(no subject)
Jun. 12th, 2024 10:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Stumbled across a list of the most horrifying books of all time. Which in turn led to the 65th scariest movie of all time...which lead to this odd entry in Wiki about the film Salo or 120 Days of Sodom
"Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (Italian: Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma), billed on-screen as Pasolini's 120 Days of Sodom on English-language prints[3] and commonly referred to as simply Salò (Italian: [saˈlɔ]), is a 1975 political drama art horror film directed and co-written by Pier Paolo Pasolini. The film is a loose adaptation of the 1785 novel (first published in 1904) The 120 Days of Sodom by Marquis de Sade, updating the story's setting to the World War II era. It was Pasolini's final film, released three weeks after his murder.
The film focuses on four wealthy, corrupt Italian libertines in the time of the fascist Republic of Salò (1943–1945). The libertines kidnap 18 teenagers and subject them to four months of extreme violence, sadism, genital torture and psychological torture. The film explores themes of political corruption, consumerism, authoritarianism, nihilism, morality, capitalism, totalitarianism, sadism, sexuality, and fascism. The story is in four segments, inspired by Dante's Divine Comedy: the Anteinferno, the Circle of Manias, the Circle of Shit, and the Circle of Blood. The film also contains frequent references to and several discussions of Friedrich Nietzsche's 1887 book On the Genealogy of Morality, Ezra Pound's poem The Cantos, and Marcel Proust's novel sequence In Search of Lost Time.
Premiering at the Paris Film Festival on 23 November 1975, the film had a brief theatrical run in Italy before being banned in January 1976, and was released in the United States the following year on 3 October 1977. Because it depicts youths subjected to graphic violence, torture, sexual abuse, and murder, the film was controversial upon its release and has remained banned in many countries.
The confluence of thematic content in the film—ranging from the political and socio-historical, to psychological and sexual—has led to much critical discussion. It has been both praised and decried by various film historians and critics and was named the 65th-scariest film ever made by the Chicago Film Critics Association in 2006."
The critical discussion towards the bottom is kind of surprising.
"The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reports a 71% approval rating based on 41 reviews, with an average rating of 6.70/10. The site's consensus reads, "Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom will strike some viewers as irredeemably depraved, but its unflinching view of human cruelty makes it impossible to ignore."[51]
Director Michael Haneke named the film his fourth-favorite film when he voted for the 2002 Sight and Sound poll. Director Catherine Breillat and critic Joel David also voted for the film.[52] David Cross, Gaspar Noé, and Korn frontman Jonathan Davis have named it one of their favorite films.[53][54][55] Rainer Werner Fassbinder also cited it as one of his 10 favorite films.[56] A 2000 poll of critics conducted by The Village Voice named it the 89th-greatest film of the 20th century.[57] Director John Waters said, "Salo is a beautiful film...it uses obscenity in an intelligent way...and it's about the pornography of power."[58]
The film's reputation for pushing boundaries has led some critics to criticize or avoid it; the Time Out film guide, for example, deemed the film a "thoroughly objectionable piece of work", adding that it "offers no insights whatsoever into power, politics, history or sexuality."[59] TV Guide gave the film a mixed review awarding it a score of 2.5/4, stating, "despite moments of undeniably brilliant insight, is nearly unwatchable, extremely disturbing, and often literally nauseous".[60]
Upon the film's United States release, Vincent Canby of The New York Times wrote, "Salo is, I think, a perfect example of the kind of material that, theoretically, anyway, can be acceptable on paper but becomes so repugnant when visualized on the screen that it further dehumanizes the human spirit, which is supposed to be the artist's concern."[36] In 2011 Roger Ebert wrote that he owned the film since its release on LaserDisc but had not watched it, citing the film's transgressive reputation.[61] In 2011, David Haglund of Slate surveyed five film critics and three of them said that it was required viewing for any serious critic or cinephile. Haglund concluded that he still would not watch the film.[62]
Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader wrote of the film: "Roland Barthes noted that in spite of all its objectionable elements (he pointed out that any film that renders Sade real and fascism unreal is doubly wrong), this film should be defended because it 'refuses to allow us to redeem ourselves.' It's certainly the film in which Pasolini's protest against the modern world finds its most extreme and anguished expression. Very hard to take, but in its own way an essential work."
Considering the subject matter - this kind of shocked me? Well not in regards to Waters, maybe.
