie in a small cinema, but I think there are two groups of mentally sick people, the first is who make films like this, the second is who enjoy them and feel some exceptional artistic deepness.

Interesting, but also slightly disappointing

[rbverhoef · 6/10 · 25 November 2006]

What director Pier Paolo Pasolini does with 'Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom' is making a point a lot of people already understand. Those who do not will probably not get this film either. In the most simple way you can say that the film shows us what happens when an unchecked regime has all power. Pasolini uses the fascists and places the events near the end of WW-II. Sex and violence and the desire to power are very much connected, Pasolini thinks and shows.

The story itself exists out of nine boys and nine girls being physically and mentally tortured, most of the time sexually. This is done by four Libertines and the people who support them; well dressed people with the sickest of ideas. Although I thought the scenes were either disgusting or disturbing the film itself is not that unwatchable. Not that it is for everyone though. The stories told in the film are more disturbing than most of the things shown, and the only really disgusting scene deals with excrement and eating.

What Pasolini does, one thing I particularly admired, is show human nature in the most evil way. And I am not just talking about the fascists here. To survive we do about anything, and some sequences of betrayal show how merciless people can be, maybe even more so in conditions like these. These sequences also show that even though it seems there is no future, there is always time and especially need for sex. In this case "normal" sex, without any humiliation or torture.

The admiration for this piece of work is overshadowed by some aspects. Again, it makes a good point, but with the horrors of the Nazi's and Italian fascists in our memory we don't really need a film like this to show that again. The interesting parts are in the details, like I described above. I was fascinated, a little disgusted, and in the end slightly disappointed. That said I am very glad I have seen it, probably without seeing it ever again. I would recommend to try that as well.

A sick disgusting piece of garbage

[preppy-3 · 1/10 · 28 January 2000]

OK I got the message in the film (already voiced by just everybody else), but I think this film is one of the most disgusting, sick, vile pieces of garbage ever made. The film actually left a bad taste in my mouth and I almost threw up! Rape, torture, sexual humiliation, sadism, scatology--you name it, this movie has it! Pasolini made some good films ("Arabian Nights")--too bad this was his last one. I was "lucky" enough to see it in a theatre a few years ago--the audience groaned and booed and hissed at the end. Pasolini did NOT have to throw ever single torture and degradation in our faces--he seems to actually enjoy it! He could have made his point without being so needlessly sick. Some people go on and on saying this is a masterpiece. Bull! It's just a sick, degrading movie that tries to make a point (absolute power corrupts) while just pushing offensive material into the audiences faces. This film is no artistic achievement--it's, in my book, the worst film ever made. UPDATE! Criterion released it about a year ago and people are going on and on saying Criterion only releases artistic films of merit. Uh huh (EXTREME sarcasm). They did a special edition on Michael Bay's 1998 movie "Armageddon" which is easily one of the stupidest films ever made. Just because Criterion released it does not make it any masterpiece of cinema.

A necessary evil

[dennis70 · 10/10 · 16 March 2005]

This is a tough one. Pasolini was a very complicated man. He was murdered in still-unexplained circumstances shortly after the film was completed. I was 10 years old when this movie was finished, but I only saw it now. Despite being almost 30 years old, Salo is probably the most cruel and repulsive film ever made, not just here in Italy but in the whole world. It depicts the worse atrocities inflicted to humans by humans. The true dark side of human nature: When evil is born out of simple boredom, when it comes naturally. It is a film that I don't want to see ever again, but at the same time I'm glad it was made. I thought hated it at first, but I now I realized is not true. Of course I don't love it either. I can't decide how to judge it. I don't like the cinematography or the acting. But it was definitely one of the most profound emotional experiences of revulsion I've had in a film. It is a necessary evil if you can endure it.

Overrated!

