I don't believe art's role is to "entertain" (although it can do that) but to engage, stimulate, inspire, confront, challenge, etc. And it certainly doesn't have to be nice about it! If a work of art does any of those things for me (and, of course, this is highly subjective), then it works for me.This is why I believe that Salò is very flimsy artistically. The craft of it, including the excruciatingly wooden acting and equally wooden script, simply weren't sufficient for me to ever suspend disbelief, and I was therefore never engaged by what was going on. There's no plot development, no journey, no character development, no emotional insight into characters. Nothing. Like its subject matter, the film itself is dehumanized. No doubt this was intentional, and its almost "anti-art" aspects are part of the film's "art" (for other people...), but its effect on me was that I was always aware that I was watching second-rate actors reading a second-rate script. And I just didn't care about any of it.The shock value was kind of minimal, too. I came to this film already aware that it focuses on horrible depravity. I watched it and saw a depiction of horrible depravity. So what? It needed a framework to have meaning and, therefore, rise above the level of a splatter movie (but see below).I don't believe Pasolini was commenting on Fascism or any -ism, but simply on the darkness within human beings and used that period of Italy's history as an appropriate context and pretext. I guess someone needed to make a film that showed this. It's been done now...If there is artistic merit to this film, I believe it's because it's so open to interpretation: Pasolini shows us human depravity, leaving it up to us to make of it what we will, to bring our own frameworks with us to give it meaning. (Some people even see a criticism of fast food in the pooh-eating scenes!) How much of this was part of Pasolini's design, though, I have no idea. But as art, it's right up there with, say, putting a mutilated animal carcass on display in an art gallery and calling it, say, "Installation 38b." That's pretty shallow art. (And, in 2018, quite dated -- which is another criticism I have of this film. Good art doesn't date.)The only real moral stand (and intellectual substance) I can find here is that by not providing a framework, Pasolini is rejecting the mind-control philosophy typical of the Fascists and other totalitarian regimes. Again, though, I'm not really engaged, stimulated, inspired, confronted, or challenged by that. But it is a nice idea.

This movie is, at the very least, difficult to classify or judge. It is signed by one of the most controversial Italian filmmakers, Pier Paolo Pasolini, a man whose life was brutally marked by World War II, in which he lost his brother, killed in action. The fact that the film focuses on this period and have the Italian fascists as villains seems to me a form of political statement, as if the filmmaker were trying to use the film to express rage over the war and his hatred of the Italian fascists. This becomes more logical if we consider that Pasolini was also a Communist who was only expelled from the party after being, allegedly, caught up having sex with a minor boy in public, which makes him not only a homosexual but also a pederast and, perhaps, an exhibitionist. So, Pasolini wasn't a sympathetic and conventional figure that everyone liked, and the same thing happens with this film, almost as controversial and brutal as its creator, in that it joins Pasolini and the infamous Marquis de Sade, author of the original novel that gave base to the plot.The plot is simple: the Fascists imprison dozens of young Italians for a session of torture and permanent humiliation that will last about 120 days. There are about an hour of eschatological or pornographic scenes which, I believe, will have many kinds of metaphorical or symbolic explanation in the eyes of today's amorphous pseudo-intellectuals. But for me a pile of feces is a pile of feces, not an allegory for the pains of society, or capitalism, or anything else. That's an ill-smelling explanation for shocking scenes which I'm unwilling to swallow, however much the experts, full of their natural arrogance, may look at me with disdain. No. Even art has to know reasonable limits. To make matters worse, the film is depressing, it is deeply negative about almost everything.If there is any technical and artistic competence in this film is something I have not yet fully evaluated, but I am willing to give Pasolini the benefit of the doubt at that particular point. The fact is that, even if there is art here, the overall of the movie turns out to be so bad, so depressing, manic and disturbing that it's not really worth the effort to watch it.

Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Nine young boys and nine young girls are gathered up and taken from their homes. They are taken to a secluded castle in Italy during WWII where they hear a variety of perverted stories while their captures sexually and mentally abuse them.Pier Paolo Pasolini would be murdered before the release of this, his final film and many still seem to think it wasn't a random murder. Many people believe that his politics had some higher ups order his murder but it's doubtful we'll ever know what the truth was. With that said, this final film of his is certainly unlike anything you're ever going to see as it's about as depraved, disgusting and depressing as you're going to get. I personally think SALO, OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM is a very good movie but it's hard to really recommend it to anyone.Based on the work of Marquis de Sade, this film is about as disturbing as everything put to film. The real debate is rather this is some sort of serious art film with a message or is it just a cheap piece of exploitation that was meant to make you sick. I mean, certain horror movies are trashed for their disgusting scenes of violence and sexual brutality but how many movies are actually worse than this one? Not only do you get disgusting stories being told ranging from child rape to people being forced to eat poop but we have to see these things as well. This is a film that really works on the viewers mind so it's going to be up to that viewer whether they take it in as art or some sort of exploitation.For my money, the film is a piece of art. I'm not going to say what the director was trying to do or say with the picture but to me this film works because it seems very real. It seems like you're really there watching these horrible events and the film really doesn't back down at anything. The stories are rather brutal and we get scenes of such sexual depravity that you can't help but be disturbed. There really isn't any style here because the camera just captures the horrors that are there. The performances are raw, realistic and just add to the horrors of the story.Obviously, not everyone is going to be able to take this film and I really can't say I'd blame anyone for turning it off. Again, we can debate the politics and message of the film but there's no question that when the end credits start you're going to need a shower.

This film was recommended to me as a groundbreaking, trendsetting, example of horror film unlike anything I had ever seen. And it is unlike anything I had ever seen in that I don't think I have ever seen a more uninteresting and boring film. The shock value is there, there is no denying that the movie goes for the throat so to speak, with regards to trying way too hard to evoke visceral reactions from the viewer with gratuitous representations of morbidity and depravity. However the production is so poor that mostly it comes across as having the same level of production value as a high school musical. The practical effects are weak, and in the 70's nudity was far from being scandalous whereas now it is just downright tame. The ideas presented in the film are convoluted and a little bit ridiculous. Meandering monologues of old men speaking directly into the camera and shaky camera work throughout the film make it difficult to watch and take seriously despite the grave nature of the subject matter. If you handle boredom well and have a stomach for unsophisticated juvenile political ideals then maybe this outdated eye vomit will be tolerable and entertaining. I found reading the reviews here to be far more entertaining and interesting than the movie itself