Customer Reviews

Salo - 120 Days of Sodom [VHS]

5 star:		(102)
4 star:		(49)
3 star:		(25)
2 star:		(31)
1 star:		(67)

 

 

"Salo" is most certainly one of the most controversial films of all time. With an eye sensitive to horrific imagery, it is easy to fall into a trap and see the imagery for only what it is, as opposed to what it represents. For, the power of "Salo" is to be seen in the relentless metaphor that it contains. Once one knows a couple of basic hints it becomes far easier to peel off the layers of disgust to reveal the true essence of this powerful film.

The basic characters fall into several archetypes:
1) The 4 Men: represent the fascist rule that dominated Italy during the Nazi rule. Given more power than they should have, they are content to savage the people they rule over with no respect for the humanity that they have been given control over.
2) The teens: the victims of this fascist control (the Jews of the Holocaust, the Italian people, etc.) who quickly lose all their dignity and rights under such savage treatment. Escape appears to be only a couple of steps away and seems quite easy; yet, for these individuals, it is impossible.
3) The madams: The politicians that (although not participating directly in most of the exploitation of the populace) provide the direction and desire to commit such crimes to humanity. Easily recognizable, they are just a step below the 4 men in the line of power.
4) The soldiers: the populace of Germany/Italy who allowed these atrocities to go on. Witnessing the entire situation as it escalates (much like it did in Nazi Germany), these people fall under the Nazi spell. For them, it is impossible to sympathize with individuals that have been so debased, so no guilt is felt on their part for the crimes they are involved in.
5) The piano player: the populace of Germany/Italy who allow the atrocities to go on, but eventually become aware of the horrors that they have helped cause. Inevitably, rather than direct their guilt externally to change the system, these individuals internalize it upon themselves.
6) The viewer: as an individual watching this movie, the viewer is being asked by Pasolini what side they are going to fall one: the soldier or the piano player? Are we to feel sympathy for these violated teens or are we to look at their plight with the same detached lack of interest as the soldiers?

Thus, Pasolini has created a large allegory that can be seen in today's light, as well as those of WW II. Essentially, these archetypes are applicable to most any situation in the world where individuals are being exploited...and this is Pasolini's message. As individuals outside the loop (viewers) we possess the ability to evaluate the scene and react in a way that can alleviate or enhance the scenario, it is up to us to decide.

A word about the imagery: This too is an essential aspect of "Salo;" for, in its relentless onslaught, Pasolini is trying to tell us something. Once upon a time imagery like that of the Holocaust in WWII was capable of shocking the populace of the world (as it was REAL); however, much of humanity has become desensitized to this. Pasolini is trying to offend us with the imagery of this movie in order to parallel how we SHOULD be offended by the imagery of the Holocaust. He is showing us these atrocities without "Hollywoodizing" them (try "Schindler's List" for that)...these are images we cannot deny and they are based on reality. Humanity is capable of tremendous horror and through the imagery of "Salo," Pasolini is forcing us to acknowledge a side of our species that we have lost sight of over time.

In this fashion, "Salo" is an exploration on the psychology of mass fascism. Not only are the soldiers placed under the spell due to the debasement of the people that are being exploited, but the exploited individuals are turned against themselves to continue to live (one particular scene is "Salo" articulates this perfectly). Promises of "freedom" that are never delivered also helps to keep these individuals in line. This mass psychology is evident throughout "Salo;" for, there are ample chances to attempt escape, but all are kept in line with minimal effort.

Finally, a quick word about the ending (I will keep this vague so as not to spoil it for those that have not seen it): Pasolini is telling us that, in the end, we have become so desensitized to the horrors that surround us that we are all inevitably the soldier archetype. No longer able to see the suffering that surrounds us, we are dancing right along with the 4 Men...although perhaps not directly involved, we see all that is going on and help allow it to happen through our lack of action. Pasolini is describing humanity's fate here and forcing us to confront it so that, perhaps, something can be done to change it.

This movie is one that is NOT recommended to potential viewers unless they see this movie for the imagery it represents. Contrary to what many will tell you, this movie is NOT a dark comedy and is, indeed, as dark and relentless as they come. Again, the imagery is RELENTLESS...be prepared if you decide to see this; after all, the imagery is only a fraction as disturbing as what it represents.

Hope that helps...

