Editorial Review:Product Description:Pier Paolo Pasolini s notorious final film, Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom, has been called nauseating, shocking, depraved, pornographic . . . it s also a masterpiece. The controversial poet, novelist, and filmmaker s transposition of the Marquis de Sade s 18th-century opus of torture and degradation to 1944 Fascist Italy remains one of the most passionately debated films of all time, a thought-provoking inquiry into the political, social, and sexual dynamics that define the world we live in.
SPECIAL EDITION DOUBLE-DISC SET FEATURES:
New, restored high-definition digital transfer
The End of Salò, a 40-minute documentary about the film s final scene
Salò: Yesterday and Today, a 35-minute documentary featuring interviews with Pier Paolo Pasolini, actor-filmmaker Jean-Claude Biette, and Pasolini s friend Nineto Davoli
Fade to Black, a new short documentary about Salò, featuring interviews with filmmakers Bernardo Bertolucci, Catherine Breillat, and John Maybury
New interviews with set designer Dante Ferretti and filmmaker/film scholar Jean-Pierre Gorin
Optional English-dubbed soundtrack
Theatrical trailer
Optional English subtitles
PLUS: A booklet featuring new essays by Neil Bartlett, Roberto Chiesi, Naomi Greene, Gary Indiana, and Sam Rohdie, and excerpts from Gideon Bachman s on-set diary
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Related Items:
see more
Related Items:
Customer Reviews
Average Rating:
-
An Empty Exercise
Many reviewers are basing their opinions on Pasolini's reputation and just assuming that because Pasolini made a number of masterpieces that this too must somehow merit our attention.
After having viewed several of Pasolini's other films I have to say that this is his weakest. The film's reputation (or notoriety) has little to do with the actual substance of the film. If the film is critiqued according to the normal criteria of film criticism it would have to be judged a failure for it simply fails to engage the viewer. The most glaring reason for this and the most glaring weakness of the film is its complete lack of three-dimensional characters. In fact there is no characterization at all. In the place of characters we have "authority figures" and "captives". But since there is very little that differentiates one character from the next there is no way to judge the psychological effects of this social experiment. The most that can be said for the film is that it is gorgeously filmed by an immensely talented cinematographer and that the decorous interiors (some interiors have been painted to resemble the interiors of classical Roman villas and others have been decorated with modernist art and furniture) do provide a luxurious backdrop and elegant contrast for what occurs in the foreground. But since the characters have very little individuality and are therefore interchangable the film itself simply fails to resonate as either a psychic or a political parable.
Granted, Pasolini's gifts as a filmaker are extraordinary. In his best efforts (ie Teorema starring Terence Stamp) he gives us highly individualized characters and with them he examines the psychology and psychopathology of class. In Salo Pasolini is examining various power differentials as well but since we do not know and therefore cannot really empathize with any character on either side of the power/powerless equation the entire thing remains an abstract exercise. Perhaps this emotional distancing was intentional and perhaps this was precisely the detached aesthetic that Pasolini was looking for but the resut is that the viewer is simply not involved in what is happening on screen. I suppose this is the pitfall of Artaudian & Brechtian theatre as well.
Many films of the sixties and early seventies were designed as assaults on establishment tastes and standards: Godard for one subverted conventional narrative techniques, Bunuel toyed with the social hypocrisies of the bourgeoisie, and Dusan Makavejev examined the body as a sight of social control as well as of social revolt. But can a film be considered a success if it assaults everyone's tastes and standards? I suppose the answer could be yes, but only if it makes some point that it could not make in any other way. The film, I would argue, fails not because of what it shows but because what it shows simply fails to amount to anything.
Rating: 
-
CHILD PSYCHOLGY/PSYCHIATRY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Criterion Collection: Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom [1975] (REGION 1) (NTSC)
This DVD was available virtually to all who wished to see it in the 1970's. I watched some of it when i was a child in care. I think that this was due to the fact that fascism was never confined to the peoples of Germany and their allies but to all peoples who think they are superior to others in all sections of the world's communities. Academics are amongst the new faces of fascism especially child psychology and psychiatry and pharmacology but if you think carefully you see that this has always been the case. Hitler's final solution for inferior people was in fact more to do with the thinking of, then as it is today, "PSYCHIATRY".
There is one comment entered previously to this that refers to the victims as being young adults, they may be adult actors and extras but I see that the victims are supposed to be seen as children. Of this I am sure many of you would agree. Having being sexually abused as a child and drugged all the while in care and schools and in the communities of the UK I am qualified to state this.