[applegrrls · 1/10 · 3 June 2021]

I watch a lot of art movies. I'm an avid reader. I don't shock easily. No matter the genre, metaphors, artistic expression & cinematic poetry cinema is a sacred mana. (Post pandemic - I can't wait to get back to my local art house cinema!) The beauty of disgust & the disgust of beauty are not lost on me. But this bloviate tripe meant to shock with anything it could ponder was boring. I've read the book by De Sade. It's massive, vivid & exhausting, but never boring. I will concede this excessiveness may work for others... But i don't need to be beaten with a defiled club to understand such themes. And those who need this film, those whom this is meant for, will never ever watch such fair because of its heavy handed offense. 1/10 because zero isn't allowed.

A LAST MESSAGE

[maxbemba · 24 March 2001]

Reportedly, when the executives of one, now defunct, American film company saw "Saló", which they helped co-finance and had distribution rights on, they were so disturbed and embarrassed that they didn't know what to do. Are we going to release this thing? With our company name on it? Where?

They had to show that they released it somewhere in the U.S. or territories.

So they did. In a small theater in El Condado area near San Juan, Puerto Rico.

There's where I saw it. In the mid-70's. With the film company's name on it.

Is it any good? Well, I'm no great admirer of Pasolini. Frankly, I find his movies intolerable. And "Saló" is no exception. But, unlike his Trilogy of Life ("The Decameron", "Canterbury Tales", "Arabian Nights") where he at least displayed some flair and humor, this one is a different animal.

His style was always somewhat ponderous. In "Saló" it is heavily, oppressively didactic: static tableaux-style framing, a deliberately slow pace, no humor whatsoever, and actors who don't play characters but conceits. Although Pasolini uses De Sade's "120 Days of Sodom" as scaffolding and as a pointed commentary, "Saló" is actually based on real events that happened in the Republic of Saló in Northern Italy, where a group of wealthy fascists abducted a large group of young men and women, went on to debase them, and after they were done with them they killed them. Pasolini staged all the scenes as demonstrations of degradation and cruelty. And he does not flinch.

At the end he includes a bibliography.

It's an unpleasant experience.

Clearly, Pasolini, an award-winning poet and one of the leading intellectuals of his time, was very angry when he did this moving picture. He wanted to send a message to Italy and to the world.

It was his last film.

Months later he was murdered.

After several weeks of being in release, the theater was raided by our local vice authorities.

A masterpiece but will never watch again

[valefonta · 9/10 · 29 November 2019]

The movie is, from an artistic point of view, a masterpiece unique in its kind. It is extremely well thought and reflects about power and the darkest side of humanity. However, the movie is extremely rough, definitely not for everyone. Although artistically excellent, the movie left me with a strong feeling of disgust. But aren't the best movies the ones that really do transmit you an emotion? This movie is a must watch and will mark you forever, even if, at times, you would want to forget it.

Incompetent, Pretentious, Self-Indulgent, and Incredibly Dull

[gftbiloxi · 1/10 · 30 July 2005]

Pasolini is difficult for many to approach for the simple reason that so many of his defenders feel called upon to "explain" his films. It is true that a great work of art is inexhaustible and that many of us would benefit from added information about it; in the case of Pasolini, however, the "explanations" are considerably more interesting than the work itself, and this is particularly true of SALO, a film of notorious reputation.

With SALO, Pasolini very freely adapts de Sade into a tale of young innocents kidnapped for use as sexual toys by the 'powerful but depraved' during World War II. In theory, the film is a "metaphor" for the "German rape of Italy." In practice, it emerges as so much directorial self-importance and self-indulgence, badly structured in a highly obvious triptych style, badly scripted, badly performed, and badly filmed.

It is also an incredibly slow film enlivened by the depiction of sexual abuse and torture, none of it greatly believable but all of it fairly distasteful. Those expecting an erotic tone will be disappointed; even so, certain images will linger in mind long after the film ends. The catch: the images that linger do so by reason of their extremely unpleasant nature.

