I hear a lot of complaints about this little film and I'm wondering "what's the fuss? This is the way art works." Pier Paolo Pasolini was previously known as a writer who finally he got his big break doing film scenarios for Fellini. Thenceforth as a director himself, Pasolini created many films, mostly based on famous literature (i.e., Decameron, Medea, Arabian Nights, etc.) One day Pasolini decided on adapting de Sade's "120 days of Sodom" to the big screen. Little did he know what fuss it would cause. Salo is a film depicting Fascist Italy and it's malefactions while keeping a group of children hostage. The film follows the fascist revelry in the abuse, rape and murder of the children; thus the film is set as an allegory for the decadence and depravity of humanity. Sounds like a great film . . . well, truly it is. Although a controversy at the time (for which Pasolini was murdered for) Salo seems tame today compared to films like Natural Born Killers, Crash, and Saving Private Ryan. Nevertheless, what people seem to not understand is how to appreciate Salo as a work of art that it is. Liken to most controversial art forms (notably Dada and "surprisingly" things done by Andy Warhol) Salo was created to instill a reaction in its viewers. Be it the famous "Circle of Sh*t" which had me gagging on the floor, or "Circle of Blood" which made me feel uneasy and somewhat angry. However, that is the way art works, it is geared to provoke and/or imbue emotions. Andy Warhol had people yawning, L'age D'or had people protesting, and Salo found deep-seated hatred by most of it's viewers; again, these artists all succeeded in making there point. It is sad to say that Pasolini was murdered for this film; if only he lived what other masterpieces would he create. For those who are interested in Pasolini, check out "Whoever Says the Truth Shall Die" one of the better documentaries of the artist himself.
Review of Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom