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. The infamous film, Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom, has been reissued by Criterion in a special 2 disc edition. Criterion initally put out this DVD when they were still doing laserdiscs and DVD simaltaneously (its DVD spine number was 17), and the original DVD was pretty much barebones and not a particularly good transfer of the film (on either the laserdisc version or the DVD version). Now it's being released in a deluxe edition. What about the film itself? Is it worth picking up? Is it truly disturbing? Is it a work of art? Yes, yes, and yes.

Pasolini made this film in 1975 right after his "trilogy of life" films, which included The Decameron, The Cantebury Tales, and Arabian Nights (aka Thousand and One Nights). Those films were very joyful and playful, and did quite well at the box office. Pasolini went into a deep depression afterwards, feeling that all his films were bogus and compromised, and set out to make a film, as he called it, "undigestable". Salo was that film.

It is based on the Marquis de Sade's book, which was written in 1789 but not published until 1935. De Sade's book, while interesting at first, soon becomes boring and repetitive, outlining one sexual abberation after another. It's not erotic, in fact, it's quite disgusting, as most of the sexual behavior concentrates on coprophilia. Pasolini's film is much better than the novel, as Pasolini had much more to say with his film. He changed the original setting from 18th century France to the last days of Mussolini's government, which had set up shop in Salo, an actual province in Italy. Four fascists round up 8 teenage boys and 8 teenage girls, haul them off to a secluded villa, and degrade them and themselves for the duration. Pasolini here used the novel as a exploration of consumer culture, fascism, communism, perversion, torture (many of the scenes in this film have an eerie similarity to the Abu Ghrab prison photos taken a few years ago), and absolute power. Pasolini had said "he wanted to make a film without hope", and he did. Pasolini expounded upon de Sade's ideas and made a startling film, one that has immense power, even today. Pasolini was murdered shortly after completing this film in murky and still controversial circumstances, and somehow, that contributes to the bleakness and opppressiveness of the film.

The film is as cruel, nasty, controversial, and bleak as you've heard. It totally lives up to its reputation. It has graphic scene of sexuality (despite abundant nudity, the film isn't erotic at all, but cold and numb), torture (the final third is entitled the circle of blood), and coprophilia (the middle third is entitled the circle of s***). But it isn't an exploitation film at all. It was made with the best crew in Italy at the time. The film was shot by Tonino Delli Colli, who shot Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns. It was produced by Alberto Grimaldi, who also produced Leone's spaghetti westerns and Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris. Ennio Morricone scored it, Danilo Donati did the costumes, and Nino Bargali edited it. It was a legitamite production, and there was quite a lot of press surrounding it at the time of its release, as Pasolini was a huge name in Italy and international cinema at the time. Finding the film in its uncut form has been notoriously difficult over the years. It's been banned in many countries (it's still banned in Australia today), and even the DVD editions aren't complete. The original Criterion version and this version have omitted a scene where one of the fascists reads a poem from Gottfried Benn, which was included in the British Film Institute version. This 25 second scene has been posted on Criterion's website, and having seen it, it doesn't really add anything to the film. For all intended purposes, the version we have here is Pasolini's final cut.

I saw this recently in an extraordinarily sharp print in NYC, and the patrons in the theater didn't say a word. Some left. Most of them stayed, and were truly stunned afterwards. Some tried to laugh this film off at the beginning; by the end of the film, they weren't laughing. They couldn't. This film was made in 1975, and it still has the power to shake you to the core.

The DVD transfer is superb. It's as good as the print I saw at the IFC Theater. The extras are quite extraordinary, especially the documentary Salo: Yesterday and Today. It includes actual footage of Pasolini shooting the final scenes of the film (the torture scenes), and it's actually very difficult to watch this behind the scenes footage. Even though one may think it gives you a sense of relief that "it was all a movie", it doesn't. The footage (which is in grainy black and white, 16mm footage) has a power all its own. There is another documentary called Fade to Black in which Bernardo Bertolucci and Catherine Breillat talk about Salo. Bertolucci's thoughts on the film are particularly striking and poignant, as he was great friends with Pasolini as well as an artistic colloborator. The DVD box has one of the most chilling covers in Criterion history, including a sinister close up on the inside, which is astonishingly creepy. It also contains a 90 page booklet with fascinating essays by the great, brilliant filmmaker Catherine Breillat (who thinks Salo is a masterpiece) and Gary Indiana (who wrote a very well known book about the film). The only thing about this DVD edition that I object to is the fact that Criterion did not include John Powers's excellent essay on the film, which was printed on the laserdisc edition of the film. He said two things about this masterwork that are brilliantly insightful...

"It's the cruelest, most obscene, and most intellectually toxic work ever made by a major director. Once seen, it is forever remembered."

"At a time when movies are routinely called "shocking" and "contro-
versial", Salo not only lives up to these words but makes them feel childishly inadequate".

It is one of the most disturbing films ever made, on line with Cannibal Holocaust, Ichi the Killer, In a Glass Cage, and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. It is worth watching and owning.

This film is not an exploitation film. Anyone that watches it based on that assumption is missing the whole idea of the movie. Pasolini made this film as an indictment of society, culture, and history. The film is about fascism, neo-fascism, and capitalism, and the images on the screen are not to be taken at face value, but as metaphors for contemporary society and politics. The sexual depravity shown on the screen, the coprophagy, the torture, it is all symbolic. For example, the children in the film are forced to eat excrement becuase Pasolini believed that contemporary culture and society was excrement, and thus was force feeding us, the consumer, with excrement.
The most interesting aspect of this film is that Pasolini, a homosexual, linked homosexuality with death and fascism. Why after portraying homosexuality in a beautiful way in his earlier works did Pasolini change his tune, nobody knows. Some think he lost his mind while making this movie.
Many don't like the film because Pasolini makes the victims out to be emotionless and doesn't allow us to pity them. But thats just what he wanted! By watching the movie, we are like the victims, allowing ourselves to be abused and also being a spectator to abuse. Again, everything in this film is done for a reason.
Before watching this film you should be familiar with de Sade, Dante's Inferno, and have some basic understanding of fascism and its history. If you lack any of these three elements, don't watch the movie because you will not get it at all. Again, don't watch this movie at face value. It is one of the sickest, most disturbing films ever made, and it is that way for a reason. Not for shock value or to get banned in country after country, but to make a statement. This film is so dangerous that it is believed by many that Pasolini was assassinated for making it. If everyone got this movie, the world would be in deep trouble.

I've wanted to see this film for the longest time as it is known as "the most disgusting movie ever made." This of course intrigued me,but I also heard it was a very artistic film, incorporating many themes of human degradation and facism. Pier Pasolini directed this film and later was killed by a male prostitute (stabbed to death) and it was rumored he was killed FOR making this film.
Now, I'm not going to go on and on about artistic values and philosophical thoughts, because I really don't know that much about the subject at hand, I merely was curious about the film and watched a friend's copy. Now, lots of parts are difficult to watch (especially if there are parents around); like extremely degrading sex acts, human torture, and sodomy. The film centers around a group of 4 middle aged men who decide to capture a large group of random young teens (about 14-17 years old) and bring them all back to a mansion to a former prostitute who would tell them stories about her life, very sexually explicit stories, with the help of other older women they would keep these children captured basically as sex slaves- most of the time they were naked, fondled and just toyed with for the pleasure of these men. One scene which almost had me gagging was one where they all sat for a dinner, the main course was a huge silver tray of steaming human feces, they all were forced to eat (the "bad" guys loving every morsel of it). Other scenes where some of the children actally enjoyed some homosexual acts with these men made me cringe (not because I have anything against gays, but this film was just so perverse, yet strongly intriguing about it).
Well, there were a few girls in the group who wanted to rebel. Not much came of that except more punishment. The children really acted very cardboard cutout like, few of them making any real human emotion about what was going on. This in turn didn't earn your sympathies for them, giving you more leeway into watching the film, and didn't ever make you hate the men torturing these kids.
The end of the film was the most violent, it was seen through a telescope by a man in a window watching naked teens being brutality torchered (one kid had his tounge pulled out, another had a lighter scorching his genatils, etc). The very end of the film does have a more positive outlook after all the mayhem you witness, almost optimistic of people as a whole-extremely well done.
Anyway, in conclusion I would say that even though the subjects I mentioned about the film were so incredibly brutal and degrading, Pasolini doesn't seem to do it without a reason, this isn't some Troma film where it is made to shock. Pasolini is trying to make a statement about humanity, and even though I never figured out what it was exactly, it is evident throughout the film. Sure there were draggy parts within that could've been cut down, but as a whole this was probably one of the most revolting yet beautifully filmed movies I've ever seen. I won't soon forget it. If you've got a chance and have a very open mind, I highly recommend it, just don't watch it at face value. To truly appreciate this piece of art one must fully understand the history of facist ideas.

Films like "Salo" are never made for the sake of entertainment, but they challenge the viewer's motivations and conceptions of what it means to be human. To watch this film requires to accept the challenge to be confronted with such fundamental questions, and to abandon simplistic and modern preconceptions of what film (and indeed art) "ought to be" for.

"Salo" is Pasolini's adaptation of the Marquis de Sade's last novel "The 120 days of Sodom", an 18th century catalogue of perversions commited by a group of "libertines" whose view of society is opposite to contemporary philosophical rationalism and optimism of the time. Pasolini transposes the story to fascist Italy at the end of World War 2, in Musolini's "republic" of Salo-a region in which Pasolini had resided, and where he experienced the fascist repression.

"Salo" tells the story of 4 fascist "signori", who retreat in a remote and decadently decorated villa to engage in, and act out a complex series of perversions (ranging from sexual violence to torture and murder) and degradation on a group of young civilian victims, and with the help of an equally young militia recruited from the same village.

Because of its extreme graphic nature this movie is definitely not for the faint-hearted. The scenes of violence and human degradation are truly shocking. However, what is equally shocking are the dialogues and the many details in the rigorous structure of the story that reveal Pasolini's underlying motivations. "Salo" is a gripping and thought-provoking reflection on power, modernism, decadence, and the limits of human rationality-and in that sense its relevance goes far beyond it being a comment on Sade's novel or on fascism. Few movies in the history of the genre had the power to raise these questions as strongly as Pasolini's "Salo", and it is to be doubted that more ever will.

As much as being a chilling visual representation of human irrationality, Pasolini's "Salo" is a highly intellectual, and a deeply moral and moving reflection on (in)humanity, by means of the urgent and ever so relevant questions it raises. This makes "Salo" compulsory viewing for anyone to whom such questions matter.

Though still banned in my native England, tonight I finally got to see "Salo" after 25 years of hearing its fearful and mis-represented reputation. Reading through the reviews on the IMD and here on the Amazon site, it seems clear that for many it is a "Must See Nasty" - A film whose graphic imagery of torture, rape, coprophilia, sexual perversion and murder become an endurance test to rate alongside "I Spit On Your Grave" or "Last House On The Left". The truth is that on a purely visually graphic level, it's violence and rape is outdone by 1000 other films. But the emotional and mental impact of the film, it's messages and what it tells us of Man's inhumanity is practically unrivalled. It's hard to express the film's strength and message without lapsing into pseudo-psychobabble, and the layers of meaning and allegory contained within it are too various to list, but to try to put it simply, by using the extremity of deSade and the awful truth of Fascism in Europe, Pasolini confronts the beast in us all. Having lived in Italy during the time of Mussolini, Pasolini saw at first hand the distortion and debasemant of humanity under Fascism. DeSade in turn, celbrated the fact that man's capacity for atrocity was what made us human and could free us - two sides of one awful coin. Many of the scenes have an awful stillness, presented as full-frame tableaux, with the four main protagonists watching the degradations: Pasolini flips this back on us sat in a movie theatre watching the film... For anyone seeking to ask questions about whether or not Fascism, nazism or pure evil still has the capacity to re-occur, and particularly for those people who pretend "it could never happen here again", this is the film to confront them with. It is a multi layered, disturbing, often strangely beautiful film and one that any real fan of cinema should see, to fully experience the power of film to provoke, stimulate and force the viewer into confronting real, painful aspects of humanity. Sorry to get arty, but this film has had more impact on me than practically any film I have seen in the past 20 years. A masterpiece, for real. With recent events in Eastern Europe still fresh in the mind, this film and what it has to say about Human Beings is especially relevant.

Ever wondered how a film version of Marquis DeSade's "120 Days of Sodom" might be like? "Salo" is the answer. Salo is a film which has been mislabeled everywhere it goes. It has been filed in the pornography section, the horror section, and has been categorized along with films like the "Ilsa" series and "I spit on your grave." Yet those films, which were true exploitation films, are nowhere near as shocking as Pasolini's "Salo." And the funny thing is, there isn't even as much violence in Salo as in the aformentioned films, or even today's films such as those by Tarantino and Stone.

