Salo - Uncut in the UK! Whatever next?

Discussion in 'General' started by DVD Connoisseur, Dec 15, 2000.

  1. DVD Connoisseur

    DVD Connoisseur Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2000
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    The UK - Home of Censorship
    This may be of interest to purchasers of Region 2 discs. The BBFC (British Board of Film Censorship) has recently started easing up on censorship issues and started releasing previously banned (in the UK) or cut films in an intact or nearly uncut state. One of the more surprising decisions is to release Salo uncut for the cinema and video. The BFI label are releasing Salo on DVD and video formats in February. News obtained from the excellent and informative censorship site www.melonfarmers.co.uk


    [This message has been edited by DVD Connoisseur (edited 12-15-2000).]
     
  2. joltaddict

    joltaddict New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  3. DVD Connoisseur

    DVD Connoisseur Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2000
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    The UK - Home of Censorship
    Joltaddict, I think it's the British Film Industry's own label. Salo would fit in to their catalogue as it's regarded as an "arthouse movie" in the UK. They won't be releasing Region 1 discs as a) they're a relatively small outfit and b) they won't have universal rights to movies. Still, if you can get past the dreaded PAL to NTSC conversion nightmare, you're home and dry. Chances are, though, that a Region 1 release will appear from a US studio in the near future.
     
  4. joltaddict

    joltaddict New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for the info DVD Connoisseur, not exactly what I was hoping for but not entirely unexpected. Do publishers even know what the OOP is auctioning off for? You would think this would be a no-brainer.
     
  5. Jeremy

    Jeremy Closet SCREAM fan

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2000
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I think that the problem with trying to re-release Salo isn't that none of the other companies know about it, but that the American rights are all screwed up and nobody is too sure of it's ownership.
     
  6. joltaddict

    joltaddict New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then how could Criterion lose the license? It usually reverts back to somebody after a certain contractual period right? I do agree that it is pretty far fetched to think that publishers wouldn't be aware of the going rates for OOP DVDs, but I don't know how tangled the ownership could be for a new one to not even be in the planning stage.



    ------------------
    Further Proof of my Obsesive-Compusive Disorder
     
  7. AceRimRat

    AceRimRat Guest

    Criterion lost the license awfully fast, too, didn't they? Wonder if that had anything to do with any ownership confusion. I don't know much about the movie and don't own it, but I remember seeing it come out and then disappear very quickly. Within a year, I'd guess.
     
  8. ArrowBeach

    ArrowBeach Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Yes, it is odd that Criterion lost the rights, but SOMEONE had to sell SALO to Criterion ORIGINALLY back in the LD days. So whoever sold them the rights back about 6 years ago, it must have went back to them, right?

    Did you noticed SALO begains with the 80's UA logo music? You dont thinkmaybe MGM now owns the rights ot this?
     
  9. indiephantom

    indiephantom Horny Spirit

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2000
    Messages:
    4,014
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Ghost World
    Interesting point Arrowbeach, about the UA music. I have the Criterion laserdisc. i'll have to check it out again and see. SALO is definitely for special tastes. Not exactly a movie for the Xmas after dinner screening. I think CARRIE or A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET are much more appropriate holiday dishes [​IMG]
     
  10. DVD Connoisseur

    DVD Connoisseur Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2000
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    The UK - Home of Censorship
    Welcome to the forum, Jon. Salo sounds like it lives up to its reputation. It's surprising that the BBFC have allowed such a strong film to be released on video/DVD but I guess it's an important arthouse movie and certainly not in the least bit "enjoyable" or "titillating". I don't think we'll see it on the shelves of Blockbuster any time soon....
     
  11. Jeremy

    Jeremy Closet SCREAM fan

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2000
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I just checked over on the "unofficial" Criterion page, www.criteriondvd.com . They say that Salo went oop because of "intervention on the part of the late director's estate." They didn't elaborate, but I guess it wasn't just a simple case of the license expiring. BTW, criteriondvd.com is a better source of info of Criterion DVDs than the official site!
     
  12. Jon

    Jon Guest

    I saw the new 35mm uncut print at the National Film Theatre here in London on Monday.

    It was my first time, but I walked out after the first hour (the nails in the cake was the last thing I remember). To be honest, I could have stayed for more, possibly until the end, but my friend was really shaking, so I did the good deed and left with him, feeling better that I could see it on DVD quite soon.

    On the opening titles, there was something quite strange. They were in Italian, but on the actual title card proclaming the film's title "Salo, o le 120 giornate di Sodoma", there was written "Copyright 1975 by United Artists, Inc. All Rights Reserved" in English.

    At least we know who should be releasing it in the US, but it seems like a slim chance. The BFI have LOTS of cool stuff about the film. Check out http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/salo/index.html

    [This message has been edited by Jon (edited 12-23-2000).]
     
  13. C.R

    C.R Guest

    The Beyond has also slipped through the UK censors uncut as has 2000 Maniacs and Color Me blood Red. I'm not sure about Salo - why would anyone want to watch a film by someone who had a fetish for very young boys. The equivalent perhaps of going to a Gary Glitter concert? Lets restore some morality here!

    ------------------
    www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html CHECK US OUT!
     
  14. mutleyhyde

    mutleyhyde Fuck it.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 1999
    Messages:
    4,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Dallas
    Ha! You're kidding, right? You wanna police horror movies? You're talkin' in the wrong forum. I personally didn't like the film, and NY Ripper is a very grotesque movie as well (pertaining to your post in another topic), however, I am greatly anti-censorship and for the right of individual choice. Sorry, but that post you left on NY Ripper and now this call to "morality" (and just whose morality I might ask) has set me off just a tad. How about in the X-mas spirit, I read you a little scripture... Judge not, least ye be judged.

    ------------------
    "When I go to confession, I don't offer God small sins - petty squables, jealousies - I offer him sins worth forgiving!"

    May the Hammer eternally bleed!
    M. Hyde
     
  15. C.R

    C.R Guest

    Well, if you've not got my E mail bud, here's the deal. I'm anti-censorship too, at least until someone or something begins to get hurt (e.g. Cannibal Ferox/ Holocaust with all that animal cruelty which breaks laws). NEVER did I say that The New York Ripper or Salo should be banned because, ultimately, they were both made by consenting adults and that's that. However, 'whose morality'? Is saying that I have a hard time being overjoyed about the release of a film whose director had a known fetish for young boys wrong? If so then surely you have no problem with having Gary Glitter around to your house for a cup of tea, or any other well known paedophile. That's all I said. I'm sure you picked me up wrong. Otherwise, I just want everyone to know that myself and my fanzine are against the censoring of any material to an adult audience. On a positive note, the BBFC is getting more lenient (see the interview on my web page) and Last House on the Left is now available on a cool, anamorphically enhanced DVD from France. I got my copy last week and it's good stuff.

    ------------------
    www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html CHECK US OUT!
     
  16. Squiggy

    Squiggy Guest

    What does a director having a fetish for young boys have to do with whether or not his films should be watched by anyone? I thought Salo was crap too, but not because of Pasolini's private life. I would not have wanted him in my house, but that is a completely different issue than whether or not I would want to have his films in my house.

    Are you also unhappy about the release of any Polanski films? Or how about Chaplin's films? Inappropriate behavior with children has hardly been limited to "bad" directors. Separate the art from the artist.
     
  17. Jeremy

    Jeremy Closet SCREAM fan

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2000
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I'll agree that the animal violence in these cannibal movies is very unpleasant, but I do have to ask what laws you're referring to. To simply say that it "breaks laws" is an oversimplification. When it comes to animal cruelty, the laws vary from country to country. Are you referring to laws against the exhibition of such material? If so, that gets into the censorship area, which you've just said you're against. Or are you referring to laws against cruelty to animals? If so, I doubt that Umberto Lenzi, Ruggero Deodato or Sergio Martino broke any laws. We're talking about Third World countries where some of this stuff was filmed.