I couldn't watch the film, the description of it is bad enough - albeit not as bad as the description for the Human Centipede (let's face it - horror is an interesting and somewhat...unsettling genre?)
But this is the part, that I wanted to point out and why I'm posting about it?
"Salò has received critical analysis from film scholars, critics and others for its converging depictions of sexual violence and cross-referencing of historical and sociopolitical themes. Commenting on the film's prevalent sexual themes, horror film scholar Stephen Barber writes: "The core of Salò is the anus, and its narrative drive pivots around the act of sodomy. No scene of a sex act has been confirmed in the film until one of the libertines has approached its participants and sodomized the figure committing the act. The filmic material of Salò is one that compacts celluloid and feces, in Pasolini's desire to burst the limits of cinema, via the anally resonant eye of the film lens." Barber also notes that Pasolini's film reduces the extent of the storytelling sequences present in de Sade's The 120 Days of Sodom so that they "possess equal status" with the sadistic acts committed by the libertines.
Pasolini scholar Gian Annovi notes in the book Pier Paolo Pasolini: Performing Authorship (2007) that Salò is stylistically and thematically marked by a "link between Duchamp's Dada aesthetics and the perverse dynamics of desire", which, according to Annovi, became artistic points of interest for Pasolini in the early developments of Salò.
Dallas Marshall for Film Inquiry wrote in an article from 2021 that "Salò is his [Pasolini's] strongest diatribe against consumerism", and other critics have brought up that the film is to be seen as symbolism; a metaphor for the modern society, capitalism, and especially consumerism, i.e how "those in power can make people consume crap (ads, commercials, etc) and those of the people who resist die, and the majority passively obeys and goes along with the system, and a few will collaborate with the rulers". The Film Inquiry article also mentions this metaphor: "Much like the citizens of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the prisoners were eating up the bullshit of dictators. But it goes deeper than that because one of the aspects of modern society that Pasolini had a great disdain for was mass consumerism. The man viewed consumerism, especially that of processed foods, to be pesticide on the human soul and eating literal excrement. He yearned for the days of classical beauty and good food that nourished the body. He viewed the modern world as a perversion and was thoroughly disgusted with its trajectory." The BBFC notes that the film "is intended as a critique of both fascism and consumerism."
That last sentence that I put in bold is what intrigued me. Not enough to see it. I don't need those images ingrained on my brain, thank you very much.
2. Listening Circles or Righting Wrongs the Maori Way - Beyond Prisons
This is the root or source behind the Restorative Discussion Practices that I was discussing a few posts back.
The Maori have developed a listening circle to handle massive conflicts within their communities. The way it works - is the facilitator reads from a script, and you go around the circle, with each person telling their story, and everyone else listens without comment. You don't comment on the other person's story, nor do you ask questions. You just listen. It's not therapy. You don't provide advice. When it is your turn, you tell your story or answer the question the facilitator has provided. There's set rules, and the goal is to listen.
It reminds me a little of blogs like this - in which we each post our own story. Except we do comment on them, so maybe not?
"Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (Italian: Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma), billed on-screen as Pasolini's 120 Days of Sodom on English-language prints[3] and commonly referred to as simply Salò (Italian: [saˈlɔ]), is a 1975 political drama art horror film directed and co-written by Pier Paolo Pasolini. The film is a loose adaptation of the 1785 novel (first published in 1904) The 120 Days of Sodom by Marquis de Sade, updating the story's setting to the World War II era. It was Pasolini's final film, released three weeks after his murder.
The film focuses on four wealthy, corrupt Italian libertines in the time of the fascist Republic of Salò (1943–1945). The libertines kidnap 18 teenagers and subject them to four months of extreme violence, sadism, genital torture and psychological torture. The film explores themes of political corruption, consumerism, authoritarianism, nihilism, morality, capitalism, totalitarianism, sadism, sexuality, and fascism. The story is in four segments, inspired by Dante's Divine Comedy: the Anteinferno, the Circle of Manias, the Circle of Shit, and the Circle of Blood. The film also contains frequent references to and several discussions of Friedrich Nietzsche's 1887 book On the Genealogy of Morality, Ezra Pound's poem The Cantos, and Marcel Proust's novel sequence In Search of Lost Time.
Premiering at the Paris Film Festival on 23 November 1975, the film had a brief theatrical run in Italy before being banned in January 1976, and was released in the United States the following year on 3 October 1977. Because it depicts youths subjected to graphic violence, torture, sexual abuse, and murder, the film was controversial upon its release and has remained banned in many countries.