Pasolini is no exploitation director - He has receieved many awards and praise for his "updated classics" like the Canterbury Tales and Arabian Nights. "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" received the highest possible rating from probably the stingiest critic today, Leonard Maltin. "Salo", on the other hand, received a Bomb by Maltin. The most controversial elements of this film are mainly the use of underage actors, who are perhaps real teens (not those twenty-somethings Hollywood uses and passes off as teens). They are used as subjects of torture by four cruel, remorseless men which put them through eating excrement, whipping, drinking urine, and, in the climax, torture. The film is also filled with sex, both hetero and homo. Yet, despite all this disgusting matter, the film is directed very masterfully. Shot very realistically, you get the feeling of being a witness to atrocities that were committed in real life at another time in history. The sets are very beautiful, and the torture scenes are VERY realistic, and the tension during these scenes are made even more horrific, credit to ominous growling sounds in the background and a classic score from Orff's "Carmina Burana." "Salo" can even be viewed as an extreme allegory, where the four men represent Fascists, and the teens are victims of fascism. Whether it'd be viewed as trash, allegory, an extreme film on censorship, film adaptation of a nearly unfilmable book, a masterpiece, or even an anti-masterpiece without compromises, excuses, or any happy endings, "Salo" can never be forgotten by anyone who has the chance of seeing it. Unfortunately, the studio stopped releasing the video. There has never been a film before like "Salo", and there probably will never be any more after.

Pier Paolo Pasolini wrote the script for Salo and he stayed truthful to Marquis de Sade's novel, which brought the world a unique cinematic experience. This cinematic experience is still shocking almost 30 years after the films initial release, and is still cause for much debate. The disturbing images of Salo are cinematically brilliant, yet the story will induce disgust and revulsion in a most horrible way.

The story takes place at the end of World War II in northern fascist Italy where four prominent men gather 18 adolescents which they intend to use for their depraved games. Prior to the beginning of the games the four men recite the rules of the games, which are to be followed or death will be dealt to the rule breakers. The depraved entertainment is divided into three different categories: Circle of Obsessions, Circle of Feces, and Circle of Blood. These three categories of sick entertainment are administered by three middle-aged women that disclose dark tales of their pasts while a fourth woman is accompanying the tales with tunes from a piano. These tales raises an internal passion within the four men to molest, desecrate, and viciously destroy anything of goodness within the surviving adolescents.

Pier Paolo Pasolini forces the remaining audience to witness brutality and bizarre behavior. The audience's testimony to the cruelty on the screen is to provoke a notion that the viewers are accomplices to the cruel crimes committed in the screen while remaining seated watching. The guilt seems to be on those that view the last scenes suggests this through the use of the binoculars through which the audience can observe ritualistic mutilation, torture, and murder of the remaining adolescents.

Salo will remain as one of the most disturbing films ever made as it exploits the violence and degradation of youth. Enduring the violence and the despicable behavior is torturous, which has no other purpose than to corrupt and destroy. Cumulatively, Salo is a horrible cinematic experience as it offends, disgusts, revolts, and causes emotional dreadfulness. Yet, underneath the despicable acts in the film there is a well planned thought, which could easily be missed. However, it is a thought that should be missed, if you want to remain innocent to the horrors of the world.

Pier Paolo Pasolini is a man that I consider as a fascinating director. "Salò: The 120 Days of Sodom" (Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma) was his last film. His most noticeable works include "Porcile" and "The Gospel According To St.Matthew. Well, I would like to be clearer on this point, and I'll say that the word "noticeable" here is a synonym of "best". On the other hand, though, I would say that Salò is truly his most talked-about film, if you thought I meant that by noticed. The film is good, but I really preferred the two mentionned above, artistically and intellectually speaking. But Salò has its qualities, even though some of us might consider them as flaws.

Salò is based on the Marquis de Sade's novel, entitled "Les 120 journees de Sodome". The book (of course, it was written way before the fascist period in Italy!) doesn't talk about fascism, and the main common point between the film and the book is the main concept. The film shows the horrors inflicted to a bunch of young and beautiful people that were selected by four sadistic (what a funny use of the word!) fascists that are only willing to quench their own brutal sexual and violent thirsts. They are taken to a villa where the are submitted to the worst humiliations, which include being raped whenever the four masters feel the desire to have sex, eating feces, and later on being brutally tortured and killed.

This film is recognized for being one of the sickest of all times, one of the most disgusting also. Well, the "shocking content" mostly consists of constant nudity of young adults, many rapes, excrement-eating, scalping, tongue mutilation, and eye gouging. There are also pretty nasty stories told by a lady whose role in the villa is to tell sick stories that have for goal to turn on the four masters. I saw movies that were more disgusting than that, sincerely. The context and the cruelty surrounding many acts of violence and humiliation in this film are probably the main reason why it shocked so many people. The sexuality is never explicit (in the way that you never see a penetration graphically), the killings are pretty well done (the scalping especially) but there are very few of them and they are brief. I would say that "Caligula" is way more graphic and shocking than "Salò" (but less effective though).

Pasolini's directing is beautiful. He made a mistake in one scene, changing the angle of the camera of less than 30 degrees between two shots. Except for that, he's fascinating...he's obsessed with showing symmetrical images...all the time. This technique somehow communicates the "discipline" and the supposedly high "straightness" of the fascists pretended to have. Also, the camera often has a pretty wide vision, and we don't often really get close to any character. With such coldness, Pasolini was criticized a lot. People didn't know if it was really a statement against fascism or just a good reason to show horrible things...Personnally, knowing a couple of things about Pasolini's life, I didn't doubt one moment about his intentions. Yes, he had socialist tendencies, yes, he was a homosexual (which fascists hated) and yes, he was against fascism, and it is clear when you see the film. People who only watch American films and are used to explicit messages in films will not understand that, but this film plundges us into cruelty we could have really compared to the nazis', and that's how it delivers its message. Maybe too subtle for some, but sometimes, I think it's better this way...just like in most American movies...an example: American History X talks about racism..."Racism is bad" is almost written on the walls...it's very sanctimonious, it's really not subtle...but there are movies where they only show horrible things the way they really are, without really giving a judgement in an explicit way...I think it even works better. I am a bit tired of moralizers, to be honest.

The acting is very good. Also, I got the French Limited DVD of this film...that's the best edition, trust me! The audio tracks are in french (which Pasolini considered should have been the original language of this film, because it was the Marquis de Sade's and also the original Italian track. The one in french is amazing, really. There are also lots of extras, this is really a must-have. The actors, especially the four fascists, are extremely cold and creepy...Pasolini did a good job directing them.

Overall, the film takes a very neutral approach to the horrors it displays, but that's effective. Sure, this is not a perfect movie, it has pretty slow moments and it is not that well structured, but it achieves its goal, which is to make a statement against fascism.

"All things are good when done to excess". SALO is set at the tail end of WW2 in the Fascist Republic of Salo, Italy. SALO opens with men of great social prestige, among them a Duke, a President and a Bishop marrying each others daughters. Then young men and women are brought before them and forced to expose their genitals before being herded out like cattle. The first girl is told that no one will harm her before she is stripped for the men. Girls with any physical imperfections are sent back to their families. They're the lucky ones.
The youths are then instructed about the Hall Of Orgies where the daily debaucheries will take place and any act of religion, even uttering God's name will see them severely punished.
The teens are presented as nothing more than objects, playthings for the wealthy men, though there is an instance of one girl comforting another when she confides she can't take the humiliation anymore. However there is a strange scattering of the blackest humor, so dark that you dare not laugh. In contrast to SALO's explicit visual imagery the interiors of the rooms are beautifully filmed, rooms in which the three circles of SALO are introduced with the tormentors telling each other a debauched tale before the ritual:

1 CIRCLE OF MANIAS: This sequences features a philosophical conversation quoting the likes of Nietzsche and Dada and ends with a teen girl being force fed a cake studded with nails.

2 CIRCLE OF EXCREMENT (actually chocolate): For using God's name another girl is stripped and forced to eat human excrement off the floor. The high stature men then eat their victims "waste" for dinner. One of the men gets a girl to "urinate" on him (actually orange juice).

3 CIRCLE OF BLOOD: The victims are ordered to laugh and sing. Given their past ordeals this innocent act now seems like the most degrading of them all.

But this seems to rub off on some of the victims and they become as bad as their captors. Pasolini seems to be asking if sickness breeds sickness. Is SALO, at its core a desperate cry for peace? Judge for yourself. [...] Myself? Sitting here with the sun streaming through the window I am grateful that I am alive and have my basic freedoms. And that, in a nutshell is what SALO should make viewers think. <PKiwis I encourage you to see this before David Lame and his ignorant friends get it banned again. The SPCS should see this, but they're probably scared it might broaden their worldview.