    Whether or not you think it's wrong to enjoy Salo is your business and there's nothing wrong with that. However, you're talking as if it's wrong for all of us to enjoy the movie (I've never seen it, so I can't comment one way or the other). There's no excuse for pedophilia, but people have applied the same logic in less minor cases (ie, people don't want to watch a movie because the director or star is gay, or because the director was an alcoholic).
     
  18. C.R

    C.R Guest

    In the case of animal cruelty Deodato and Lenzi DID break lwas and both directors found themselves prosecuted. I presume you do not know the full history of these films because if you did then you'd know that Deodato was thrown in jail for four months in Italy because of the animal cruelty in Holocaust. I AM gainst censorship as long as the film does not exhibit material where anyone or anything or hurt for real. In the UK we have animal cruelty laws, which is a GOOD thing and which gives animals rights. We also have a law protecting animals on film, as do most countries (ours is called the cinematograph act). As such, yes, I think stuff like this should have the offending material removed. Is this advocating censorship? I don't think so. No more than saying you'd want a snuff movie banned. Directors have a responsibility and maiming and killing animals for entertainment is part of that responsibility.
    Polanski was done for statutory rape - again get your facts right.
    If you want to seperate the art from the artist then that means that you would go out and buy an original painting by John Wayne Gacy. Salo should certinaly not be banned but ON MY OWN (REPEAT ON MY OWN) CONSCIENCE I WOULD HAVE QUALMS ABOUT WATCHING A FILM BY A GLORIFIED PAEDOPHILE. By saying that you could also not watch a film becasue the director is gay is fucking homophobic and disgusting. This is a consentual act and paedophilia is not. Wake up.


    ------------------
    www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html CHECK US OUT!
     
  19. joltaddict

    joltaddict New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pretty fine line you're drawing there. Is where you place it right? Should we all vote on it? Maybe we should just appoint somebody we all trust and they can make all our decisions for us. I vote for me. You can call me King Jolt.

    Seriously, how is Polanski's underage sex partner any less of an act of pediphilia than someone elses?

    And all you pussies with your animal cruelty comments are probally all hypocrites. Do you eat meat? Do you know how they raise veal? Do you know how circus elephants live? Do you take your brats to the circus? We're on the top of the food chain... I say entertain me! Go ahead and push the envelope. Nobody should tell any artist where to stop unless it violates another persons human rights.

    But hey to each his own, preach on...



    ------------------
    Further Proof of my Obsesive-Compusive Disorder
     
  20. Squiggy

    Squiggy Guest

    C.R. - My facts are "right" (although the proper term is correct). Aside from the fact I never said what Polanski specifically did anyway, the point was clear. He is just as wrong as Pasolini in terms of inappropriate behavior with children. Therefore by your logic, you should not watch his films either. Your loss. As joltaddict said, how is what Polanski did any different?

    In the case of real animal cruelty, I happen to agree with you. The difference is, I just don't watch such films and am a vegeterian. I do not, however, accuse others who watch such films or eat meat of being immoral - even if I may believe it in certain cases. And I may promote having laws to protect aminals and educating people about animal cruelty - but I would never promote banning any material or restricting a persons right to choose. Doing so would be truly immoral to me.

    For the record, I would not buy an original JWG painting - but that is because I don't like his work. If someone does, however, it should be their choice. Where do you draw the line? What if, for example, we suddenly learned Picasso was a child molestor/murderer? Would we then remove all his works from the museums around the world? Of course not. This is not Nazi Germany. You are either anti-censorship or not. Saying it's only OK to remove what YOU consider offending is extremely hypocritical (as hypocritical as not including Polanski and Chaplin with Pasolini since all had sex with underage partners). Who are you to decide?

    If you have an opinion, state it like a rational adult. Don't claim it to be morally superior or imply others are immoral or incorrect for thinking otherwise. Questioning why anyone would want to watch Salo and then saying "Lets restore some morality here!" buried you. You have no right to preach morality to anyone. No one does. Try prefacing your comments with something like "In my opinion..." and don't personally insult people if you don't want to be flamed back. Otherwise, some administrator might consider your holier than thou comments offensive and censor you from the forum... I would, but who am I to judge?
     

Share This Page