PDA

View Full Version : Salo - Uncut in the UK! Whatever next?


DVD Connoisseur
12-16-2000, 12:11 AM
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 (http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk)


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

joltaddict
12-16-2000, 01:08 AM
It says it will be published by BFI. Anybody know anything about them? Do they do R1?



------------------
Further Proof of my Obsesive-Compusive Disorder (http://www.crosswinds.net/~joltaddict/dvdcatalog.htm)

DVD Connoisseur
12-16-2000, 01:17 AM
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.

joltaddict
12-16-2000, 02:29 AM
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.

Jeremy
12-16-2000, 02:34 AM
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.

joltaddict
12-16-2000, 02:49 AM
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 (http://www.crosswinds.net/~joltaddict/dvdcatalog.htm)

AceRimRat
12-16-2000, 05:45 AM
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.

ArrowBeach
12-16-2000, 10:32 PM
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?

indiephantom
12-17-2000, 12:10 AM
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 http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif

DVD Connoisseur
12-23-2000, 07:09 PM
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....

Jeremy
12-23-2000, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by joltaddict:
Then how could Criterion lose the license? It usually reverts back to somebody after a certain contractual period right?

I just checked over on the "unofficial" Criterion page, www.criteriondvd.com (http://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!

Jon
12-24-2000, 06:21 AM
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).]

C.R
12-25-2000, 12:04 AM
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 (http://www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html) CHECK US OUT!

mutleyhyde
12-25-2000, 05:24 AM
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

C.R
12-26-2000, 01:29 AM
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 (http://www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html) CHECK US OUT!

Squiggy
12-26-2000, 03:09 AM
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.

Jeremy
12-26-2000, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by C.R:
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).

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.


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?

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).

C.R
12-27-2000, 08:46 AM
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 (http://www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html) CHECK US OUT!

joltaddict
12-27-2000, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by C.R:
Polanski was done for statutory rape - again get your facts right. <SNIP>
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.

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 (http://www.crosswinds.net/~joltaddict/dvdcatalog.htm)

Squiggy
12-27-2000, 12:49 PM
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?

ArrowBeach
12-27-2000, 02:56 PM
C.R, I thought Gary Glitter was into young girls, not boys? You are making Glitter sound like he is scoping little boys. You should have compared Passolini with Victor Salva, who actually FILMED his victims, yet unlikely glitter or pasolini, Hollywood actually defended this creep!

ArrowBeach
12-27-2000, 02:59 PM
Indiephantom, Jon, United Artist released all Alberto Grimaldi productions in the 70's, like LAST TANGO IN PARIS, MAN OF THE EAST, and all the Pasolini films like SALO, CANTENBURY TALES and ARABIAN NIGHTS. So I wouldnt be suprised if MGM who now owns the UA library wanted to release SALO for 14.99!!! I mean I dont buy Criterions story, for if Pasolini's estate wanted it pulled, how come it is getting released in UK? I think MGM wanted to have the rights back!

