Salo - Uncut in the UK! Whatever next?

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]

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).

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!

[joltaddict]

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

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]

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]

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!

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 CHECK US OUT!

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 CHECK US OUT!

[mutleyhyde]

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]

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]

Originally posted by C.R:
I have a fucking honours degree in Englsih

Hee hee!

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.

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]

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!"