I just flipped through this DVD and I will finish with saying that I shredded it to stop those who rake in buckets selling it to the many qualified (mostly female re: me + life) perverts in this society who will automatically decide to rediscover the affects of psychiatric drugs have on abused children to write a paper, graduate towards gaining the "ALFRED KNOBBLERS PRIZE" and get the B.E.M.
Andy...
Rating: 
-
Highly disturbing, only recommended for a few people.
I'll make this short. Salo has got to be one of the sickest and most disturbing films ever made, I don't think there ever will be a film made like this. This film was out of print for a while and some rare copies were available on e-bay for around $600, so was it really worth that much? I don't think so unless you're insane or extremely rich. I happened to find a bootleg dvdr copy that was really cheap and when I first watched this I honestly felt sick like I was about to throw up. Criterion has finally re-released this extremely controversial film (copies of this film were seized by the police in the U.K.) and added a ton of special features for those who are brave enough to watch this ha ha!. Salo is definitely not the type of film that you just end up watching for your own enjoyment, it's depressing, shocking and will crawl under your skin for a while. Try not to think of Pasolini's film 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, genitals being burnt with candles etc. is horrific it is Pasolini's treatment of the boys and girls that is much more horrifying. Those with a knowledge of history will know the name "Salo", it was the Northern Italian Fascist Republic where Mussolini last held power in the final year or so of World War II. It was a region most notable for the unconscionable murder and mutilation of thousands upon thousands who did not conform to his dictatorial ideals. Paolo Pasolini set his film on the very sites that these horrendous crimes were committed in the name of Fascism. He had spent his youth growing up in the region, holding a very personal place in his psyche. It was the perfect setting for his adaptation of De Sade's 120 Days Of Sodom, taking place in Italy during the second world war in 1945, where the course and vilification of Fascistic ideology and the absolute corruption that power delivers during war-time was at an all time high. It is horror in its purest form, and far more challenging than anything else you may ever see. I personally don't think it was an enjoyable film, it was decent and had some nice cinematography but I don't think it's the type of film you'll end up watching on repeat viewings, for me it took almost four years to watch this again that's how powerful it was your constantly bombarded with horrific images like the ones I described above, it's almost too much so I can only imagine how someone with a weak heart or stomach would react to this. In the end, this is a very intelligent and disturbing film and it forces the viewer to think. But the endless negativity and pessimism keeps it from being entertaining or watchable, now I have to sleep with the lights on ;-).....
Rating: -
A Film That Need Not Be Watched
I first heard about this film in college, during a sociology of film course. My professor lauded this film as being a work of genius. As a lover of political cinema, my curiosity grew and I tried to get a copy, but at over $1,000 dollars, my dreams of seeing this political masterpiece seemed bleak at best.
For years, I scoured the internet with no success. Salo had become my holy grail. So you can imagine how excited I was when this was finally re-released.
Anyone who has read my other reviews knows that I usually go into at least a little detail. However, for the sake of good taste, I wont. All I will say is that after seeing this film, I was left feeling repulsed, empty, and sick. The images were so graphic that I could not eat breakfast the next day. I was so disgusted, I returned the movie.
I can see what Pasolini was trying to accomplish, however, the film seemed more like a childish mockery of fascism rather than a well thought out critique.
When I returned the film, the manager asked me why. I said to him..."If anyone can watch this film more than once, there is something psychologically wrong with them."
Rating: -
An Exercise in Endurance
If Pasolini made this film in order to disturb people, he certainly was successful. Salò is disturbing, but not necessarily shocking. It is certainly anti-erotic in the extreme for it is almost exclusively about power, and [...]. The four Fascist hosts (the duke, the president, the magistrate and the bishop) are so disgusting, but almost tedious in their perversions. I was more disturbed by the grotesque madams who share their lewd stories with a piano accompaniment.
Pasolini clearly had issues with sexuality as he seems portrays homosexuality as rape and child sexual abuse, a power trip in which decadent authoritarians play out their filthy fantasies with captive young boys as their play things. It seems to buy into the hystrical notion that homosexuality is equal to cross-dressers who revel in the most obscene sex acts and [...].
I'm not sure why I even wanted to watch this film. It's another film I found on a "most controversial movies" list and decided I had to watch, just because I could. I read a lot about it before I decided to view it and truthfully, it felt like an endurance test to pass so I could say I did it, but I never want to look back! It does need to be seen to believed, but it's not enjoyable and I feel a little less human after voluntarily watching it.