C.R
12-27-2000, 07:14 PM
OK. let's being eh?
If you belive in a God of some sort then you may think we are top of the animal chain. If you do not (like me) then you probably see that we are destorying our own planet and other species. We are animals like anything else, albeit an animal in touch with what we are and with some sort of conscience. However, we have no more right to exist on this planet than anything else and, like everything else, I believe that we are just one of many species which have evolved over time. As such, I don not think elephants et al should be exploited and my girlfriend is a zoologist - together we are well aware of conversation of the rainforest (which harbours 90 percent of all species and which we are destroying at an amazing rate very year).
Very few enviromentalists, conversationsists and those who have broken new ground in protecting such rare species as the White Shark and Tigers are vegetarians. I don't want to ramble about this subject because it is irrelevant to my thoughts on Salo or wahtever and as I said i'm quite active in this sort of thing.
Laws are there to prtoect. If you enjoy Cannibal Holocaust then that's fine. Some of my friends like it and I don't blast them for it. However, legalising this film with its scenes of animal cruelty STILL breaks laws. This is why these scenes were rmeoved in almost eveyr country it was released. The problem with 'Oh... hey, why don't you let everyone choose' is that this means that they may also choose to see a bullfight or a fox hunt or a dog fight or whatever. You draw the line when the death of a real livng creature is massacred purely for the film camera. I spoke with Nigel Wingrove for my fanzine and he happened to agree with this as would many other people involved in exploitation films.
I consider myself anti-censorhsip but wanting to protect animals from pointless, horrifc abuse is hardly censorship.
Chaplin's films don't appeal to me anyway. Sorry. It's like the South Park guys said - it's just not funny anymore. I love loads of old movies, but not Chaplins.
That aside, I would watch Salo but I just (christ, do I have to repeat this again) said that I have a big problem (with my own conscience) with watching a movie by someone who actively went around trying to pick up strange young boys. This is called paedophilia (learn how to spell) and was illegal the alst time I checked. If you like shagging kids personally and have no problem with it then you probably won't find any problem with associating with Passolini. Do I want to censor the film: NO. However, your freedom of choice thing is hypocritical because you yourself have all said you'd ban child porn or whatever. This shows that we all want to draw lines. I've said I draw the line at illegal practices in a film. Otherwise you WILL have stuff like child porn on the shelves. Anyway, censorship is a dead fuck subject. Anyone with half a brain can get what they want through sources and there are far more important things to get up tight about. Only 3000 tigers left in the world mefriends...

------------------
www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html (http://www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html) CHECK US OUT!

C.R
12-27-2000, 07:18 PM
Oh yeah, the term 'right' WOULD be correct spunk for brains. I was talking in slang and, as such, I can use any amount of fragmented sentences I want. I have a fucking honours degree in Englsih so if you want to take this further then fucking go ahead.

------------------
www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html (http://www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html) CHECK US OUT!

mutleyhyde
12-27-2000, 07:48 PM
Dude, I don't know who you are, but the second you show up in our little community, you immediately start picking fights. Just go away. And don't e-mail me again. I know you probably will, but I won't be responding.

joltaddict
12-27-2000, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by C.R:
This is called paedophilia (learn how to spell)

You have got to be kidding.

Originally posted by C.R:
If you belive in a God... we are destorying our own planet... I don not think... or wahtever... Laws are there to prtoect... This is why these scenes were rmeoved in almost eveyr country... illegal the alst time I checked... to get up tight about... Only 3000 tigers left in the world mefriends...

joltaddict
12-27-2000, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by C.R:
I have a fucking honours degree in Englsih


Hee hee!

landrvr
12-27-2000, 08:58 PM
hey!!

we haven't had one of these "knock-down, drag-outs" in a long time.

kinda cool.

my own view is this: i won't support any artist who has taken away someone's basic human rights in one form or another. will i view or listen to that person's art? yes. will i buy it and put money in their pocket? hell no.

Squiggy
12-27-2000, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by C.R:
Oh yeah, the term 'right' WOULD be correct spunk for brains. I was talking in slang and, as such, I can use any amount of fragmented sentences I want. I have a fucking honours degree in Englsih so if you want to take this further then fucking go ahead.




I'm glad you have fully shown the type of true moron you are. Those who need to resort to vulgarity only do so because they have no viable ground to stand on. What's wrong, can't defend your point without showing how hypocritical you are?

Let's see you answer the following without making a further fool of yourself:

1) How is Pasolini any different from Polanski or Chaplin? This has nothing to do with whether or not you like Chaplin - it is a simple point. All three had sex with minors, so all three should be the same. Do you believe we should not watch Polanski films either hypocrite?

2) How do you justify eating meat while ranting about animal cruelty in films? The animals in those films died rather quickly and painlessly compared to the lifetime of torture many "raised for food" animals go through. Practice what you preach. Or do you believe only endangered species have a right to live? No one who eats meat should ever claim they believe in protecting animals. Hypocrite.

3) How are you anti-censorship if you believe anything offensive to you should be censored? What makes your opinion more viable than anyone elses? Hypocrite.

