|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Let me try to stir the pot slightly.I find Pasolini's Salo both revolting and fascinating. It has the mark of a true masterpiece in several respects, but it also has too much of the conscious element to be true art.
In terms of its director reaching his goal - to grab the viewer and to shock him to death - there is no question about his success.
In terms of being able to paint an incredibly masterful picture - Pasolini has few equals in general, and in this film he is simply oen without equal. His work makes Geeenaway look like a pre-schooler.
The work is so powerful that I have never watched it again. So strong was its impact that I am almost afraid to give it another go.
Without any questions in terms of its execution it is among the finest movies ever produced. Yet I would not list it among the best twenty. Is it its dehumanizing nature that stops me? Is watching an artistically presented torture degrading to human beings?
Anyway, what do YOU think about it?
Follow Ups:
That is one of the few I did not see, because i was getting tired of the way he handle situation, I want to say with this there is a kind of perversion, something not very neat is the morale sense, it is as he wanted to bring his ( lack of) morality to us, but on a way that was subversive. Naturally I enjoy big part of it, even his marxism " message " was very dominant...All the rest of my thoughts about him, you have told....PS: The last film I saw, was Medea, with La Callas, it was boring...Did you like it..( hehehe )
PS II : Another point I did dislike was the hardcore display of this sexual preference....And the use he had from, but that we almost all do....
I remember renting that many years ago. I believe it is based on de Sade's "120 Days of Sodom". The motivation for making film is quite beyond me. I wonder if he even considered what his viewing audience would be. I doubt that it played at the Coliseum MetroPlex 20.
***The motivation for making film is quite beyond me.His reasons have been quite well known. Pasolini's relationship with Italian public and critics have been very... shall we say, strained. Film after film he had been criticized for the things those parties found offensive, ignoring the obvious artistic side of them.
As the complaints about his "shocks" have been getting louder and louder, his bitterness was also growing, and at some point he announced: "So you feel I have been shocking you? You ain't seen nothing yet!" And he gave the world the Salo.
His films are his life to some degree, and he ended up his killed by a casual lover.
A wasted life? Hardly. He left behind some of the most haunting images, marvelous films and the Salo that can be considered the pinacle of both revoltion and artistic achievement.
I think Pasolini does two things to make "Salo" the king of repulsive cinema. First, he selects images which are fundamentally repulsive and painful to watch (every child can tell you that you don't eat doo doo, you don't cut out your tongue, and you don't use a dagger to remove an eyeball), like Bunuel's "Un Chien Andalou." Second, he shows us beings who are no longer human, degrading fascists who draw pleasure from witnessing and committing these despicable acts against the young and innocent.There are probably other ways in which it yanks viewers' cranks. Why not rent it for your mother-in-law and get her opinion?
My mother-in-law is not what she once was... she has been hardened sufficiently by many hours of American television.No, Steve, you need to get them when they are fresh...:-)))) and even then you can only get them once!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: