All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I'm sure a lot of you have heard about this one. Anyone familiar with "shock cinema" certainly has. The so-called "most disturbing and disgusting film ever made." For those of you who haven't heard of it, Salo is an extremely controversial adaptation of an equally controversial book (120 Days of Sodom), written by the notorious Marques de Sade in exile and adapted by the notorious Italian communist/artist Pier Paolo Pasolini, who was murdered by a male prostitute, under extremely mysterious circumstances, shortly following the completion of the film. If any film has a darker history, I haven't heard of it. That's only a brief history, of course. A simple google search or visit to the IMDB message boards is loaded with information as well as people telling you how Salo will probably scar you for life.
With that said, I read one review of Salo which said "anyone serious about film should see it." I'm in film school so obviously, I consider myself serious about film. Salo's also #17 on the Criterion Collection, a collection of 400+ including numerous films by Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa, and virtually all the leading directors in the French New Wave and Italian Neorealism movements. Needless to say, these guys don't pick crap. So I took the plunge...
Salo takes place during the final years of Fascist-Naziism in Italy. Four fascists (The Duke, The President, The Bishop, and The Magistrate), out of what seems to be nothing but sheer bordom, kidnap 8 boys and 8 girls (they're meant to be 12-14 but the actors look around 18+) and subject them to 120 days of the most perverse forms of physical, sexual, and psychological torture their minds can conceive. To help them in their quest for pleasure, the fascists enlist the help of four old prostitutes who tell stories of their most vile acts of their pasts, as a means of invigorating the imagination.
The film is split into four parts. First, "The Antechamber of Hell," which serves as a prologue to the events to occur. Second, "The Circle of Obsessions," in which the victims are raped, both by the fascists and their subordinates, and forced to perform humiliating sexual acts (e.g. being leashed and forced to behave like dogs). Third, the most disgusting, "The Circle of Shit,"... guess what this one's about. Finally, the most brutal, "The Circle of Blood," in which the film and the victims reach their bloody ends.
After finally watching the film, I think a lot of the reviews and comments about it create an inaccurate portrait of Salo. They were all accurate in mentioning it's a film filled to the brim with social commentary but inaccurate in suggesting it's filled to the brim with repulsive imagery. That's not to say the imagery, isn't repulsive. In fact, it's probably the most repulsive I've seen in my entire life. To clarify, films like Caligula and Cannibal Holocaust exceed Salo in the amount of atrocities shown onscreen. However regarding the nature of such atrocities, Salo buries both of them combined. The final two segments are the most difficult to watch. In "Circle of Shit", a crying naked woman is forced to eat human excrement off the floor. The scene is followed by a scene with both fascist and victim alike partaking in a massive fecal feast. Knowing it's only chocolate sauce and orange marmalade doesn't help. It looks like the real thing and I almost puked watching it. In "Circle of Blood", victims' sex organs are burned with candles while other victims are scalped and branded. It's not shot like an exploitation film either, which, in a way, makes it harder to watch. "Circle of Obsessions" isn't exactly hard to watch but it's extremely uncomfortable. I imagine it'd be like watching video footage from Abu Gharib prison.
While the imagery in Salo is shocking, they are not what effect you the worst in the long run. The shit-eating scene has become the face of the film but it's not what does the most damage. What is the most disturbing about the film is its implications. Salo is a film honest in all the ways Hollywood films are not, even the ones that seem to be the most honest. A film like Schindler's List suggests that a hero can rise in even the darkest times. Salo suggests that there are no heroes and that cruelty, malice, and degredation are the core of humanity. In Salo, the fascists show no mercy whatsoever and behave as if they're entitled in their power to do what they do. The victims, unlike most films, are completely faceless and borderline apathetic to the treatment they're subjected to. They barely protest (unless they've been driven to their breaking point) and when they seem to need each other the most, they turn on each other. None of the characters have any redeeming qualities and because the victims receive no development prior to their capture, they don't seem to have any "purity" for the fascists to destroy. Salo is an experience the viewer experiences alone and in the end, there's no catharsis. The film has no hope for humanity and that's what cuts the deepest in the end.
Technically, Salo is a successful film. It's extremely powerful and it leaves you thinking well after it's over. Pasolini had very specific intentions for it and all of them are accomplished virtually without fault. I think any intelligent person will pick up on the film's commentary. At the same time, Salo is probably the coldest film I've seen in my entire life. Nothing about is enjoyable and at no point does it offer escape from the world is portrays. It's 100% cruelty and degradation. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're sick of Hollywood films trying to sell you bullshit about how life is good and everyone is beautiful, you'll probably, for lack of a better word, "appreciate" Salo's intentions but I doubt you'll ever want to watch it again.
I never finished this one. We were a couply of guys watching it but the others were revolted by it straight away. I wasn't that impressed with what I saw, but then again I can't really say without seeing the whole thing.
Your point about the film's cynicism set agaisnt the positivism of Hollywood films, reveals one of the great differences between Hollywood stories (the kind most of us are writing, or at least being asked to write by screenwriting books) and then European cinema which has its roots in arthouse and often has a pessimist/less naive view of the world. You mention the the lack of a hero, the faceless victims and the lack of pathos or any silver lining.
I can only watch one of these kinds of films every 6 months really. Especially Eastern European stuff is gruesome.
But for me, if you wanna talk really horrible movies to watch let's talk Lukas Moodyson's Lilja 4 Ever or, to a lesser extent, Fucking Åmål.
But that's another discussion.
I'll see if I can't get my hands on Salo. I think it's in the $5 bin at the local videostore.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Very interesting read, James. I looked this film up on IMDB and Wikipedia and I'd like to check it out now. I can only imagine the type of reaction that a film with so much evil and so little heroism can receive.
Quoted from tomson
Now I'm afraid to watch this one James...after those "Cup Girls" I shudder to think what this one is like.
Why you must mean 2 Girls 1 Cup! If you want to be desensitized for life, check out the BME Pain Olympics. I'm yet to watch it, but the reactions I've seen on YouTube say it all.
TJ, I think "A hole in my heart" by Moodyson has those beat.
Now I'm afraid to watch this one James...after those "Cup Girls" I shudder to think what this one is like.
Good review though as always!
Haha. I still haven't seen that video and I can tell you right now, there's no comparison. Obviously, no narrative film can hold a candle to real life, even if it's based on a book by the guy who gave birth to the word "sadism."
Still, Salo's a pretty rough film. Caligula and Cannibal Holocaust beat it in sheer excess but both those films are pretty much soulless exploitation. Salo's psychological component makes everything in it ten times worse and in terms of impact is going to have much more of an impact than those two. Still, I think if you've seen those films, you could handle Salo but no other two films even come close. Anyone thinking they can stomach Salo based on what they've seen in Hostel or Saw is going to be traumatized.
And James, just out of curiosity, where do you attend film school and how far along are you?
I'm just ending the first semester of my junior year at Temple University in Philadelphia. This is actually my second year at Temple and in film school. My freshman year, I was at another school studying English. Still, I've learned a lot so far. Last week, I turned in my final project for my production class where I had to shoot two 20 minute interviews and 20 minutes of an activity involving the two interviewees (is that a word?) then edit the entirety of the footage into a 5 minute documentary. It's the biggest assignment I've had to do in my academic career so far. I also just finished a class with professor Paul Sylbert who was the production designer/art director on some major Hollywood films (One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Kramer vs. Kramer, and The Wrong Man among others). I got a lot out of that class. This guy is full of useful information about the industry. So I'd say I'm pretty far along. I should be finishing up next year since I'll probably be taking two or three summer classes.
Salo is probably the most cruel and cold hearted film I have seen. I was young when I watched it for the first time and after it was over it just left me feeling depressed.
I watched it again more recently, a couple of times, and it really is just a trip into the obscene. Not particularly enjoyable viewing but something I am glad to have seen. The part that most stuck in my head was the final few scenes and the actual ending.
I've read parts of the book, again it's not brilliant literature but to read something that is just so over the top was refreshing.
Thought I'd share that I watched this one finally, so I can say I've seen it. There's not much to say that hasn't been said. It's brutal, shocking, and disgusting. The Saw films are easier to watch. The sh*t section made me ill.
But to add anything, I will say this: it appears there is hope for usaking's stuff after all...
Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll listen to Christmas music in an attempt to remember all the warm, fuzzy things of the world...
The Salo film is nothing compared to the book it's based on. It goes SO far that it's not even disgusting, really, but just sad. Plainly sad.
The murder of a certain victim (in the book) not only made my skin crawl but actually choked me up a bit. Nothing else in film or literature had ever evoked such a reaction in me.
That being said, there IS some artistic merit to the piece as it reflects the society in which the author grew up in.
The murders and violations are so cruel and gut-wrenching and, in way, it is a GOOD thing that they are portrayed as such. That is how acts of violence and cruelty should feel to someone watching them -- sickening, saddening, depressing and disheartening.
Today, violence and cruelty seem to be little more than novelties played for cheap thrills, even in literature, but mostly in films. Some pieces of work do go against "hipping up" violence, but they are in great minority.
It wasn't until Salo that I noticed just how desensitized I had become in this society of ours. So, grotesque and sickening as both the book and its adaptation are, I appreciate them for making me 'feel' acts of violence the way they SHOULD be felt. They are not for thrills, not for scares. They are simply atrocities, and the fact that we choose to portray them as entertainment in several mediums truly says something about us as a species.
In short, I'm glad I watched/read Salo, not matter how unpleasant it was.
Side note: The film changed the setting of the story to a time around Mussolini's reign for some reason. No clue why. [Note, however, that I haven't seen the film adaptation in its entirety] Can anyone elaborate?
The film changed the setting of the story to a time around Mussolini's reign for some reason. No clue why. [Note, however, that I haven't seen the film adaptation in its entirety] Can anyone elaborate?
Passolini was a hardcore politcal activist as well as a filmmaker and changed the setting and time frame to coincide with the times he grew up in Italy. Not to mention the book has zero social commentary while the film is packed with it. The Marquis de Sade was basically an anarchist while Passolini really cared about his community. Passolini basically took de Sade's book and completely turned it around while keeping the story and characters pretty much the same.
I've read parts of the book and it definitely is way worse than the film. I think the last couple chapters are basically a list of different tortures with no plot. Naturally, the whole thing was written for no reason but to be as sick and depraved as possible.
I had forgotten there was a thread for this film. I also watched it a while back, and had it not been for these boards, I am not sure I would have even heard of it.
While there are parts of this film that are meant to be revolting, it is certainly an interesting exercise. To me, however, I found the underlying message so heavy-handed that it almost overwhelmed the "shocking" actions on the screen.
The politics of this film are very dated, but they are clearly there, and those who dismiss the film as nothing but exploitation are just missing the point.
It is not a particularly good film, however, and it is not a film for everyone. In fact, I think upon learning of this film, you know immediately if this is the type of film you should watch. I did, and I can recommend it to that sub-population of viewers.
There are a handful of films -- I would include "Eraserhead" and "Martyrs", for example -- that I am glad to have seen once, but I have no desire to see them again. This is one of those.
Sorry, Greg! I did not see your reply until now. LOL!
Yes. The book was extremely easy to understand. I had almost no trouble with it.
But seriously, don't bother reading it. It's way too perverse for the sake of being perverse, and you know it takes a lot for me to say that. I am gald I read it, but if I'd known what I was in for I probably wouldn't have.
Pages: 1
Author
Salo or 120 Days of Sodom
Logged
Locked Board