4) If we should not view anything created by someone with a fetish for young boys, should (for another example) all the works of ancient Greece be destroyed? From what I hear, many men there during that time period (including artists) had a thing for young slave boys. Where do you draw your hypocritical line?

Go back and look at your first post. You did not originally say YOU had a problem watching Salo. You asked why ANYONE would want to watch it and then implied we should not do so to restore "morality". If you instead just stated a personal opinion without trying to insult everyone else, you might have found people agreeing with you (including me).

Go preach in your own fanzine hypocrite. And by the way, you really shouldn't be criticizing anyone elses spelling either...

Mark Relford
12-27-2000, 11:32 PM
Wow, what a thread!

C.R, there's no need for name calling. And there's nothing wrong with a good debate, but when it comes to name calling and other forms of negativity, then you're not welcome here. Your New York Ripper post was very insulting and it's no surprise that it got taken off.

------------------
"Have you ever had an Egyptian feast?"

"They're back from the grave and ready to party!"

C.R
12-27-2000, 11:37 PM
Listen man, you guys need to chill out. The bloke I E-mailed especially. Man, you need a nice looking girlfriend or something. I can't help it that you're sitting at home as a lonely sad individual. I just kinda tried to brighten up your life a bit with some nice comments.
In case you don't know: I'm winding you up.
Listen folks. It's nice to have a good debate and i'm glad to see you're all getting into the spirit of it. I laid down my line and I guess I'll have to defend it.
Well, here goes... Polanski was with a consenting partner of (and if I'm wrong i'm sorry) 15 or 16. In a lot of countries that's cool anyway (including our own UK). Hey i'm not defending it.
Passolini was actually killed by some young guy he was trying to pick up. He was well known as something of a cruiser I believe. Also some critics have said that Salo throws his own perversions on the audiences lap. I guess that's why I'd feel uncomfortable wathcing it. I'm not into this nor am I into bondage hence I wouldn't watch a bondage video. I don't think ban it... I just wouldn't want to watch it or associate myself with it.
As for the meat thing: I,m half an half. Something of a white meat diet. Don't like vegetables, but won't eat pigs because - yeah i know all about it. There's some morality there. I know the work of many great conversationsits however (I'll give you a list if you wish) and none are veggies. Is that hypocritical? I don't think so. The sea turtle is dying out in Amazonia, and Cannibal Holocasut hacked one up for no reason. Man, it's like just killing an elephant. We have to realise that some species are over exploited and need our protection. Look at the world - it's a delicate balance and 90 percent of living things exist in the tropical rainforest. That's a balance we shouldn't be fucking with. Breeding cows or whatever for our own use... well, that's the way we've come to survive (regardless, indeed, over whether I eat beef or not). Look, I couldn't be a doctor or a dentist - I just don't like stuff like real blood or anything like that. Hence, I probably couldn't work in a slaughterhouse either.
Anyway, if you really don't think a horror movie is worthwhile unless a turtle is hacked up then... I dunno. That does woory me. Call me a prude if you want.
That's my say for now.

joltaddict
12-27-2000, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Mark Relford:
when it comes to name calling and other forms of negativity, then you're not welcome here.

If you want him to leave you could just tell him the Mods of this forum enjoy sex with children http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif then he would have to leave (according to his previous posts).

Hey, thats not a bad idea, any of you mods wanna take one for the team?

AceRimRat
12-28-2000, 12:18 AM
I'm going to stick my toe into the water and see if something bites my leg off...

I'll start by pointing out that "pedophilia" is the American spelling, vs. our good friend from the UK's added vowels ("honours"). (I, too, have an honors degree in an English field, and I have a dictionary.)

I'll finish by offering up my own, personal quasi-common-sense approach to controversial stuff: If you don't like it, don't watch it. Don't pay for it, don't support it, even protest it. If we all ignore it, it will go away. If it breaks laws, the perp will be punished. You don't like Salo, why even give it the dignity of reference - all you're likely to do is encourage people to see it or give it more attention than (you believe) it deserves. My 2-2.5 cents. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.

And I've never seen the movie, don't really care to, can't afford it if I wanted to, am afraid to ask if it's any good, know nothing about the director and haven't engaged in any sex acts with anyone under 18 since I was a minor, too.

And I own a dog and love a good steak. http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif

Squiggy
12-28-2000, 12:45 AM
In case you don't know: I'm winding you up.
Listen folks. It's nice to have a good debate and i'm glad to see you're all getting into the spirit of it.

You don't need to wind people up by insulting them or questioning their morality. Debates are a good thing - even if they become extreme - but not when you start one via personal flames. Most people come to the web discussions to get away from that kind of thing in the newsgroups (which have become nothing but flame wars and troll breeding grounds).



Well, here goes... Polanski was with a consenting partner of (and if I'm wrong i'm sorry) 15 or 16. In a lot of countries that's cool anyway (including our own UK). Hey i'm not defending it.

This is where your point of morality falls apart. You cannot make this distinction because it is convenient. Polanski did molest a child. He's no different than Pasolini (except in terms of the number of offenses). At what age is the moral line drawn? And who decides that age?

I don't know how old you are, but I'm 31 and looking back at 16 I do not believe all decisions I made in regards to women were correct (regardless of what I thought at the time). A 16 year old is not necessarily psychologically mature enough to consent to sex with an adult. That's why laws against it are in place in many countries - to protect such children against making mistakes because they may not know any better and can be easily manipulated.

Either way, I see no difference between what any of these people did. And saying it's OK in some countries and not others only further enforces why no one should be judging the morality of it. Different cultures have different beliefs. Historically speaking, 12 was once considered prime marrying age in some societies.

Just for the record, Polanski was convicted of raping a 13 year old girl. Chaplin married two 16 year old girls - once when he was 28 and again when he was 35.


Also some critics have said that Salo throws his own perversions on the audiences lap.

Well, it is his film - so why shouldn't it reflect his views (perverted or otherwise)? If the audience doesn't like it, they can leave. I did.



I guess that's why I'd feel uncomfortable wathcing it. I'm not into this nor am I into bondage hence I wouldn't watch a bondage video. I don't think ban it... I just wouldn't want to watch it or associate myself with it.

I'm not comfortable with such things either. In fact, I can't even watch a movie with a rape scene in it. That's one of the few things that can really disturb me. But I still don't tell others they should not watch such films or imply there is some moral issue at large. I think I'm a good person, but that doesn't qualify me to judge someone elses beliefs or opinions.



As for the meat thing: I,m half an half. Something of a white meat diet. Don't like vegetables, but won't eat pigs because - yeah i know all about it. There's some morality there.

This is more than an issue of morality, it's one of contradiction. You cannot say "save the animals" while your fridge is stuffed with their dead carcasses. The vast majority of animal rights activists are very hypocritical on this point. Life is life. Endangered species have no more or less a right to protection than farm animals. I'm sure if given the choice of extinction or being raised for slaughter, most animals would rather just die off. At least the poor creatures that were hunted into oblivion weren't all tortured for years before being killed.



Breeding cows or whatever for our own use... well, that's the way we've come to survive (regardless, indeed, over whether I eat beef or not).

We could evolve beyond this if we wanted to. You don't need meat to survive in any "advanced" country. It's more a matter of want these days. After seeing what animals were put though just to provide me with something that tastes good, I couldn't justify eating meat any longer. I get physically ill just thinking about the suffering that goes on. I'd rather suffer myself than be a part of it all. Others could make the same choice if it really bothered them.

In any case, no meat eater has the right to cry over killing animals in films. That is blatant hypocracy. The saddest thing is that people don't even think about it because meat is just something you pick up at the market and you don't have to deal with how it got there. As many have said over the years: if all people had to kill their own food, the majority would proably be strict vegeterians.



Anyway, if you really don't think a horror movie is worthwhile unless a turtle is hacked up then...

I don't think anyone here would ever say that - at least I hope not. Thinking that way might mean someone is genuinely clinically disturbed. Most serial killers started out wanting to see animals killed.

landrvr
12-28-2000, 02:55 AM
squiggy, for God's sake stop encouraging him!!??

though i gotta say that 'spunk for brains' was pretty good. is that a scotish expression? Ha!

AceRimRat
12-28-2000, 03:12 AM
All right, having stuck my toe out, now I'm gonna stick my neck out...

Originally posted by Squiggy:
In any case, no meat eater has the right to cry over killing animals in films. That is
blatant hypocracy.

IN MY OPINION (take note! just my opinion), I think there's a difference between an animal killed for sustenance and one killed for sport or entertainment. (Yeah, I like a good steak. Heck, I'm practically a carnivore.)

Doesn't mean I won't buy Cannibal Ferox. Doesn't mean I will.

Doesn't mean I hate Squiggy. Doesn't mean I'm right and he's wrong. Just means I disagree.

Mark Relford
12-28-2000, 03:19 AM
"Meat's meat and a man's gotta eat!"
-Farmer Vincent (Motel Hell)

------------------
"Have you ever had an Egyptian feast?"

"They're back from the grave and ready to party!"

joltaddict
12-28-2000, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by AceRimRat:
I think there's a difference between an animal killed for sustenance and one killed for sport or entertainment. (Yeah, I like a good steak. Heck, I'm practically a carnivore.)
Doesn't mean I won't buy Cannibal Ferox.

They do eat the turtle in question, the other rat thing is eaten by a snake. The entertainment is a by-product http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif

Mark Relford
12-28-2000, 03:23 AM
Oops! Sorry for the double post.


[This message has been edited by Mark Relford (edited 12-27-2000).]

C.R
12-28-2000, 08:17 AM
Well I'm gonna shock you all and say I reckon you all have a point. I agree with every one of you guys. I think you're very right about the meat thing. A lot of us would be strict veggies. As for Salo - if I didn't like it I'd leave. I was dissapointed my New York ripper post was taken down as this constitutes censorship does it not? I was merely expressing an opinion on that one! However, I can see it might have offended some people and I guess that needs an apology.
I'll see Salo in given time, but in the mean time as I said: You've all got points that I agree with here. As for the guy who left... yeah, I can see that this is the best thing to do in the case of a film like that. I'm just more excited about other films being excited since our country softened up its censorship laws and i'm definately looking forward to Zombi holocaust and its like. However, if I can start a new topic - isn't it about time we softened up on Last House on the Left, one of the most frightening films ever?
Cheers guys, it's been fun (whatever you think of my opinions)

------------------
www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html (http://www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html) CHECK US OUT!

joltaddict
12-28-2000, 08:26 AM
They're saying "I reckon" in England now? http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif

A belated welcome, CR.

C.R
12-28-2000, 10:32 PM
Thanks man, i'm actually Scottish though so I'm unsure of what they use in England!!! I'll probably end up dragging my girlfriend to watch Salo as soon as it gets its cinema release over here in early January. I'm curious after all that arguing as to HOW nasty it really is. That aside, and in reference to my last E mail to this site, I just thought I'd alert people to the fact that Last House on the Left has been released on a really impressive anamorphically enhanced French DVD and that I've got a fullr eview of the new two DVD Dawn of the Dead release on my site (which contains Argneto's European cut and a widescreen version of Romero's cut alongside a ton of extras).
hope this is of some use to someone out there!
Calum

------------------
www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html (http://www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html) CHECK US OUT!

DVD Connoisseur
12-28-2000, 11:48 PM
Yep, they say "I reckon" in little ol' England as well!

Calum, you aren't seriously taking your girlfriend to see Salo? Urgh! That's the least likely "date" movie I can think of! (I just know somebody's going to now suggest an even worse date movie, but you get the drift!)

joltaddict
12-29-2000, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by DVD Connoisseur:
(I just know somebody's going to now suggest an even worse date movie, but you get the drift!)

Ohh! Ohh! I know! I Spit on Your Grave.