The confluence of thematic content in the film—ranging from the political and socio-historical, to psychological and sexual—has led to much critical discussion. It has been both praised and decried by various film historians and critics and was named the 65th-scariest film ever made by the Chicago Film Critics Association in 2006."
The critical discussion towards the bottom is kind of surprising.
"The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reports a 71% approval rating based on 41 reviews, with an average rating of 6.70/10. The site's consensus reads, "Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom will strike some viewers as irredeemably depraved, but its unflinching view of human cruelty makes it impossible to ignore."[51]
Director Michael Haneke named the film his fourth-favorite film when he voted for the 2002 Sight and Sound poll. Director Catherine Breillat and critic Joel David also voted for the film.[52] David Cross, Gaspar Noé, and Korn frontman Jonathan Davis have named it one of their favorite films.[53][54][55] Rainer Werner Fassbinder also cited it as one of his 10 favorite films.[56] A 2000 poll of critics conducted by The Village Voice named it the 89th-greatest film of the 20th century.[57] Director John Waters said, "Salo is a beautiful film...it uses obscenity in an intelligent way...and it's about the pornography of power."[58]
The film's reputation for pushing boundaries has led some critics to criticize or avoid it; the Time Out film guide, for example, deemed the film a "thoroughly objectionable piece of work", adding that it "offers no insights whatsoever into power, politics, history or sexuality."[59] TV Guide gave the film a mixed review awarding it a score of 2.5/4, stating, "despite moments of undeniably brilliant insight, is nearly unwatchable, extremely disturbing, and often literally nauseous".[60]
Upon the film's United States release, Vincent Canby of The New York Times wrote, "Salo is, I think, a perfect example of the kind of material that, theoretically, anyway, can be acceptable on paper but becomes so repugnant when visualized on the screen that it further dehumanizes the human spirit, which is supposed to be the artist's concern."[36] In 2011 Roger Ebert wrote that he owned the film since its release on LaserDisc but had not watched it, citing the film's transgressive reputation.[61] In 2011, David Haglund of Slate surveyed five film critics and three of them said that it was required viewing for any serious critic or cinephile. Haglund concluded that he still would not watch the film.[62]
Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader wrote of the film: "Roland Barthes noted that in spite of all its objectionable elements (he pointed out that any film that renders Sade real and fascism unreal is doubly wrong), this film should be defended because it 'refuses to allow us to redeem ourselves.' It's certainly the film in which Pasolini's protest against the modern world finds its most extreme and anguished expression. Very hard to take, but in its own way an essential work."
Considering the subject matter - this kind of shocked me? Well not in regards to Waters, maybe.
I couldn't watch the film, the description of it is bad enough - albeit not as bad as the description for the Human Centipede (let's face it - horror is an interesting and somewhat...unsettling genre?)
But this is the part, that I wanted to point out and why I'm posting about it?
"Salò has received critical analysis from film scholars, critics and others for its converging depictions of sexual violence and cross-referencing of historical and sociopolitical themes. Commenting on the film's prevalent sexual themes, horror film scholar Stephen Barber writes: "The core of Salò is the anus, and its narrative drive pivots around the act of sodomy. No scene of a sex act has been confirmed in the film until one of the libertines has approached its participants and sodomized the figure committing the act. The filmic material of Salò is one that compacts celluloid and feces, in Pasolini's desire to burst the limits of cinema, via the anally resonant eye of the film lens." Barber also notes that Pasolini's film reduces the extent of the storytelling sequences present in de Sade's The 120 Days of Sodom so that they "possess equal status" with the sadistic acts committed by the libertines.
Pasolini scholar Gian Annovi notes in the book Pier Paolo Pasolini: Performing Authorship (2007) that Salò is stylistically and thematically marked by a "link between Duchamp's Dada aesthetics and the perverse dynamics of desire", which, according to Annovi, became artistic points of interest for Pasolini in the early developments of Salò.