Pasolini was murdered not long after he made SALO and to this day rumors of a conspiracy abound. For myself, I strongly suspect that he was put out of his misery by movie-goers weary of his constant efforts to pass off his utter incompetence as a stylistic device.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Fascism via De Sade

[odishon27 · 10/10 · 22 November 2005]

I'm going to keep this short. If you want to see Salo simply to see what all the hype is about, keep your $600. Or rent it. If you can find it. I happen to own the Criterion release that is now being ripped and sold on Ebay for $400-600 bucks. Is it worth it? No. Is any film? No. Is it an excellent film? Absolutely.

Try not to think of Pasolini's masterpiece as a shock-for-shock's sake project and you'll truly understand the horror that is Salo. While the depiction of violence, sodomy, corpophagia, eye-gouging, scalping, nipple burning with candles, etc. etc. is horrific it is Pasolini's treatment of the boys and girls that is much more horrifying.

The monsters that occupy this small space of two hours, the fascists, are more human that their victims. We are given no insight into the lives of these children, while we are shown at great length the heads of state personal histories and sadistic proclivities.

Salo has stood the test of time because of it's unflinching portrayal of human violence and idealism, and the fact that, as the Criterion collection states: "Moral redemption may be nothing but a myth." Be warned: for many, Salo is a film not easily shaken off after a single viewing.

Sweating Cannonballs

[Seamus2829 · 6/10 · 3 August 2008]

This, Pier P.Pasolini's final work (and the third in the trilogy of films adapted from novels)is probably one of the hardest films you will ever be subjected to. The film, adapted from the Marquis DeSade's 'The 120 Days' is set during the final days of fascism in Italy, during 1944,when a group of Fascists take a batch of newly arrested Communist youths to a swanky house in the countryside, and subject them to four months of some of the most de humanizing,degrading forms of humiliation,torture & eventual horrific deaths that one could hope to see on screen. This film even managed to gross out Al Goldstein,publisher of Screw Magazine,resulting in his walking out on it. What makes this film more hard to watch,in contrast to some of the Italian horror films of the same era (with some pretty horrific & graphic violence)is that things like the stuff that's depicted in the film actually happened. This film (no surprise what so ever)received the X-rating in it's original release in 1975. Approach this at your own peril.

0/10. Bring me the head of Marquis de Sade.

[Fella_shibby · 1/10 · 29 March 2020]

In an attempt to be different, arty or jus to shock audiences, sick film makers resort to sick, vile, repugnant, demented stuff.

Heard a lot since my teen days.

Finally saw this trash aft much resistance in my head.

Fast forwarded most scenes.

Terrible at all levels. This ain't no movie man.

Only followers of Anti-Christ will like this movie, A Serbian Film n Trauma (2017) n approve these kinda films.

This movie doesnt entertain nor does it enlighten. Its filled with trash.

In fact I dont even consider this trash to be a movie.

Salo is now, Gladio is real

[myboigie · 10/10 · 25 December 2005]

So you say you've seen nearly-every major Italian-giallo? You've seen Argento, Mario Bava, Lucio Fulci, Michele Soavi, and even all the "classics" of Italian-film? Leone, Fellini, DeSicca, Bertolucci, Martino, and even most of the "world-classics"? By this point, you've probably seen-it-all, and you think there is no film that will shock you? If you haven't seen Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Salo", you are wrong. Pasolini didn't even live to see the film widely-released--he was murdered by a male-hustler (or so the official-story plays). Pier Pasolini was the most-important post-war intellectual in Italy, period. Like a Renaissance polymath, he was adept at journalism, the novel, poetry, screen writing, directing motion-pictures, and more. His revolutionary-philosophy was against fascism and communism, and he had many enemies in the political-arena, as well as the religious. All-said, however, it's likely that Pier Pasolini was murdered by a right-wing assassination-team under the aegis of "gladio", a NATO program of secret-armies through Western Europe. Gladio began, ostensibly, as a defense-against a hypothetical Soviet-invasion of Europe, but was used to attack legitimate Leftist political-parties and groups. The Red Brigade bombings in the 1970s were even instigated-by gladio-operatives to justify a law-and-order crackdown of the Italian Communist Party--it is a mystery as to how-much CIA-influence this all had. The P-2 conspiracy (oddly, involving the Vatican, the CIA, KGB, and renegade Freemasons!) had yet-to-break. There were dozens of politically-motivated killings in 1970s-Italy, and Pasolini's was one-of-many. One has to wonder how-much involvement the Vatican had in his murder, as well.