Jason25
12-29-2000, 01:14 AM
C.R. - I took your post down in the Euro Horror forum because it was pure garbage. It is one thing to discuss things and it is another to say things for shock value and to entice an arguement. I have no problem with people discussing meaningful topics but when someone resorts to personal attacks then I draw the line. That's why your post was deleted. You are more than welcome to post again there, as you have, and your other posts were not deleted. I just won't put up with people who attack people personally.
I hope you post as many topics as you like in the Euro horror forum, but please consider the opinions of others. Thanks.

C.R
12-29-2000, 08:26 AM
No problem man. You said on your site you were looking for box art from the new Danw of the DEad DVD set - I'd be happy to E mail this to you, as well as the new Last House DVD. It's up to yourself. I'd also link to you on my site if you want. I don't feel what I said about Ripper was pure garbage at all (the way I said it may have been too strong so sorry aboutt hat one). All I said was that the film, to me, seemed designed to encourage a certain sexual gratification in its scenes of women being cut up. I never knew Fulci so I don't know, but that is what I got from the film. I love Fulci movies (even the Black Cat), but this one just pissed me off. I dunno how other fans of Fulci feel about it.
As for date movies... I'd vouch for the New York Ripper or anything with the word 'cannibal' as the worst. My better half has sat through Tenebrae, THe Thing and Dawn of the DEad though so she's kinda used to it. I've forewarnded her about Salo anyway but if she doesn't speak to me for weeks I'll know that I should have taken your advice!

------------------
www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html (http://www.lundwood.u-net.com/fl/firelightshocks.html) CHECK US OUT!

DVD Connoisseur
01-21-2001, 04:52 PM
The DVD is out in the UK on the 5th March. It's now available for pre-order on Amazon.Co.UK. (I'm still in two minds about purchasing this particular title.)

napalm68
01-21-2001, 09:38 PM
A friend of mine succinctly described salo - "It gives new meaning to the saying eat shit and die". http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif

I personally wouldn't bother seeing it, and I basically agree with a lot CR was saying. I am just sick of salo having this legendary status based on no artistic merit, but purely shock value. At least Fulci was unabashed about just trying to shock people, he wasn't trying to pretend he was some artiste...

------------------
Oh no, mother! Blood!

DVD Connoisseur
08-13-2005, 01:21 PM
Quite embarrasingly, after posting the news about the UK Salo release in 2001, I've just got 'round to actually viewing it. It must have sat on my shelf for 12 months or so...

As expected, an unpleasant movie and the first film I've ever seen which made me have a gagging reaction to one of the (eating) scenes (no guesses required).

Overall, though, I found the film drawn out and nowhere near as shocking as the version which has played in my mind since I read about it all those moons ago. I'd genuinely dreaded the experience of viewing Salo but have survived it with most of my faculties intact!

adric
08-13-2005, 03:34 PM
i just recently saw this too, and i wasnt as shocked as i was expecting. while it is overhyped, i thought it was still a decent movie.

Noto
08-13-2005, 05:22 PM
I love watching pretentious films whenever I can. I've seen the uncut version of Salo, and the only thing that made it difficult to watch was the horrible pacing. It isn't nearly as much a bad movie as a boring one. Part of this comes from all the "victims" save for two being completely unlikeable. One of those two is the very first to die. The rest just drags.

Franco
01-15-2006, 07:38 PM
The Gaumont R2 release has an excellent transfer, remastered I suppose, as you can see in the comparison:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/salo.htm

All the other releases look like crap in image detail when compared with this french DVD. Unfortunately, it's missing some seconds plus it doesn't have spanish nor english subtitles. Know some italian but I'd like to read everything of it.

Know of any plans for an uncut R1 remastered release of this jewel ?

Evil Dead Guy
01-15-2006, 08:02 PM
Two questions if someone could answer for me -

1. Is there a soundtrack ( as the music is beautiful )

2. where can i find a english subtitle file ( as i downloaded this movie a year ago that came with no subtitles )

Cheers and thanks

Franco
01-15-2006, 08:44 PM
.

2. where can i find a english subtitle file ( as i downloaded this movie a year ago that came with no subtitles )

You can try here, firstworlder:
http://subtitles.images.o2.cz/

I can't assure you that the subtitles will be synchronized with the movie you downloaded, though. Good luck!