Dallas Marshall for Film Inquiry wrote in an article from 2021 that "Salò is his [Pasolini's] strongest diatribe against consumerism", and other critics have brought up that the film is to be seen as symbolism; a metaphor for the modern society, capitalism, and especially consumerism, i.e how "those in power can make people consume crap (ads, commercials, etc) and those of the people who resist die, and the majority passively obeys and goes along with the system, and a few will collaborate with the rulers". The Film Inquiry article also mentions this metaphor: "Much like the citizens of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the prisoners were eating up the bullshit of dictators. But it goes deeper than that because one of the aspects of modern society that Pasolini had a great disdain for was mass consumerism. The man viewed consumerism, especially that of processed foods, to be pesticide on the human soul and eating literal excrement. He yearned for the days of classical beauty and good food that nourished the body. He viewed the modern world as a perversion and was thoroughly disgusted with its trajectory." The BBFC notes that the film "is intended as a critique of both fascism and consumerism."
That last sentence that I put in bold is what intrigued me. Not enough to see it. I don't need those images ingrained on my brain, thank you very much.
2. Listening Circles or Righting Wrongs the Maori Way - Beyond Prisons
This is the root or source behind the Restorative Discussion Practices that I was discussing a few posts back.
The Maori have developed a listening circle to handle massive conflicts within their communities. The way it works - is the facilitator reads from a script, and you go around the circle, with each person telling their story, and everyone else listens without comment. You don't comment on the other person's story, nor do you ask questions. You just listen. It's not therapy. You don't provide advice. When it is your turn, you tell your story or answer the question the facilitator has provided. There's set rules, and the goal is to listen.
It reminds me a little of blogs like this - in which we each post our own story. Except we do comment on them, so maybe not?
no subject
Date: 2024-06-13 04:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-06-13 12:31 pm (UTC)I'd agree with your assessment on Irreversible. Even though I've never seen it, I once had a very disturbing discussion with two young video store guys about "Irreversible" - they explained the film to me in enough detail to make it clear that I wouldn't be able to watch it. And one of them? Actually loved the rape sequence, both his supervisor and I looked at him in horror. And he was oblivious. After that - I thought, uh, no, people shouldn't film stuff like that. He actually was amused that people had to leave the theater during it and got physically ill.
no subject
Date: 2024-06-13 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-06-14 11:31 am (UTC)I don't blame you - they described the scene to me. Then I read a description. That's enough for me to envision it. Ugh. I tend to avoid pedestrian underpasses for similar reasons. Also they are spooky - it's dark, and hard to get help.
The film from what I understand does the rape scene at the end, and tells the story backwards - with the male friends of the woman seeking justice on her behalf? So it's told in reverse chronological order - with the audience trying to figure out why the woman's lover and former boyfriend team up to seek revenge on the stranger who brutally raped and beat her. The difficulty with the film is it is about the men, the woman is treated as a possession or object. Very controversial.
Same problem with 120 Days of Sodom - human beings are treated as toys.
ETA: Read the description and comments on the film on Reddit...and, sigh, there are humans in this world that I would be happier not knowing about? People either disliked the film because the characters were unlikable and didn't see the rape scene as all that bad, or liked the film because it was a bio of the dead baby's life.
no subject
Date: 2024-06-14 04:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-06-14 04:03 pm (UTC)Anyway I don’t have to because I absolutely KNOW that Dirk would not want to watch it.
no subject
Date: 2024-06-14 10:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-06-13 10:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-06-13 12:15 pm (UTC)That last sentence that I put in bold is what intrigued me.
That jumped out at me, too, largely because I've become so used to warily scrutinizing romantic statements about the past, because they might be a cover for fascist attitudes.
no subject
Date: 2024-06-14 11:20 am (UTC)And I'd agree a lot of fascists love the distant past, and are nostalgic about it. See it as "simpler" times or "easier" times. And I keep asking the question - for who, exactly?
I think the filmmaker intended the film to be a critique of fascism and consumerism. Just as the filmmakers of equally horrible films - appear to? But, I think there's a line - and once they crossed it - the intent becomes a bit blurred.
no subject
Date: 2024-06-14 11:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-06-14 12:02 pm (UTC)Oh I looked it up - and it turns out I was wrong - the film was done in the 1970s. But I think the director was around during WWII in Italy, when it was under fascist rule. Or that was the impression I got from the analysis in Wiki.
no subject
Date: 2024-06-14 12:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-06-14 11:08 am (UTC)I was surprised it had such a positive critical reaction, then it occurred to me - look who it is? Mainly white men of some privilege, who get off on making similar films, and justify it as being a critique of society. ie. It's not "us" - it's our society, or our economic system, or something that "we're" reacting to. But, the only thing we have control over is "our reactions" right?