And so, "Salo" enters this bloody-fray. It could not be any more controversial on all-fronts, and is a shout-of-rage against how little we all care about human-life itself. Pasolini was outraged and disappointed with the human-condition, and Italian politics had become chaos--leading Sergio Leone to remark at the time that, "Italian politics have become ridiculous." The scenario of Salo is fairly-simple: a group of Italian-fascists retreat to a palace in Northern Italy (where there was a great-deal of support for Italian fascism and the Monarch) with a group of sixteen boys and girls. It is the short-lived Republic of Salo, hence the title that any Italian of the 1970s would recognize. For 120-days, they degrade them in almost every-imaginable-way. Gay-rape, buggery, forcing people to eat-excrement, and finally, death. Of course, it's all based-loosely on DeSade's tale and stays pretty-closely to the text's themes and scenarios. He "chapters" each section with some of the structure of Dante's "Inferno", which is genius. To say this film is merely a statement on fascism would be wrong, it is a manifesto on what cruelty rests within all human-hearts. Pasolini understood that, under the right-circumstances, we are all capable of these depredations. Some reviewers have stated they didn't find the film shocking--they should check-themselves into a clinic somewhere. I've noticed that even friends who are into such directors as Takashi Miike, respect the power of this film. Miike has some similarities-in-style with Pasolini, but goes for a more genre, stylized-look. Even John Waters lists this film as sicker than his worst-offenders! To say I was shocked would be an understatement.

Besides being pretty sick, this film looks pretty-good. The late Tonnino Colli's (who also worked-for Fellini and Leone) photography lends the film a look that could be hung in the Louvre, and it gives the film a greater subversive-edge. It should be noted that the film is not "legitimately-available" in the United State for copyright reasons. However, there are very-good copies out-there since it is not in-print. I found one that is an exact-duplicate of the original US-edition for a decent-price, so it is out there, with some searching. The Criterion edition is reportedly the most-expensive DVD in the world, going for as-much as $600.00 USD. Criterion's is the best-transfer we have to-date. I've got a few Ken Russell DVDs ("Salome's Last Dance")that are worth as-much as $300.00 USD, so this is a shocker! It's funny to see used DVDs of the big Hollywood-fare at $3.99 USD, while these are in-the-hundreds! It says-a-lot about what is lasting and meaningful to people, and it ain't blockbuster movies. A company called "Water Bearer" has sets of Pasolini's other works, but I have it on good-word that they are inferior-quality. It would be nice if Criterion did a Pasolini Box that included a newer-transfer of "Salo" with restoration. It is one of the most-important films ever made. We all stand-accused, even the filmmaker, and that's the point. Be warned: not for children or adults who fear soul-searing, raw-existentialism.

NOTE: The "ass-judging-scene" is similar to photos of the "flesh-pyramid" at Abu-Ghraib. http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/

Salo, or The 120 Days of Sodom

[husks · 7/10 · 31 January 2008]

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.

disturbing

[alh15 · 1/10 · 13 April 2005]

I was truly sicken and adversely affected by this film. I was not prepared to see such gruesome and horrific scenes. I went into the movie with no expectations and left crying. I am truly remorseful that I ever viewed this film. I admit I'm not very good at seeing the political and social parallels that may make Salo make more sense. All I saw was the most disgusting, disturbing and unnecessary footage ever filmed. I don't know what else to say. I absolutely could not digest this movie as Pier Pasolini had hoped the audience wouldn't be able to. I wish I could wipe it from my memory, but it is now branded there like the marks branded on the chests of the victims in Salo.