Evil Dead Guy
01-15-2006, 10:27 PM
You can try here, firstworlder:
http://subtitles.images.o2.cz/

I can't assure you that the subtitles will be synchronized with the movie you downloaded, though. Good luck!

Cheers and thanks Franco :)

Criswell
01-17-2006, 01:51 PM
Would I ban the film...........no. Sure Pascollini was a creep but he had his vision.

But would I recommend the film to anyone aside from the curious......no. Its dull, badly paced..........terribly acted, pretentious and most of all.........STUPID. I first saw it cut and nearly fell asleep. I saw it uncut and nearly fell asleep.

I love reading about the so called parable of fascism in the film.........yawn..........if anything its about class not politics........

dwatts
01-17-2006, 10:06 PM
I feel the same about the tired Cannibal Holocause and Dawn of the Dead excuses :D

Lionheart
07-19-2006, 01:13 AM
I want to thank anyone who will take the time to read this - there's a lot of thoughts, some of them conflicting, and I appreciate your patience. Please understand that these are my opinions, exclusively.

To really understand Salo, you have to understand the person behind it. Pier Paolo Pasolini had made many films before Salo, and Salo was his last. At that point in his career, he felt abandoned by any sense of justice or balance in his personal life and artistic efforts. He had lost his faith in God, and his faith in humanity. He felt that the films he made prior to Salo had been nothing more than "fodder for the masses". So what we have here, in my opinion, is a man who has lost faith in anything that could have possibly redeemed his worth in himself, his art *or* others, including God. This is the film he made during this period.

Pasolini was an "out" homosexual (at a time when it wasn't nearly as common as it is today), and a Marxist. Italy had certainly seen it's share of fascism, and the town of Salo represents a very tangible "leftover" from the fascist regime - a town put on the map by Nazis, for Benito Mussolini. That's the history behind the way this movie is "staged". The subject matter is based on Marquis De Sade's "120 days of Sodom". All of it takes place in the last days of the fascist regime in Salo. Marquis De Sade's "120 days of Sodom" are *real writings*, and Salo is a *real place*. He took the story and wrapped it around (loosely) the various circles of Hell, from Dante's "Inferno". I haven't read any work by De Sade, but I have read the entire "Divine Comedy" by Dante.

I won't go into the actual content of the movie, because if anyone is interested in seeing it, I don't want my opinion to color the experience for them. However, it's not a popcorn movie, or a movie to be taken lightly. I am also not going to get into the "morality" (or lack thereof) of the movie. If fascism mixed with De Sade is going to be the subject of a movie, it's not going to be pretty and a number of people will be outraged (and let's not be fooled about what fascists actually did). I am also not going to pass judgement on Pasolini - the truth is art and/or film does not hurt people. It's existence is not because it has an obligation to be "moral" or "immoral". That is up to the "mature and intelligent" viewer to decide, no matter what the medium of the art or idea is. I think that people who are constantly looking for "moral worth" in art/film/music/literature should limit themselves to things that will fulfill that need. As far as Pasolini's personal life, I'm not going to pass judgement on that. If I were to pass judgement on that, then I would have to throw every other director/artist/writer into the same Pandora's Box.

After I watched "Salo", I wondered who would make such a film and why. Now, would I make such a film, if I was feeling the same way? No. Would I use this as a subject matter for a film? No. Is this an important film? Yes. Is it revolting? Yes. But again, fascism and De Sade are the subject matters at hand.

Perhaps it's Pasolini's cruelest indictment on fascism, using the writings of De Sade to get the point across. Perhaps it is a rebellious move from a director that had felt rejected from the world, and rejects the world back. Perhaps it's the most vicious artistic statement that he could think of, reacting to his own frustration. At any rate, this movie is loaded with artistic interpretations that relate back to the central idea of the danger of fascism and the perversity of De Sade's writings. The most chilling idea, is how the victims become tormentors towards the end. Pretty toxic stuff.

Thanks for your time.